D&D 5E Multiclass in 5E

[Stormonu]

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.

I've seen it twice in 2E, once with an elf thief and with a dwarf fighter character; both were played in a campaign that only lasted to 5th level. Oddly enough, the elf thief came about because the player had formerly been running a elf f/m-u/t and hated how long it took to level that character.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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

Sure, lots: halfling rogues and dwarf fighters ('cause there was nothing else worthwhile for them to multi-class into, usually. 4 levels of fighter? C'mon.)

Now, I never saw a single classed elf or half-elf ...

---

I think multiclassing should enable three things, strategically:

1. Support the dabblers, who want a little bit of another class for spice and flavor.

2. Support the broadeners, who want to take their PC in a different direction at some point in their career.

3. Support the unique class creators, who use multiclassing to enable a mix of class capabilities not otherwise possible from just the base/core single classes.

The challenge is doing it in a fair, balanced manner. I think 3E-style comes closest in potential to doing all three, above, but it needs detailed mechanical tweaking to get to "fair and balanced".

 

[The Shadow]

Sure, lots: halfling rogues and dwarf fighters ('cause there was nothing else worthwhile for them to multi-class into, usually. 4 levels of fighter? C'mon.)

I already granted single-classed thieves, since they didn't have level limits. Dwarf fighters, yeah, okay.

(I have two opinions about 1e D&D that have never wavered for a instant, from my first encounter with it at age 11 to now: Level limits are the most bizarre, arbitrary, and dumb idea ever, except for the Great Wheel, which is even worse.

Now, I never saw a single classed elf or half-elf ...

Nope. Never, ever. Or gnome, either. I myself played a cleric/illusionist and a thief/illusionist - both a tremendous amount of fun, I might add. But if I wanted a full-bore mage, I played a human.

I think multiclassing should enable three things, strategically:

1. Support the dabblers, who want a little bit of another class for spice and flavor.

2. Support the broadeners, who want to take their PC in a different direction at some point in their career.

I heartily agree with both of these.

3. Support the unique class creators, who use multiclassing to enable a mix of class capabilities not otherwise possible from just the base/core single classes.

Not quite as sure about this one, to be perfectly honest. But I do agree that the basic idea of 3e multiclassing addresses these three needs the best.

 

[HoolMarshes Dweller]

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?

1E/2E style.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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

Incorrect.

In the "sweet spot" of levels most popular among DMs, the xp vs. level progression was roughly exponential. If one always played every PC from 0 XP, there was an initial higher attrition because of the longer time to see your 2nd levels. Once you survived that (or were simply promoted over the hump in an ongoing campaign), you were simply one level behind. Then you level at the same rate as everyone else in both your classes. (Arguably, that could be called "leveling twice as fast".)

The net result is your Elven Fighter7/MU7 would be standing next to a Human Fighter8 in the same party.

 

[herrozerro]

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

Personally, i prefer multiclassing to only be the dabbling or broadening. Turning point to me should just be a reroll. In my games anytime anyone wants to change classes they can, provided they work with me to find a good way to go about it.

For instance, i have had a pc change from a druid to a wizard to a hybrid seeker/wizard and i let him reroll anything excluding race (though once we did reroll race but that was something special).

I dont see the need for characters to advance to a certain point and want to completely change their class but have half a career of other classes doing nothing useful.

For me a clean change of class totally is the best method.

 

[Pour]

Looking through the class doc, it mentioned "If cleric is your first class...". Just seems classifying it as your first means there's importance placed on the order and the 'base' class the other dips are built on. That doesn't seem to imply you get everything, supporting notions of hybrid influence. I think 13th Age does this well.

 

[MoonSong]

Looking through the class doc, it mentioned "If cleric is your first class...". Just seems classifying it as your first means there's importance placed on the order and the 'base' class the other dips are built on. That doesn't seem to imply you get everything, supporting notions of hybrid influence. I think 13th Age does this well.

Well, it is obvious you only take your starting hitpoints once, and we've been told already that ability adjustments are only taken once, the one thing I'm surprised with, seems to be that multiclassing just won't grant you the proficiencies of the new class, and that is actually a nice thing, as it kills two issues at once: no more one level fighter dips to get full martial proficiencies for free, and it actually means proficiency feats are suddenly very useful (I felt like an idiot when I noticed my sorcerer was heading for the paladin path and that taking it as a class just made one martial weapon proficiency feat I took at first level moot, if I had known at character creation that my character was going to multiclass to paladin, I would have used that feat slot for something else, now given these changes in Next that won't happen again, proficiency feats will remain usefull no matter how much you multiclass and that is a good thing)

However if my character multiclasses and comits to a new class he shouldn't feel like a second rate (incomplete) member of that class beyond being some effective levels below as a member of said class and having the tricks of the original one to fall back on. (And just rerrolling doesn't do the trick really. The classes my character had and their order are a testimony of his/her history and shouldn't just vanish)

 

[Grabuto138]

I can honestly say I don't much care for multiclassing at all, in any edition.

In 1e/2e it was kind of wacky. In 3e, it was a disguised point-buy. In 4e, it was either multi-dabbling or "here's a set of rules for you to make a bad character." Of these, I prefer the multi-dabbling, but that's because you're still sticking close to an archetype, overall. I least prefer the 3e version because most every character picked something up (as long as they could keep their full casting progression).

My ideal class-based system would more or less do away with multiclassing and do two things. (1) Make classes broad and flexible enough to cover several closely-grouped archetypes, and (2) give enough archetypes you have a class that approaches your character concept.

-O

The idea of eliminating player-side multiclassing is initially somewhat shocking. But I think I agree. Rather than creating a comprehensive ruleset for multiclassing that will almost certainly have holes, it would be easy enough to release hard-coded multiclass classes. So, there would be a set of discrete, specific, rules of progression for a Fighter-MU, a Thief-Cleric etc. This assumes a DDI-type model so the classes could be created and distributed with nominal hassle.

As a side note, I think many of the comments in this post regarding 3e multiclassing are not recognizing the reality of the Next rules as presented. I liked 3e multiclassing. I agree that it was essentially a point-buy system, but it made character creation interesting and gave the players something to talk about, read about and ponder on outside of actual playtime. Basically, it extended the hobby. In 1e/2e there wasn't much to do for a player who wasn't playing. In 3e/4e you can create a theoretical character, argue on discussion boards, or spend your lunch hour with your nerd colleague trying to create a good 3e archer Bard. But Next feels to me, and this is just my opinion, as very much a 2e with a small, unified ruleset rather random subrules patched in at whim. So 3e multiclassing is pretty much off the table. The system is too different.

In a sense, Next is what 3e should have been, a significant change in rules with a nominal change in tone. I can imagine an alternate reality where Next was 3e and Pathfinder was its own thing. The world would be a better place.

And I play, and love, 4e.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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

And twice as long to train with twice the expense. Which means he's likely missing out on some adventures, so he's even further behind in exp.