D&D 5E Multi-class support in 5E

[harlokin]

I'd experiment with multiclass as the default.

Split classes into paths (archer ranger, melee ranger, beastmaster ranger; illusionist wizard, necromancer wizard, conjurer wizard...) and let everyone pick two paths, one from your main class and one from a second class. If you don't want to multiclass, just select two paths from the same class.

At first level, you get something from both paths. After that, something from the primary path every even level and something from the secondary path every odd level.

Makes more flexible characters, and you only need to fill the progression table with stuff at every second level.

Very interesting idea.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Multi classing is one of the things 4th got right

?

Really? I view it as one of the few things it got WRONG.


As for the topic...multiclass is something that I'd hope they would do right away but I'm willing to wait if it means coming out with a refined and workable version for it.

 

[Mircoles]

I like the 4e hybriding. It has the feel of 1e/2e multiclassing without the fail.

 

[GM Dave]

Reading the transcripts from DDXP it seems like there will be several levels or styles of multi-classing that they are exploring in playtesting.

There will be the Themes or 2e kits style of modification. You want to be more like a knight then add the Noble Theme to your fighter. You like Xena then add the Amazon Theme.

The next will be the choice of feats. It sounds like there will be feats that mirror Powers/Features from main classes. If you want your Wizard to wield a sword then you could take a sword specialization feat to allow you to wield that sword better than a regular wizard but not as good a full fighter. A fighter might be able to get a magic spell or too through feat selection but trade off having weapon specialization in as many different types of weapons.

The third will be something like 3e where you progress a certain amount in each class. I'm not sure on the full details on this and wonder if they might use the 'Gamma World' model where you get a bit from the different classes and get feature choices at different levels. This is the one where it has the most potential for abuse if players are getting a 'boost' to their attributes for each class selected (hopefully this is a one time boost at creation only to avoid the saving throw abuse of 3e and the cherry picking first level features of 3e ~ I really don't want to see any more Monk/Paladin/Ranger/Fighters ).

The real concern will be if they make up several dozen mid level and high level characters by people attempting to break the system and see if the multi-class still holds together in the playtest. 3e and 4e were great games at low levels but fell apart more at higher levels because the designers and playtesters heavily tested levels 1 to 5 and figured that would mirror levels 15 to 20 and beyond.

 

[SteveC]

I find myself again saying "doh!" when hearing that multiclassing will be more of a 3X mindset than fourth. Another issue that was addressed in 4E that we'll forget the problems about and move backwards.

3X multiclassing was in many cases a trap decision. Your multiclass character was less effective than a basic spell user. In other cases, it was a no-brainer. Why would you play a basic fighter with no multiclassing? Why play a character like a swashbuckler after a certain level (I believe that was third level, but I could be wrong... it's been a while).

For a change in multiclassing I'd like to see, I like the idea that when you multiclass you start at a point of character development along the class based on your overall character level. The best idea I've seen presented is this:

You have an overall proficiency with all core character classes equal to your level /2. When you take a class level in a new class, you start being able to learn powers or abilities from that point on. As an example, a 6th level fighter would have a "proficiency" in other classes of 3. When he reaches 7th level, if he becomes a wizard, he can start to learn spells as if he were a 4th level wizard: 3 (base proficiency) + 1 (class level) = 4. His proficiency with being a fighter would stay at 6. So he might only get 1 spell, but that could be any spell a 4th level wizard could learn.

I think that's a decent framework to build on if we must turn back the clock when it comes to multiclass.

 

[AlioTheFool]

I'm personally ecstatic at the approaches being taken towaed multiclassing. I've been a supporter of 3e style multiclassing returning. I also like the idea of themes as an additional option. The D&DNext "modular" paradigm is absolute genius. If you don't like an option (which multiclassing would be) disallow it in your game. Also, modularity allows the designers to introduce more varied options. If you like early edition dualclassing, then I encourage you to get involved in playtesting and ask for it as another option. There is no reason why any option can't be added to the next edition.

In terms of higher levels, it appears the game will change dramatically at higher levels. Instead of "here are your new suoer powers" it'll be more "here's your kingdom" so perhaps the first 10-15 levels can be balanced out and they don't necessarily need to sweat epic level brokenness. I'm sure though , even for groups who choose to continue to dungeon crawl (which they said would still be supported) it will have some balance.

I'm ridiculously excited for D&DNext.

 

[Aldarc]

The latest chat transcript includes a quote that they're "shooting for" 3e multiclassing.

Conceptually, 3e multiclassing is ideal. The math was problematic, but entirely fixable.

Problematic is an understatement. IMHO, 3e multiclassing devalued classes, turning them into packages you dipped into for min-maxing abilities instead of actual class archetypes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Problematic is an understatement. IMHO, 3e multiclassing devalued classes, turning them into packages you dipped into for min-maxing abilities instead of actual class archetypes.

4e turned classes into straightjackets, mandating that if you chose to be a fighter, you would advance as a fighter every level you gained, forever. Not that I don't see your point, but the 3e mentality is a better place to start, even if it does need improvement.

 

[Cyberzombie]

Problematic is an understatement. IMHO, 3e multiclassing devalued classes, turning them into packages you dipped into for min-maxing abilities instead of actual class archetypes.

Which is a problem that Pathfinder fixed. I'd happily play a Pathfinder fighter to 20th level. I'd happily play any of the Pathfinder classes to 20th level. And you can bet the design crew has studied Pathfinder, since that is their competition.

 

[Aldarc]

4e turned classes into straightjackets, mandating that if you chose to be a fighter, you would advance as a fighter every level you gained, forever. Not that I don't see your point, but the 3e mentality is a better place to start, even if it does need improvement.

Except I'm not talking about 4e, because it has its own set of problems. I'm strictly talking about 3e and its multiclassing problems here. I don't see the value of classes in a 3e-style approach to classes and mutliclassing. It would be far easier to just go generic with classes or abilities (e.g. True20, M&M) so you can just assemble your character concept - providing toolkit builds to show you how to construct certain archetypes - than having the 3e-style multiclassing monstrosity that was a mathematical, class-meaningless, and PrC-bloat nightmare.

Which is a problem that Pathfinder fixed. I'd happily play a Pathfinder fighter to 20th level. I'd happily play any of the Pathfinder classes to 20th level. And you can bet the design crew has studied Pathfinder, since that is their competition.

It's a problem that Pathfinder attempted to fix by providing incentives to stay in a class, but it's far too bold to claim that they did "fix" the multiclassing problem when the class-ability dipping is just as prevalent.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Except I'm not talking about 4e, because it has its own set of problems. I'm strictly talking about 3e and its multiclassing problems here. I don't see the value of classes in a 3e-style approach to classes and mutliclassing. It would be far easier to just go generic with classes or abilities (e.g. True20, M&M) so you can just assemble your character concept - providing toolkit builds to show you how to construct certain archetypes - than having the 3e-style multiclassing monstrosity that was a mathematical, class-meaningless, and PrC-bloat nightmare.

PF does just fine with minimal prestige classes; that problem was more about the base classes having dead levels and not being viable until 20th.

In principle, I think more generic systems are fine, but D&D is built around classes. Given that trope, I think the 3e approach was by far the best take in the D&D world.

I disagree that classes were meaningless in D&D. Even a blatant dip can be entirely meaningful and relevant in the game world. Having a character who takes two levels of fighter for the feats just means he trained in combat but won't make a career out of it. I don't see this as being a problem.

That character's saving throws, on the other hand, are a problem.

 

[Aldarc]

In principle, I think more generic systems are fine, but D&D is built around classes. Given that trope, I think the 3e approach was by far the best take in the D&D world.

I disagree that classes were meaningless in D&D. Even a blatant dip can be entirely meaningful and relevant in the game world. Having a character who takes two levels of fighter for the feats just means he trained in combat but won't make a career out of it. I don't see this as being a problem.

That character's saving throws, on the other hand, are a problem.

It can be meaningful, but it rarely, if ever, was. It almost always meant that the character dipped into fighter to get a handful of abilities that they could have picked-up through feats. It was a time saver, as dipping into that first level of fighter provided +1 BAB, +2 Fort, +d10 hp, martial weapons training, all armor training, and a fighter bonus feat, with dipping level 2 fighter providing them with another +1 BAB, +1 Fort, +d10 hp, and another fighter bonus feat. There was nothing about how it played out in practice that meant the character was a "fighter;" it was ability dipping. It was a time saver. So I respectfully disagree: classes were fairly meaningless in the 3e approach. If you want to show that you trained in combat, why not just dip into the generic "warrior" class (i.e., True20) or construct your next level with greater focus on combat (i.e., M&M)? What is the actual value of the class? Do you train as "barbarian" or are you just wanting to pick up the rage ability? If you just want the rage ability, why not just provide a feat or a talent instead of multiclassing for it?

 

[Ahnehnois]

It can be meaningful, but it rarely, if ever, was. It almost always meant that the character dipped into fighter to get a handful of abilities that they could have picked-up through feats. It was a time saver, as dipping into that first level of fighter provided +1 BAB, +2 Fort, +d10 hp, martial weapons training, all armor training, and a fighter bonus feat, with dipping level 2 fighter providing them with another +1 BAB, +1 Fort, +d10 hp, and another fighter bonus feat. There was nothing about how it played out in practice that meant the character was a "fighter;" it was ability dipping. It was a time saver. So I respectfully disagree: classes were fairly meaningless in the 3e approach. If you want to show that you trained in combat, why not just dip into the generic "warrior" class (i.e., True20) or construct your next level with greater focus on combat (i.e., M&M)? What is the actual value of the class? Do you train as "barbarian" or are you just wanting to pick up the rage ability? If you just want the rage ability, why not just provide a feat or a talent instead of multiclassing for it?

Would I like a system where you could simply build your character without the constraints of classes? Sure. Will that fly with the broader D&D audience? Probably not.

People want to be able to play fighters and clerics and bards and barbarians and warlocks, etc. The 3e multiclassing system was an attempt to maintain this part of the D&D legacy, but add new flexibility. I'd say anything that takes away that flexibility is a step backward (which we would seem to agree on) and any system that doesn't have a variety of classes has killed a sacred cow.

Of course, if you believe that sacred cow is better off dead, I won't argue that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I found 3.5Ed's version of multiclassing to be the best incarnation of the overall mechanic in D&D. Still my fave.

I found 4Ed's Feat-based system quite the straightjacket as the sole form of multiclassing. As one option among others, though, I thought it was a good idea. Still, though, I see room for improvement. The overall form of the multiclassing feats should be standardized: gaining a skill and an AW power as an E power- both chosen by the player, rather than the designers- seems a pretty solid choice for a dabbler. In addition, because of my personal penchant for playing Jacks of all Trades ('cause I am one), I found the "single MC feat" restriction for all but the Bard to be overly restrictive as well. Let those who want to dabble do so freely- consider what they're giving up in the context of the game.

I found Hybrids to be decent, a close second ton3.5Ed's take. I didn't necessarily care for which particular class abilities they chose for the classes' Hybrid forms, though.

 

[Aldarc]

Would I like a system where you could simply build your character without the constraints of classes? Sure. Will that fly with the broader D&D audience? Probably not.

People want to be able to play fighters and clerics and bards and barbarians and warlocks, etc. The 3e multiclassing system was an attempt to maintain this part of the D&D legacy, but add new flexibility. I'd say anything that takes away that flexibility is a step backward (which we would seem to agree on) and any system that doesn't have a variety of classes has killed a sacred cow.

Of course, if you believe that sacred cow is better off dead, I won't argue that.

What I want is for classes to actually be meaningful as classes, but I cannot see how they can be with 3e's blasé approach to multiclassing. 4e was too restrictive, but 3e was far too unrestrained. Yet conversely, the 3e system further generally coerces players into dipping far enough into a class - picking-up all the preceding abilities of the class - to pick up a particular ability for their character concept. No one who has advocated for 3e-style multiclassing on these forums has yet to successfully argue how "class" is actually meaningful in such a system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yet conversely, the 3e system further generally coerces players into dipping far enough into a class - picking-up all the preceding abilities of the class - to pick up a particular ability for their character concept.

Coerced? Never really felt that way.

I mean, it's not as flexible as HERO, GURPS, or similar systems, but none of those über-flexible systems really have anything like classes, either, unless introduced as a campaign-specific addition (like the racial package deals you find in Fantasy HERO or Star HERO).

No one who has advocated for 3e-style multiclassing on these forums has yet to successfully argue how "class" is actually meaningful in such a system

A class is- mechanically speaking- a package deal of game mechanics that are (for the most part) irreduceably bundled. Warriors get weapon & armor proficiencies and the best odds of hitting what they're aming ATM; spellcasters cast spells; I'd say that's meaningful enough. What more do you want?

 

[Aldarc]

Coerced? Never really felt that way.

Last time I checked, you're neither me nor any of my players.

A class is- mechanically speaking- a package deal of game mechanics that are (for the most part) irreduceably bundled. Warriors get weapon & armor proficiencies and the best odds of hitting what they're aming ATM; spellcasters cast spells; I'd say that's meaningful enough. What more do you want?

A class is also an archetype that should be a meaningful selection. The prevalence of ability-dipping in 3e was indicative that the "package deal of game mechanics" were not, in fact, "irreducibly bundled." Class selection is not meaningful if you are just dipping into two levels of fighter to pick up a bunch of bonus feats and combat proficiencies because that's easier than using your other feat selections. You want to show that you trained to fight? What stopped you from taking Heavy Armor or Martial Weapons Proficiency with the available feats you had? Why did you need to take the fighter class for that or to be a better fighter? Class selection is not meaningful if your first level is rogue because that provides you with 24 more skill points at first level than starting out as a fighter. This all brings me back to my earlier point you quoted:

No one who has advocated for 3e-style multiclassing on these forums has yet to successfully argue how "class" is actually meaningful in such a system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The prevalence of ability-dipping in 3e was indicative that the "package deal of game mechanics" were not, in fact, "irreducibly bundled."

You misunderstand me- "irreducibly bundled" would refer to a class' initial entry point...for many classes, a gateway for abilities that are not available any othe way.

Class selection is not meaningful if you are just dipping into two levels of fighter to pick up a bunch of bonus feats and combat proficiencies because that's easier than using your other feat selections.

I can't say I agree with that as a bald assertion. I see that PC as having taken some time to actively train, or having been forced to learn how to fight due to the circumstances of his life...but it wasn't his calling.

You want to show that you trained to fight? What stopped you from taking Heavy Armor or Martial Weapons Proficiency with the available feats you had? Why did you need to take the fighter class for that or to be a better fighter?

That is an extremely inefficient and slow way to do it, and it wont do jack for your actual basic fighting ability (your BAB, which is not improbable via Feats), but if you wanted to do so, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from doing so.

As a whole, a PC without a warrior's BAB & fighting related feats picked up every 4 levels, would show that whatever martial training he got was sporadic and/or poorly learned.

(And he'd probably look pretty odd from the standpoint of his other class as well.)

Class selection is not meaningful if your first level is rogue because that provides you with 24 more skill points at first level than starting out as a fighter.

I'd say that if that is your ONLY reason for starting as a Rogue, then you're right. Class- and multiclassing- should be based on and driven by a core concept.

 

[Aldarc]

You misunderstand me- "irreducibly bundled" would refer to a class' initial entry point.

But it's not "irreducibly bundled." True20 has greater irreducibly bundled initial entry points for classes, so we can't say that the D&D classes are "irreducibly bundled."

I can't say I agree with that as a bald assertion. I see that PC as having taken some time to actively train, or having been forced to learn how to fight due to the circumstances of his life...but it wasn't his calling.

I see it as dipping for abilities that are more efficient to gain through multi-classing than through other character customization options. The class itself is fairly meaningless to those ends, except being

That is an extremely inefficient and slow way to do it, and it wont do jack for your actual basic fighting ability (your BAB, which is not improbable via Feats), but if you wanted to do so, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from doing so.

So what? Why is that a bad thing?

As a whole, a PC without a warrior's BAB & fighting related feats picked up every 4 levels, would show that whatever martial training he got was sporadic and/or poorly learned.

And one level of fighter basically means that he got it practically all at once. Still don't see the problem yet?

Class- and multiclassing- should be based on and driven by a core concept.

Please get back to me once you tell me how that is actually achieved in the 3e system that's not better achieved by a more reducible complexity model, such as True20's class system.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

The overall form of the multiclassing feats should be standardized: gaining a skill and an AW power as an E power- both chosen by the player, rather than the designers- seems a pretty solid choice for a dabbler.

For me, that was the final insult-- you get one, single, 1st level ability from the chosen class... and you don't even get to use it at will. Combine that with the fact that you have to pay more feats to swap your limited number of class powers, and if I'd actually bought a copy of the 4e PHB it would have been in the used books bin the same day. Took more than a little self-control not to fling my friend's book at the nearest wall.

In addition, because of my personal penchant for playing Jacks of all Trades ('cause I am one), I found the "single MC feat" restriction for all but the Bard to be overly restrictive as well. Let those who want to dabble do so freely- consider what they're giving up in the context of the game.

I didn't even know about that rule until I found out Bards didn't have to follow it, because I wasn't willing to even play 4e until after the PHB 3 came out.

I found Hybrids to be decent, a close second ton3.5Ed's take. I didn't necessarily care for which particular class abilities they chose for the classes' Hybrid forms, though.

Hybrid multiclassing was almost okay. At least the Hybrid Talent feats actually gave you back some of the abilities you lost.