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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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."

They are- for D&D. How mechanics in other RPG systems- however closely related they may be to D&D- is irrelevant to the irreducibility of a class within D&D.

So what? Why is that a bad thing?

if you think you've scored some kind of point here, you don't know me.

I didn't say it was bad, I said it was inefficient and slow. That is not a value judgement, it is a plain vanilla mechanical assessment. If that is how you want to build your PC, more power to you.

I have a PC (in a 3.5Ed campaign on hiatus) who is a PHB Sorcerer who wears Scale Mail and uses Maul, and has done so since level 1- efficiency is not my motto in PC design.

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

Nope- he got some intensive training at one point in his life, and mastered the basics. His BAB still won't increase like a dedicated warrior, though.

The basics of many things can be learned and retained for a lifetime. I know enough of a few languages to keep myself fed, sheltered, and ask for help- but mastery takes a while. (There are only 2 languages I know well enough to read a novel.)

Even though I only played organized football for 1 season in HS, decades later, I still know how to properly don the pads- which vary by position- do a form tackle, and a few other tricks. But even if I were currently in shape, my skills would pale in comparison to someone who played 4 years in HS or anything more than that.

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.

As I've said elsewhere, my favorite system of all time is HERO, and I can build any D&D PC from any version in it. Much the same could probably be said of GURPS or M&M's W&W sourcebook.

...because they are classless systems.

Like the game though I do, IMHO, True20's classes are virtually devoid of flavor, to the point that the game might as well have gone the way of W&W. True20's classes are nothing to write home about.

You want 100% character cconcept modeling, don't look for it in a system with classes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Combine that with the fact that you have to pay more feats to swap your limited number of class powers...

That ticks me off to this day.

And did you notice that some of the multiclassing feats don't actually qualify you for the new class' Paragon Paths? What were they thinking?

 

[Aldarc]

They are- for D&D. How mechanics in other RPG systems- however closely related they may be to D&D- is irrelevant to the irreducibility of a class within D&D.

Doesn't this make "irreducible complexity" a meaningless concept?

if you think you've scored some kind of point here, you don't know me.

I didn't say it was bad, I said it was inefficient and slow. That is not a value judgement, it is a plain vanilla mechanical assessment. If that is how you want to build your PC, more power to you.

I have a PC (in a 3.5Ed campaign on hiatus) who is a PHB Sorcerer who wears Scale Mail and uses Maul, and has done so since level 1- efficiency is not my motto in PC design.

The problem is that the 3e system rewards you for dipping into fighter, as that is far more efficient, for those abilities (and more) rather than through feats and the like.

Nope- he got some intensive training at one point in his life, and mastered the basics. His BAB still won't increase like a dedicated warrior, though.

I think you are severely underestimating how much you get by briefly dipping into "the basics" of some classes due to how front-loaded a number of these classes were.

As I've said elsewhere, my favorite system of all time is HERO, and I can build any D&D PC from any version in it. Much the same could probably be said of GURPS or M&M's W&W sourcebook.

...because they are classless systems.

Like the game though i do, IMHO, True20's classes are virtually devoid of flavor, to the point that the game might as well have gone the way of W&W. True20's classes are nothing to write home about.

You want 100% character cconcept modeling, don't look for it in a system with classes.

Now you mistake me. We agree here, and that is largely the point that I am making. I want a system that doesn't have 100% character modeling. I have repeatedly stated that want classes[ to be meaningful as classes and not as "what I dip into for particular abilities" to model my character. The latter approach is far better serviced with classless or generic class systems. Unfortunately, I see a tendency in the treatment of 3e-style classes and multiclassing to gravitate more towards the latter, which is why I am opposed to it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Doesn't this make "irreducible complexity" a meaningless concept?

No- any concept has to be examined within its proper context. An RPG class is irreducibly complex only within the context of the context of that RPG. Compared to a classless system from another game, you can break any class into its component parts. But within its native system, the class cannot be broken down any further than its initial bundle.

The problem is that the 3e system rewards you for dipping into fighter, as that is far more efficient, for those abilities (and more) rather than through feats and the like.

So what?

I think you are severely underestimating how much you get by briefly dipping into "the basics" of some classes due to how front-loaded a number of these classes were.

Nope. Since I first picked up the game in 1977, 80%+ of my D&D PCs have been multiclassed.

So I'm pretty clear on what you get- or don't get- when you multiclass a PC. Some classes- mostly the martial ones- you get quite a bit: a HP boost, a BAB bump, a host of weapon proficiencies and one or more armor & shield proficiencies, all of which are evergreen in their utility, even though they may be overshadowed by supernatural abilities.

In contrast, the casters don't offer quite as much with a dip: a useful spell or two (which may not be useful as the party levels), possible special abilities like Turning (which only improve with class levels) and so forth. You will be able to use certain magic items, though, the one benefit that is truly an unending font. But its value depends upon what gets handed out in the campaign, since a dipper won't be a crafter caster.

I want a system that doesn't have 100% character modeling. I have repeatedly stated that want classes[ to be meaningful as classes and not as "what I dip into for particular abilities" to model my character.

Assuming multiclassing exists, dipping will be an unavoidable consequence unless the actual multiclassing system is fairly restrictive.

I said that I thought Hybridizing was a close second to 3.5E's take on things, but even with that respect, it fails to model many of the PC concepts I come up with. It won't even handle 1Ed stuff, where I favored things like Ftr/MU/Th characters. So while I think it's superior in many ways, Hybrid multiclassing fails as a way to support my preferences. It's simply too constrained.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

3rd edition multiclass is fine. But not in the context of 3rd edition math.
A simple change like:
- base caster level introduction
- the +2 bonus for the good save is only applied once
- fractions are counted in
immediately made it work a lot smoother!

When math and class design is done well, 3rd edition multiclass is very good indeed.
The only thing which needs to be considered is how you start with a multiclass character on level 1!
3rd edition had multiclass rules for that (level 1/2 in the DMG) I´d like to see that too! It was also useful for starting below level 1

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

And did you notice that some of the multiclassing feats don't actually qualify you for the new class' Paragon Paths? What were they thinking?

My theory? Third Edition and their "Back to the Dungeon" aesthetic was an attempt to go back to Gygax AD&D from the campaign setting and metaplot days of Williams AD&D... notice how all your Clerics had the same spell list again, Demons and Devils in the Monster Manual, Barbarians and Monks in the PHB, no kits (until really, really late in the cycle), and so on and so on.

4e was their attempt to go back to Classic. Simplified rules, simplified archetypes-- four types of what you do and three types of how you do it-- simplified skills. They were trying to get back to the "pick up and play" simplicity of Classic. They kept the distinction between races and classes and they kept feats, because those had become iconic, but they really pared down on a lot of the things they felt had become excessive in 3.5e.

Which really makes me curious about where they're going to go with 5e because aside from the obvious need to come up with some kind of "new hotness", it seems like they're going to have to swing back to some point between the two.

 

[Aldarc]

No- any concept has to be examined within its proper context. An RPG class is irreducibly complex only within the context of the context of that RPG. Compared to a classless system from another game, you can break any class into its component parts. But within its native system, the class cannot be broken down any further than its initial bundle.

That's what I thought, and that's what makes it a meaningless term, as the point in which a class is "irreducibly complex" "within the context of the context of that RPG" is always debatable and usually ends up meaning "whatever the designers printed in the book."

So what?

It rewards class-dipping, which devalues the meaningfulness of class selection and classes as archetypes.

Nope. Since I first picked up the game in 1977, 80%+ of my D&D PCs have been multiclassed.

That's fantastic, but 3e has only been around since 2000, and that's the only system I'm concerned with right now. Out of curiosity, what problems do you have, if any, with the 3.5 system of classes and multiclassing?

Assuming multiclassing exists, dipping will be an unavoidable consequence unless the actual multiclassing system is fairly restrictive.

I said that I thought Hybridizing was a close second to 3.5E's take on things, but even with that respect, it fails to model many of the PC concepts I come up with. It won't even handle 1Ed stuff, where I favored things like Ftr/MU/Th characters. So while I think it's superior in many ways, Hybrid multiclassing fails as a way to support my preferences. It's simply too constrained.

What if you made multiclassing fairly restrictive, but made the classes broad and flexible enough to create a wide array of character concepts? Especially consider how D&D Next is incorporating the use of "themes" that provide a lot of the flavor concepts that often tied in with classes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's what I thought, and that's what makes it a meaningless term, as the point in which a class is "irreducibly complex" "within the context of the context of that RPG" is always debatable and usually ends up meaning "whatever the designers printed in the book."

Its not meaningless at all.

In some languages, the base unit is a broad concept, reflected in the way the language is written. In other languages, the base written unit may be a word or syllable.

In the first kind of language, trying to reduce a written symbol to a single word in another language is essentially impossible. Within the context of that language, that written symbol is irreducibly complex. It cannot be broken down further. Some things are thus not expressable within that language without creating new words & corresponding symbols or combining old symbols into increasingly complex ones.

In contrast, languages of the latter kinds are able to break concepts down more into component parts, allowing for greater precision in communication. Advantages of that sort are big reasons why Latin, then French were the languages of diplomacy before English became so ubiquitous.

It rewards class-dipping, which devalues the meaningfulness of class selection and classes as archetypes.

There is nothing in the game forcing you to multiclass- the archetypes remain solidly simulated. You want to play an archetypal barbarian, don't multiclass out of barbarian.

Besides, how many literary or mythological figures would be universally statted out as single-classed in D&D terms, anyway?

Out of curiosity, what problems do you have, if any, with the 3.5 system of classes and multiclassing?

Within the context of D&D? Nothing major, really. The only blips are:

1) not being able to start off as a multiclassed PC at level 1 without going to the gestalt rules (which seem a bit gonzo to me). Pretty minor, really.

2) too many PrCls that are mechanically some kind of Base Class+. While this is a nasty problem, it is not the multiclassing system itself that causes it, but rather poor PrCl design.

3) too many PrCls that are "fixes" for casters losing casting potency by multiclassing, which I think is a feature of the system. If you're a caster dabbling in other classes, you shouldn't be as good a caster as your more single-minded contemporaries. Flexibility comes at the price of excellence.

Compared to Fantasy HERO? There is a certain lack of flexibility in PC design, surprise, surprise.

What if you made multiclassing fairly restrictive, but made the classes broad and flexible enough to create a wide array of character concepts?

As with anything, the devil is in the details. I can discuss past mechanics because I've seen exactly what I can and cannot model in 1Ed, 2Ed, 3Ed, 3.5Ed and 4Ed. I won't know what I can model in 5Ed until I see the rules.

If I can't model PCs that interest me, 5Ed will not interest me.

Especially consider how D&D Next is incorporating the use of "themes" that provide a lot of the flavor concepts that often tied in with classes.

Can't speak to themes since we're not using 'em in 4Ed and I haven't seen anything about their 5Ed incarnation.

 

[Primal]

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.

I don't like system mastery and I didn't like 3E multiclassing; and for me it wasn't just about math. With 3E-style multiclassing, your PCs end up usually being either "gimped" or monsters with horribly broken combos (in my 3E/PF games I've even denied multiclassing).

Since themes are already strongly tied to your background, IMO Pathfinder archetypes or 4E hybrid PCs might be the best way to do it (although I wouldn't mind 4E-style feat-based multiclassing, either). Return to playing Wiz 4/Rog 4/Fgh 4 in a group of 12th level PCs? No thanks...

 

[Hassassin]

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 is one of the things PF fixed with their skill system. I use it in 3.5.

Full hp for first level is also annoying. Maybe something like roll + 3 would work, but I haven't tried it.