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.