D&D 5E Multiclass in 5E

[MoonSong]

I guess it all comes to how you see multiclassing, multiclassing as dabbling, multiclassing as a turning point or mullticlassing as broadening

AD&D Multiclass
-Dabbling is impossible
-Pretty much the posterchild for Broadening
-Not good at all as a turning point

Dualclass
-You can "dabble" by starting on a class ans quickly changing classes
-Difficult for broadening of your abiliites, but there is a sweet spot
-Excellent as a turning point, but there is no looking back

3.X
-You can dabble at any point unless your primary class had a restriction
-Easy to broadden your abilities, but they get too diluted at times, specially for spellcasters
-Good as a turning point, but you can also look back.

4e Feat multiclassing
- Very good for dabbling.
- Not too good for broadenning your abilities, but some good feat chains allow you the equivalent of extra encounters and dailies.
- Extremely taxing as a turning point, it would consume five feats on average and your paragon path, not to mention carefull planning and is a long process. Even then your starting class keeps advancing regardless of your wishes and you never get to be a full member of the new class and you can only do it once

4e Hybrid
- Not good for simple dabbling, however humans could emulate it
- Not as much as gainning breadth, but you get some flexibility
- Since it is done at character creation, there is no place for multiclassing as a turning point, however psionic-non-psionic human/half elf hybrids can accomplish a better result by mixing with feat multiclassing, being able to get as much as three encounter powers from the second class (1 from paragon multiclass, 1 swap from psionic class and 1 swap from the non-psionic) still takes a lot of time and consumes lots of resources and can only be done once.

 

[Raith5]

How does PF handle multiclassed spellcasters? Or, to be more specific, how is it different from how 3.5 handles multiclassed spellcasters?

-KS

I dont play PF but I think a multiclassed casters get the spells of their caster level plus half of their non caster level. They still have DCs of their caster level. So a FTR/WIZ 8/4 would have the spells of 6th level wizard (rather than 4th in 3.5). I think this softens MC for casters a bit. But I may be mistaken.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If by "best by far" you meant horribly broken and utterly anathema to the way I want to play and by "tweaking" you meant should be doused in kerosene and set on fire then I must say I have to agree with you



I know that a lot of folks love the 3e mutliclassing system but I hate it with a passion

Your thoughts on 3e multiclassing are far more tender than my own regarding 1e/2e multiclassing and dual classing.

I would also remind you that there is a 3e "module" called gestalt which has most of the advantages and fewer of the downsides of the 1e/2e style.

I would not say I love the 3e multiclass system, but it was a workable framework that was somewhat successful and could easily be improved. Admittedly, the multi-class themed feats and PrCs are an implicit admission that they did not work as well as one might hope. If PCs had a "caster level" for every class equal to the character level (instead of the "class level"), the majority of the problems go away. Then it is mostly small tweaks to figure out which class abilities should be based on "caster level" rather than "class level".

IMO and IME 1e/2e multiclassing rules were hopeless. The single-class and multi-class characters exist on very differently shaped power vs. xp curves. The shaped of those curves varied in detail by both race and class. And the DM was instructed to ignore the problem and hope that by playing long enough the problem would fix itself. Unfortunately the promise of "fix itself" was a bald lie -- the problems did not go away, they just changed into different awkward problems. This is just a tour-de-force of what a game designer should never ever do (but I do not expect Gary to have realized as much at the time, obviously).

All editions potentially had serious power balance issues between the single-class and multi-class characters.

 

[Mika]

How does PF handle multiclassed spellcasters? Or, to be more specific, how is it different from how 3.5 handles multiclassed spellcasters?

-KS

Pathfinder is unchanged from 3.5 in this regard. The only change was rewriting the favored class mechanics.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I think how they are doing Backgrounds and Specialties is the way to go. Even now it's possible to create a Fighter and have a couple of Spells at first level... never possible before. This is awesome potential.

One thing they could do with the Specialties and Feats (please rename Feats, please rename Feats)... is that IF a person during character creation picks a specific Specialty and never alters the Feat progression in it then those Feats provide a bigger benefit, or an additional benefit that can mimic other Classes and their Special Abilities.

This way they wouldn't really need actual MC rules.

Another take is there could be a special Class Ability available to choose if a person takes a particular Background/Specialty combination. an example could be someone taking the Knight BG and Acolyte SP and this could provide a Cleric or Paladin Class Ability...and if you are a Paladin or Cleric, this combination improves one of your level 1 Class abilities, like giving an extra use of Channel Divinity for the Cleric.

 

[Danzauker]

IMHO the ONLY true "multiclassing" system in D&D history is 3.x, no matter how many broken things you have to fix.

All other systems, 1E/2E in particular, are NOT multiclasses. They are variations of hybrid classes (retraining and the possibility to dabble more or less spending feats in 4E gave a little more flexibility, but at a cost).

They could just call a fighter/mage in 1E "spellblade" or whatever, and print out the combat, saving throw and spell tables already calculated for you and that's all. Your path is fixed from level 1.

If I can not choose at any point in my character advancement, based on his development and campaign history whether he wants to become a paladin, or starts studyng magic, then it's not a multiclass system.

 

[lutecius]

3e, by far.

sure, it could use a few tweaks, like a caster level for a better synergy between spellcasting classes or giving fewer goodies at 1st level to discourage cherrypicking, prestige classes were a mess, too... but in my experience it was still more balanced than 1e/2e multiclassing and made more sense than 4e's power swapping or off-limit class features. I simply like the flexibility.
they still could create special hybrid classes for those who really want to progress exactly at the same rate in each domain.

 

[Halivar]

IMHO the ONLY true "multiclassing" system in D&D history is 3.x, no matter how many broken things you have to fix.

All other systems, 1E/2E in particular, are NOT multiclasses. They are variations of hybrid classes (retraining and the possibility to dabble more or less spending feats in 4E gave a little more flexibility, but at a cost).

Errr... huh? You have multiple classes. You're multi-classed.

 

[Halivar]

Ah, and I just remembered that for the last 3 years of 3.5, we always played with gestalt rules. I think it's the closest to 1E multi-classing. I think 5E would be more conducive to reintroducing that rule than 4E was (where it was quite impossible).

 

[nightwalker450]

I think dabbling is the best type of multi-classing, not the 3e way. Because level 1 isn't actually 0 exp, it's dedicating a good portion of your life to be considered that class (instead of a commoner). The fighter shouldn't just suddenly learn to do magic after clearing out a cave of kobolds. The wizard had to do years of study, and practice to be able to cast his first spells.

Maybe it'd be enough just to say you can have one additional class for each "Skill Training" feat you take, it would make Skill Training nicer, and help explain how you're learning to be another class.

So level 1 Fighter, Skill Training Streetwise.. Level 2 Can take a level of rogue.. Level 3 can take either Fighter or Rogue, and Skill Training Forbidden Lore... Level 4 can take a level of Wizard... Level 5 Fighter, Rogue or Wizard... etc...

Basically it comes down to I think there should be more gradual multi-classing than just switching at level-up. And the flat math should take care of the spell caster level problems of before, unless the majority of spells have max hp requirements, but I see that not as a problem, it just proves that only people dedicated to magic would be ready for them, not someone who spent most of his life swinging a sword and recently decided that books weren't so bad.

Either way, if its going to be even close to 3e style, they need to start play testing it real soon. Because once that door is opened all the classes will be looked at from a completely different angle, and will probably be gutted and rebuilt.

 

[TwoSix]

They'll never do what I would like, especially with what we've seen thus far. I'd like 1E/2E style multiclassing, but not fixed at 1st level and without the exponential XP tables. Instead, I'd do it as any character can pick up a level in any class they want, any time they want, which progresses independently. But the XP charts are smooth enough that going very far in more than about two classes really starts to eat into your progression. So I guess a 1E/2E/3E hybrid, with a few twists. Backgrounds and specialties already handle the 4E-style dabbling well.

However, the XP chart would look something like this: 0 level - 5000, 1st level - +1000, 2nd level - +2000 more, etc. You get the first class at 1st level for free. After that, you pay a premium to get one started, but then advance normally from there. That structure only works if you keep the increase each level relatively slight. But then, I've never been a fan of 1,000,000 XP at some higher point. (Heck, I'd drop a zero off of all of them. It's just not all the fiddly tweaks for monsters to start at 1,000.) That also doesn't work well if they go into something like 36 character levels, but I doubt the progression will go that high.

As always, I can't XP you, but I think this is an excellent approach.

 

[Danzauker]

Errr... huh? You have multiple classes. You're multi-classed.

Not in the way I intend it.

To give an example, if you mix blue and red, you're not multicoloured. You're violet.

1E/2E multiclasses were just fixed classes whose numbers were left to you to calculate, by taking averages and/or minimums and maximums of other classes. But you had to choose them at level 1 and you were bound from then on.

You could not start as a thief and have an epiphany and become a priest from a certain point of your character life. Or start as a fighter and discover that you have magic potential later on.

That's what I want from multiclassing. To be versatile and allow me to shape my character depending on the direction of his fictional life and the campaign.

If I really have to be a fighter/mage from level 1, I then prefer them to give me a "spellblade" class with all the crunch worked out, but that's really not what I want.

 

[KidSnide]

If I really have to be a fighter/mage from level 1, I then prefer them to give me a "spellblade" class with all the crunch worked out, but that's really not what I want.

One of the major advantages to a "spellblade" class is that it has better synergy with both the wizard and the fighter than the two classes have with each other. So, if a fighter wants a little arcane magic, they can pick up some spellblade that gives them the type of arcane magic that is useful in melee with a weapon in hand. And, if a wizard wants a little sword-wielding melee ability, taking a few levels of spellblade will (hopefully) provide some melee capability without generating totally dead levels in terms of progressing as an arcane caster.

Of course, the dragon sorcerer looks like another way to get that functionality (at least on the fighter side), but "dragon sorcerer" a pretty specific concept. I like it as an element of D&D, but it requires a lot of refluffing in campaigns where sorcery doesn't come from dragons.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

One of my acid tests for multiclassing that isn't flawed: It doesn't matter what order you do the classes in, a Fighter/Rogue 3/3 is the same mechanical basis whether the character went F,F,F,R,R,R or opposite or R,F,R,F,R,F or any other combination.

It's not the same character in the story, because the order says something about the character in play getting those levels. And of course different characters will have exercised options differently (e.g. skill picks, feat picks, etc.). Yet the options were the same even if exercised differently.

There are some things to be said for violating this rule on the edges, if warranted, but it shouldn't be done casually. Because to violate it creates all kinds of annoying accounting issues, that compound as characters reach higher levels. Want to know if a 10th level Fighter/Rogue 3E character has correct skill ranks? You almost need to know what order the levels were taken. (PF cleans this up somewhat by the simple expedient of replacing the x4 skill ranks bit at 1st level.) As a DM with players that routinely miss things and thus underpower themselves, I'm well familiar with that annoyance.

More widely experienced, avoiding such stacking issues means that making high level characters from scratch is generally easier. You can just say that you have a Fighter/Wizard 4/3 and start looking up what that means in any order you please.

The "hidden cost" of the 3E approach is that in simplifying the process of the XP chart and its relation to character levels, it complicates the stacking of the classes. That doesn't make something like the 3E approach automatically a bad idea, but it is an issue that I think a 3E-like approach must address carefully in order to really shine. (1E/2E and 4E approaches have different issues to deal with.)

 

[The Shadow]

I also like the 3e version of multiclassing the best, though it certainly does need to be cleaned up in a number of ways. Notably, front-loading.

Multiclassing in 1e was fun, but broken. The only mechanical reason for a demihuman NOT to multiclass was to avoid level limits if you were a pure thief. And an option that nobody in their senses doesn't take is pretty clearly a broken option.

Removing the (utterly arbitrary and senseless) level limits would only make it worse. And don't even get me started on dual-classing... The restrictions on it were so draconian that it hardly seemed worth doing. I don't think I ever saw a dual-classed character - not that there were all that many human characters to do it anyway. (Yet another sign of multiclassing problems.)

I would like to be able to have my character actually change in response to events. The 3e system makes that possible.

 

[Halivar]

Multiclassing in 1e was fun, but broken. The only mechanical reason for a demihuman NOT to multiclass was to avoid level limits if you were a pure thief. And an option that nobody in their senses doesn't take is pretty clearly a broken option.

There is one very significant reason not to: it take for-flippin'-EVER to level.

 

[The Shadow]

There is one very significant reason not to: it take for-flippin'-EVER to level.

Eh. Your classes leveled independently, so you were still getting goodies periodically. Plus, you were never that far behind the humans, thanks to the exponential chart.

And I don't think I ever saw a single-classed demihuman in 1e/2e days. Did you?

 

[Halivar]

And I don't think I ever saw a single-classed demihuman in 1e/2e days. Did you?

No (caveat: I only saw the 2e days). Buuuuuut.... I think the situation is different now because attributes mean something more. Multiple-Attribute Disorder disincentivizes heavy multi-classing in a way 1E never did. In 1E you could get by with a high-str Ftr/Thf/M-U with a Dex of 14 and an Int of 10. That won't really work in 5E, I think.

 

[1of3]

Maybe it'd be enough just to say you can have one additional class for each "Skill Training" feat you take, it would make Skill Training nicer, and help explain how you're learning to be another class.

3e multiclassing with a feat cost is an interesting option. It alleviates the problem of frontloaded classes somewhat. Making this cost a skill training instead of a just discarding a feat slot is also a good call.

It would probably work best with retraining per level. Otherwise you can only start a new class every third level.

 

[drothgery]

Eh. Your classes leveled independently, so you were still getting goodies periodically. Plus, you were never that far behind the humans, thanks to the exponential chart.

And I don't think I ever saw a single-classed demihuman in 1e/2e days. Did you?

Well, I ran one once, but I wasn't anywhere near as interested in the numbers behind the game as a college kid as I am now; it's clearly kind of silly not play a multi-classed demihuman in 1e/2e unless you know for certain the game will exceed demihuman level limits and the DM will enforce them.