D&D 5E Multiclass in 5E

[Ellington]

Currently, you can take a speciality (acolyte/magic-user) to become a pseudo-cleric/wizard. You can be a fighter or a rogue and still get a couple of at-wills from the other two classes, and something that would fit those classes such as a familiar or a sanctified weapon. I think that's a pretty straightforward and elegant system, and I'd like to handle it as such. I don't want something that can potentially define the system as the multiclassing in 3E did.

If every class were to get a speciality variant for people that want some paladin flavor for their rogue, or some druid flavor for their barbarian, that would be perfect imo. I guess it's similar to the 4E way, but I never really thought they were good enough.

 

[MoonSong]

Currently, you can take a speciality (acolyte/magic-user) to become a pseudo-cleric/wizard. You can be a fighter or a rogue and still get a couple of at-wills from the other two classes, and something that would fit those classes such as a familiar or a sanctified weapon. I think that's a pretty straightforward and elegant system, and I'd like to handle it as such. I don't want something that can potentially define the system as the multiclassing in 3E did.

If every class were to get a speciality variant for people that want some paladin flavor for their rogue, or some druid flavor for their barbarian, that would be perfect imo. I guess it's similar to the 4E way, but I never really thought they were good enough.

I like those "pseudo multiclass" feats, I think they make cool prepparations for true multiclassing, but I still want the real deal.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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 worth 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.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I prefer the 3E approach, but they must take a hard look at how classes are built with this in mind to keep one-class dipping and other tactics balanced, plus allow viable multi-class spellcasters without either hosing them or overshadowing everyone else.

No prestige class (or similar mechanics) would help this situation.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

My guess: before you can multicast into a class, you need to take a specific feat as a prerequisite. That feat gives you a standalone version of one of the class's signature powers. (So maybe there's a Rogue Dabbler feat that gives you 2d6 Sneak Attack, and after you take it, it gets replaced with the normal lvl1 class ability.) That way your first level of rogue isn't as front-loaded, and those who want a touch of rogue but don't want to sacrifice a level can just take the dabbler feat.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

The 3e approach was the best by far, even if it needed tweaking.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I prefer the 3E approach, but they must take a hard look at how classes are built with this in mind to keep one-class dipping and other tactics balanced, plus allow viable multi-class spellcasters without either hosing them or overshadowing everyone else.

No prestige class (or similar mechanics) would help this situation.

The idea of prestige classes was promising, but the majority of the examples could be replaced by a feat tree. I just did not care for 90% of the PrCs ever published.

Your main point is correct: the base classes must be designed with multi-classing in mind. On one hand, there was often too much frontloading. On the other hand, many abilities effectively degraded because of slow "caster level" progression and Action economy (e.g. at 10th level a 5d6 Fireball is much less than 50% as valuable as a 10d6 Fireball, for 10th level PCs).

 

[stoloc]

The 3e approach was the best by far, even if it needed tweaking.

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

 

[Blackwarder]

The 3e approach was the best by far, even if it needed tweaking.

The 3e approach was the worst by far, no matter how much tweaking you did to it, IMHO.

I'd much rather have a version of 2e multiclassing, with a touch of themes thrown in there for extra flavoring.

Warder

 

[ferratus]

I think each version of multiclassing has something to recommend, and all have extreme difficulties.

1e/2e -

Pros: With multiclassing, you managed to keep pace with single classed characters, only losing a minor bit of power in exchange for much improved flexibility. Dual-classing allowed you to switch classes in mid-stream, without all the frankenstein abuse of 3e Dual-classing.

Cons: You sacrificed little for multiclassing, and most demihumans did it as a result. Multiclassed characters far outnumbered regular characters, and people really started to hate elves.

3e-

Pros: Allowed D&D to contort itself into a point buy system for those who really like specific, mixed, or optimized characters.

Cons: Too easy to be trapped with a bad build if you were ignorant of the rules, too easy to create Pun-pun if you had a gift for numbers. Multiclasses outside of your particular BAB progression or spellcasting type were hopeless without prestige class kludges (essentially precursors to 4e's hybrid classes).

4e -

Pros - 4e hybrid classes were the first time that multiclassing was well balanced with their core classes.

Cons - They did it by creating new classes for you, in a very rigid way. Their first attempt at multiclassing by using feats forced you to sacrifice both a power and a feat to simply gain another power meant you lost ground to your single classed brethren without much improved flexibility.

5e -

Best way to multiclass? Honestly it is probably going to be through specialities. A feat chain giving new powers is probably the way to go. If you look at the acolyte or necromancer specialities, it gives you a pretty good approximation of being multiclassed, without giving you the whole power of that other class.