D&D 5E Multiclass in 5E

[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).