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

[Aramax]

Instead of multi-classing in the 3E sense, I think we may see multi-classing either supported by feats, or a system similar to hybrids in 4E, or perhaps both. Multi-classing in the 3E vein is actually limited to that edition (as far as I know), and 2E shared more in common with hybrid classes from 4E.

How do you think multi-classing will be supported?

Multi classing is one of the things 4th got right

 

[GM Dave]

The one thing that was really good in 4e were the Paragon Paths. They were some of the most flavourful additions to the game. The new classes of the Players Guide 2 (Avenger, Shaman, Invoker, and Warden) were good for adding new flavour to the game. I preferred the fluff much more then most of the prestige classes which seemed to have fluff more to justify a selection of powers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Multi classing is one of the things 4th got right

Not everyone would agree with that. Some might even strongly disagree with that statement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think there needs to be both multi-classing, where someone does two roles at once (though perhaps not as well as either as a single class) and dual classing, where someone gives up his old class to start a new ones, but still remembers what he learned in the old class.

1e/2e did this pretty well, because levels weren't nearly as discrete as they are in 3e (and apparently 4e).

A multl-class character could do more, but he'd be 1-2 levels behind a single class character. They could still easily adventure in the same party as their higher level companions.

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 disagree - 3e multiclassing was really like dual classing of past editions - a character would only improve in one class at a time, rather than get better at both, and because it was split (usually) characters could end up very weak, as they would never reach the peak of either class. That's why they had to come up with the prestige classes (like the mystic theurge) to fix the problem it caused

 

[Ahnehnois]

I disagree - 3e multiclassing was really like dual classing of past editions - a character would only improve in one class at a time, rather than get better at both, and because it was split (usually) characters could end up very weak, as they would never reach the peak of either class. That's why they had to come up with the prestige classes (like the mystic theurge) to fix the problem it caused

That would be the problematic, but fixable part. If base attack were less important, and if some base magic bonus existed to facilitate multiclass characters, the characters 3e required you to bend the rules to make viable would become the norm.

 

[Stalker0]

A multl-class character could do more, but he'd be 1-2 levels behind a single class character. They could still easily adventure in the same party as their higher level companions.

What they may do is mix in a little 4e balancing with 3e multiclassing.

For example, your attack and defenses may be more like 4e, a slight adjustment for your class but ultimately your level and ability scores were the predominant measure of theses.

With that, multiclassing might get you different classes abilities, but your mechanical core is independent of your class decisions. Still plenty of chances for abuse, but less than traditional 3e multiclassing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's why they had to come up with the prestige classes (like the mystic theurge) to fix the problem it caused

Despite starting with D&D in 1977' I always preferred the 3Ed version of multiclassing. To me, that "not peaking" thing was not a problem.

 

[Cyberzombie]

I'd like multi-classing to be unnecessary because classes are modular enough that you can build what you want.

However, that's unrealistic, so given prior art I'll say that I found the 3E approach much more effective than the 4E approach. I'd accept the 1E approach if balance issues were sorted out.

Not so! In Pathfinder, you can multiclass exactly like in 3e, but most characters don't have to. Classes are modular, especially as they add more splatbooks, and it's easy to switch out the powers you don't want for ones you do. It's not entirely flexible -- you'd still have to multiclass to do a cleric/rogue, but you wouldn't for a fighter/mage. There are any number of ways you could do a fighter/spelluser as a single classed character, depending on exactly which aspects you want.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

If things like attack bonuses and saves/defenses and spell progression/effectiveness were the same way as they were in 4e, which is completely dependent on universal level and independent of separate class progressions. Then 3e style multiclassing would be fine.

Otherwise it's flawed, and we're left with having to create prestige classes like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge again.