D&D 5E Multiclass in 5E

[Stormonu]

Glancing over the new 5E docs, I didn't see any mention of multiclassing (If Its ther, just let me know).

So, at this point, if you wanted to concoct a fighter/wizard, wizard/rogue or whatnot, how would YOU do it? Would it be 1E/2E style where you select you classes at character generation, 3E style where you pick the class you advance in at each level, early 4E style with feats or late 4E style with hybrid classes? Or a mix or even something completely different?

 

[steeldragons]

Sure...I'll do the opening salvo.

1e multi-classing for me...all the way.

--SD

 

[Starbuck_II]

Glancing over the new 5E docs, I didn't see any mention of multiclassing (If Its ther, just let me know).

So, at this point, if you wanted to concoct a fighter/wizard, wizard/rogue or whatnot, how would YOU do it? Would it be 1E/2E style where you select you classes at character generation, 3E style where you pick the class you advance in at each level, early 4E style with feats or late 4E style with hybrid classes? Or a mix or even something completely different?

I'll allow 2E (for all races even human no Dual) and 3E style, but they have to choose at 1st.

 

[triqui]

I'd go with either AD&D, or 4e hybrid.
Either that, or no multiclass at all (and replace multiclass with specific classes. IE: a spellblade for fighter-magic user archetype)

 

[Stalker0]

Based on what the devs have said and the character sheets so far, I'm going with mostly a 3e multiclass.

I am hoping though it will be a little bit more limited though. For example the 2d6 sneak attack plus skill mastery at 1st level for a rogue seems like a very tempting multiclass for anyone....so perhaps multiclassing will spread out some of those 1st level class bonuses.

 

[MoonSong]

They promised there would be cake, I mean they promised 3.x style multiclass, but I'm not entirely sure how it will work regarding attack bonuses, perhaps it will involve taking the best of the two instead of adding them together, and in the case of the wizard/cleric their save DC's remain independent of each other, I don't know. All we know for sure is the +1 bonus to a score is only for the class taken at first level. But if I'm reading correctly, multiclassing doesn't give you the proficiencies of the new class (since those are listed under "When you create a character whose first class is X, you gain Y")

 

[renau1g]

Ugh, anything but 3e. That just led to all sorts of frankensteins and many ultra specific PRC's that just diluted content, unless you are truly multiclassing like need to keep within 1 level of each other in a hard rule.

 

[Tovec]

I know a lot of people have had bad experiences with the 3e method mostly due to abuse, but I still think it is the best for the playstyle I like. It is the only one I know of where I can change my mind midstream and have it become more advantageous.

I like when I can use mutliclassing to advance classes naturally instead of having to make all my decisions before level 1 and never being allowed to change them.

Now, with all that said I'm perfectly fine if they give me an equally good option to advance this way. Maybe no multiclassing between base classes but giving me more choices with prestige classes or something. I don't know.

 

[Halivar]

1E for me, please. Thus far it's been the best of all possible multi-class rules, minus the human dual-classing.

EDIT: Let me elaborate -- At any given level of experience, a 1E Ftr-Mu, dividing his XP equally between classes, is far more proficient and useful in either track than a 3E Fighter/Wizard alternating levels.

 

[nightwalker450]

If they go 3e, they need to start testing it soon, they've already got issues for that.

Snap Shot + Sneak Attack.. Spend your action to hide, and can sneak attack in the same turn.

 

[Scribble]

How did the 1e style work again? I can't remember.

 

[Halivar]

How did the 1e style work again? I can't remember.

Let's say you're a Ftr/M-U. Your level 2 Ftr is around ~2000, and your level M-U is ~2300. Those numbers are probably way off. You divide the XP evenly between them, thus they may level at different times. The advantage of this is that you generally only lag a couple levels behind in either track vs a single-classed character. Balance-wise, this works out better than in 3E, where a level-6 Fighter/Wizard alternating levels is only effectively a level 3 wizard. This disparity is exacerbated the higher up in level you go.

The difference is that in 3E, your first level of wizard taken at level 2 costs as much as if you'd taken a second level of fighter instead. In 1E, your cost for level 2 for both classes is the same as if you were single-classing... you just level half as quickly in either.

EDIT: For example, at 10K experience, your level 4 Ftr is on par with a level 3/3 Ftr/M-U.

 

[drothgery]

Let's say you're a Ftr/M-U. Your level 2 Ftr is around ~2000, and your level M-U is ~2300. Those numbers are probably way off. You divide the XP evenly between them, thus they may level at different times. The advantage of this is that you generally only lag a couple levels behind in either track vs a single-classed character. Balance-wise, this works out better than in 3E, where a level-6 Fighter/Wizard alternating levels is only effectively a level 3 wizard. This disparity is exacerbated the higher up in level you go.

Well, AD&D-style works out better for casters (especially since up to name level, AD&D experience tables were pretty much exponential), or part-casters; in 3.x, anything that caused you to sacrifice caster or manifester levels was a really bad idea due to artifacts of the magic system. But 3e-style worked decently for non-casters (to the extent that non-casters weren't gimped). Still, AD&D style multiclassing (or 4e style dabbling with feats or full-on hybrids) generally worked better.

 

[Yora]

Ugh, anything but 3e. That just led to all sorts of frankensteins and many ultra specific PRC's that just diluted content, unless you are truly multiclassing like need to keep within 1 level of each other in a hard rule.

I'm strongly in favor of 3rd Edition multiclassing, but under the premise that players have only 8 or so classes to chose from in any given campaign.

 

[Halivar]

But 3e-style worked decently for non-casters (to the extent that non-casters weren't gimped).

Oh, to be sure. My main concern was hybridization of non-synergistic character types, which is my primary area of interest with respect to multi-classing.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

I'd like to know the design goals of multi-classing. Multi-class casters should be less effective than full class casters, but not so less they become ineffective. In other words, less spells but just as effective when they do cast them. Multi-class casters should have similar save/magic attack bonuses. Similarly the multi-class non-casters should have similar weapon attack bonuses and but less use of a class feature. How you get that in a easy to use system is the tricky part.

 

[KidSnide]

I think the smart money says that you get all the abilities of each class (with the exception of the stuff you get under "When you create a character whose first class is...") and - for bonuses - you get the higher of the two weapon and magic attacks.

But the smarter money says that they want to focus on getting single class characters right first before they worry too much about multi-class combinations. (E.g. snap shot & sneak attack - nice catch nightwalker.) But ultimately, I'm just not sure about multi-classing. There is such a huge gulf between synergistic and non-synergistic multiclass combinations that it's hard to get something that produces playable non-synergistic combinations without generating ludicrously powerful synergistic characters.

Personally, I'm hoping for a "mythic" version of multi-classing that combines the simplicity of the 3.x rules with outcomes that (a) don't dominate single class characters and (b) don't suck for spell casters.

-KS

 

[Mattachine]

AD&D style made for powerful low level characters, very powerful mid-level characters, low-powered high level characters, and, if you remove level limits, ultra-powerful characters at high level.

No thanks.

 

[Shroomy]

On Twitter (I think it was on twitter, it may have been some other of social media, like the Reddit AMA), Mike Mearls said D&D Next multi-classing would be like 3e but informed by their experience with 4e hybrid classes. Thus, I'm guessing you can take a level in any class you want, but you don't get all the benefits or your benefits are modified in some fashion. Of course, we'll see what the playtest eventually brings us.

 

[Stormonu]

I actually think I want a mix of 1E/2e and 3E. You can choose to multiclass at 1st level, or change your profession at a later level (for however many levels).

So you could have an elf F/M-U at 1st, and when you hit, say, 3rd, you could decide to stop advancing as a fighter, pick up a couple levels of rogue (while still advancing as wizard), and then go back to advancing as a fighter - or another class. You could even choose to stop advancing as a wizard so you could level a bit faster. Course, for my own game, I'd be putting a limit on the # of classes you could mix together - probably max 3, *maybe* 4.

(For figuring XP, if you dual-class, you'd need x2 XP for the next level, x3 if you have 3 classes. If you just "switch", you'd just need normal XP - or +50% if you want to discourage hopping about).