D&D 5E Multiclassing...AGAIN?

[Dannyalcatraz]

A random thought just popped into my head: what if levels cost XP like groceries cost $$$?

IOW, what if the universal XP/Level chart- instead of applying to character level, only applied to the cost to gain a class level in a particular class?

Fred the Focused Fighter only wants to be a fighter, so just keeps taking Fighter levels. He pays XP as per normally done in 3Ed: taking Ftr2 at 1000XP, Ftr3 at 3000XP, Ftr4 at 6000XP, and so forth.

Jacques D'Touslesmétiers, on the other hand, wants to learn a bit of everything. He starts as a Bard, but as soon as he gains 1000XP, he spends it and takes a level of Fighter. Then he spends his next 1000XP on a level of Druid. By the time he has earned 6000XP, he is Brd1/Ftr1/Drd1/War1/Psi1/Monk1.

Wally Warlock is flexible, but he's not Jacques. At 1000XP, he takes Rgr1. When he gains another 3000XP (total 4000XP), he spends it to gain Wlk2. He reaches a total of 6000XP without adding any class levels, since he wants to take Wlk3, which costs 3000XP, and he only has 2000XP unspent.

In some ways, it's like 3Ed multiclassing, but in some ways, the results are more like AD&D.

Now, I realize that certain things would have to be decoupled from class level, like gaining HD, otherwise at 6000XP Jacques would have 6HD to Fred's 4HD and Wally's 3HD, which ain't right. So derails would have to be worked out.

Interesting idea or have I been drinking too much Wild Turkey?

 

[slobster]

Interesting idea, but I have some concerns. The HD problem you mention is one. Another is how to deal with the weapon attack/magic attack thing, though that's something you have to do with any multiclass system (and I think the way they are doing it right now is ugly, and will hopefully change).

How about feats (or backgrounds)? Like HD, this style of multiclassing would seem to grant more frequent access to them.

Then you get to the very high levels. If leveling from 19 to 20 takes 19,000 xp, then you could also take the first 3 levels in 3 different classes instead. A fighter 20 is probably not going to be as good as a fighter 19/Paladin3/Ranger 3/Rogue 3. Suddenly, dipping a few other classes seems pretty good . . .

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...you could alleviate some of those issues with a pure XP economy for many of the things we see as level dependent now: want a feat? Pay XP for it.

Then, other things like your HD, accuracy in combat, saving throws, etc. would be based on your attributes alone.

 

[howandwhy99]

Now, I realize that certain things would have to be decoupled from class level, like gaining HD, otherwise at 6000XP Jacques would have 6HD to Fred's 4HD and Wally's 3HD, which ain't right. So derails would have to be worked out.

Interesting idea or have I been drinking too much Wild Turkey?

Very cool idea and I think this should stand as another option.

Also, you might find that fighter statistics (e.g. AC, HP, HD, to hit bonus, etc.) aren't required to increase for every class due to the flatter progression and bounded accuracy design. They are already looking at this with combat & magic modifier progression tables, but could do something similar with HD.

Think of 10 boxes along the character log to denote the Hit Points rolled for each Character Level. Every Level 1 class bought means you can roll that level's hit points over again and keep the better result. Of course some classes use a d10 and others a d6 and so on, but that's where the balancing is built in.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Buy the levels as you have said, but don't stack the features. So you only get the best individual thing of any given class. A Fighter 1/Wizard 1 has the hit points of a 1st level fighter, but a Fighter 1, Wizard 3 has the hit points of a third level wizard.

That sounds like it gets out of control at the upper levels, but remember the way you are stacking means that multiclassed characters aren't counted the same way as before. A Fighter 5/Wizard 5 is not equivalent to a 10th level character in your system, but more like a 7th or maybe 8th. So all you really need to support that is the single-classed chart and a total XP number to compare against it, so that a DM wanting to balance "appropriate challenges" will have an idea where that level number is.

 

[slobster]

Buy the levels as you have said, but don't stack the features. So you only get the best individual thing of any given class. A Fighter 1/Wizard 1 has the hit points of a 1st level fighter, but a Fighter 1, Wizard 3 has the hit points of a third level wizard.

That sounds like it gets out of control at the upper levels, but remember the way you are stacking means that multiclassed characters aren't counted the same way as before. A Fighter 5/Wizard 5 is not equivalent to a 10th level character in your system, but more like a 7th or maybe 8th. So all you really need to support that is the single-classed chart and a total XP number to compare against it, so that a DM wanting to balance "appropriate challenges" will have an idea where that level number is.

But what happens at high levels, when it is vastly easier to level in a half a dozen other classes a couple times instead of gaining a single level in your main class? It may be overpowered or it may not, but it definitely would be aesthetically unpleasing to have every character dip 2 to 5 levels in every other class, because he might as well.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, low-level "slumming" is something you can never totally avoid unless you put arbitrary limits on multiclassing. This is true no matter what mechanics you use, though of course social contract can dictate those limits too. That is, even if I come up with a mechanical solution that satisfies me, the numbers may not exactly satisfy you, and vice versa.

That said, I think the key to hitting near the mark for what D&D has traditionally tried to be is to make an experience progression that does not increase very rapidly. Certainly, you do not want the AD&D 1st through name level rate, as that practically forces "slumming" if no other limits are present (such as were, obviously, in AD&D). For this, the 3E XP chart might be pretty close to correct, though I think a slightly smaller increase would work even better. I find it highly ironic that the 3E rate works better for mechanically unrestrained AD&D-style multiclassing, but no one seems to want to try it. (I'm repeating myself from earlier topics, here. )

Moreover, you can cut out a lot of problems by simply having a "level zero" that is "all that early stuff the character did to be able to take level 1"--and then not charge for it on the first class. When growing up, you get to level 1 for free in one class, but anything else has a starting cost. Or if you want to abstract it formally (without the level zero), you have an XP chart that looks something like this (totals, since that works best with the OP's proposal):

Level 1 - 5,000 XP
Level 2 - 6,000 XP (+1000)
Level 3 - 7,500 XP (+1500)
Level 4 - 9,500 XP (+2000)
etc.

Or let's kill a few zeroes (adjust monster XP to match), and try another rate:

Level 1 - 300 XP
Level 2 - 400 XP (+100)
Level 3 - 600 XP (+200)
Level 4 - 900 XP (+300)
etc.

Using that latter table, Level 8 is 3,100 XP, while Level 9 is 3,900 XP. Dipping into another 1st level class costs you almost half of what you need to go from 8th to 9th in your main one, and spending that full 800 XP on your new class gets you 2 levels and halfway to 3rd. It's probably worth doing once, eventually, but I'm not sure very many people will find the 3rd class very enticing. And it does hurt with no stacking.

Of course, a better way to handle that, since everyone wants a different amount of multiclassing, is to set up the chart with the a fairly flat progression, but explicitly charge that premium for "level zero"--and encourage groups to change the amount of the premium, with some guidelines of what this means. Upping the premium discourages slumming. Downing the premium encourages character diversity. It's all in what you want.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hmmm...you could alleviate some of those issues with a pure XP economy for many of the things we see as level dependent now: want a feat? Pay XP for it.

Then, other things like your HD, accuracy in combat, saving throws, etc. would be based on your attributes alone.

Very cool idea and I think this should stand as another option.

Also, you might find that fighter statistics (e.g. AC, HP, HD, to hit bonus, etc.) aren't required to increase for every class due to the flatter progression and bounded accuracy design. They are already looking at this with combat & magic modifier progression tables, but could do something similar with HD.

Think of 10 boxes along the character log to denote the Hit Points rolled for each Character Level. Every Level 1 class bought means you can roll that level's hit points over again and keep the better result. Of course some classes use a d10 and others a d6 and so on, but that's where the balancing is built in.

I'm thinking that in a system like this, HD type would be determined by your Con, not your class, and the number of HD you have would be determined exclusively by your XP level.

Other ramifications of the XP economy:

1) Crafting items that cost XP had better be reworked, because this actively discourages crafting for others. It might make sense for crafting to be a form of "Sympathetic Magic" Ritual that anyone can do with the right training (Feats & Skills) and enough XP. Thus, a Fighter PC who has spent XP to gain the Craft Armor & Weapons and the Ritual Magic Feats could use his Craft Skill to burn XP to make a nifty Dragon-slaying spear (as we ALMOST saw in 1981's Dragonslayer) or impenetrable armor (as we DID see in Greek legend)..

2) Energy Drain really couldn't work as level drains. It might REALLY make sense to use the system I suggested a few weeks ago:

In 5Ed, it could be a 4 step condition degradation. To use 3Ed terminology, I think it could work by making a PC Fatigued => Exhausted => Staggered => Unconscious.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It may be overpowered or it may not, but it definitely would be aesthetically unpleasing to have every character dip 2 to 5 levels in every other class, because he might as well.

That is (one reason) why there are things other than class levels to buy with XP, like Feats. If you spend all of your levels on new classes, you won't have access to the nifty things you can do within any class because you haven't bought feats.

 

[slobster]

I'm thinking that in a system like this, HD type would be determined by your Con, not your class, and the number of HD you have would be determined exclusively by your XP level.

This, and the idea to decouple feats from level, really don't excite me. It's a class system, embrace that. Striving for some weird hybrid of class system and point buy system dilutes the focus and ups the complexity, to no real benefit (IMO).

Fighters should be tougher than Wizards. So it has been, so shall D&D continue to be.

If you really like the idea of spending xp directly on benefits instead of levelling up, look at Mutants & Masterminds, a d20 system that does just that. I'm sure other forumgoers could direct you to other RPGs that do something similar.

But, and I'm sorry to say this (and you are free to disagree), that's not really D&D.

 

[The Shadow]

That is (one reason) why there are things other than class levels to buy with XP, like Feats. If you spend all of your levels on new classes, you won't have access to the nifty things you can do within any class because you haven't bought feats.

At this point, we essentially have a point-buy system, so why have classes at all? Just break everything down into XP costs (and probably chop a few zeroes off the end for good measure) and call it good.

EDIT:

Get outta my head, slobster!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you really like the idea of spending xp directly on benefits instead of levelling up, look at Mutants & Masterminds, a d20 system that does just that.

Actually, I'm a HEROphile...

Fighters should be tougher than Wizards. So it has been, so shall D&D continue to be.

Almost completely correct. 4Ed- NOT my favorite edition (that would be 3.5Ed)- muddles this up a bit. I'm currently in a 4Ed campaign in which my Dwarven Starlock is the second toughest PC in the partly. (The only PC who is tougher is the Dwarven Fighter, though.)

Anyway, expanding on this:

I'm thinking that in a system like this, HD type would be determined by your Con, not your class, and the number of HD you have would be determined exclusively by your XP level.

Since D& D has always had bonus HP, perhaps it is THEY that come from your classes, fully reversing the traditional structure of the game on this area.

So, for instance, a PC with 6000XP would have 3HD; his Con 15 makes them d8s, and his classes give him a few (one time) bonus HP.

More potential fun: If magic permanently increases his Con, his HD size goes up. He re-rolls and takes the best result. If magic permanently decreases his Con, his HD size goes down. He re-rolls and takes the worse result.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At this point, we essentially have a point-buy system, so why have classes at all?

If done properly, classes still represent discrete packages of benefits & prereqs that you can't simply buy in smaller packets. While Feats cost XP to acquire, and anyone can buy them, Fighters get more of them at first level than others.

And, for example, it is possible that Ftr2 gets you an XP price break on your next 2 "Fighter" feats. Other PCs may be buying the same feats, but the guy who just bought Ftr2 gets them for fewer XP.

Also, some abilities- casting spells, using psionics, channeling divine power- would still not be purchasable at all without entry into a class.

 

[frankthedm]

A random thought just popped into my head: what if levels cost XP like groceries cost $$$?

The primary benefit of character levels is forcing PCs to have adequate servings of Defense, Offence and Utility. Flexibility lets PCs eat around their vejitables and build lopsided characters unless the player is system savvy enough to recognize the imbalance potential and avoid glass cannons, mushpots spread too thin and Brick Walls with no offence.

 

[Lanefan]

Still doesn't solve the believability problem of picking up an entire new class on a relative whim; along with the problems already mentioned above about trying to break out of additivity and still make it work.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's no more unbelievable than the original 3Ed system, which is, IMHO, the most believable of the bunch.

 

[Lanefan]

It's no more unbelievable than the original 3Ed system, which is, IMHO, the most believable of the bunch.

To me it's the least believable, in that you can pick up a class - Rangering, Thieving, Magic Use, Clericism, Bard, any of which in theory should take years of study and practice to even get to 0th-level in never mind 1st - on a whim!

At least with 1e there was some sort of organic progression - the mechanical development vaguely followed some sort of in-character forethought. I've suggested elsewhere (and here too? I forget) how to tweak this to solve the issues the 1e system did have...

Lanefan

 

[slobo777]

To me it's the least believable, in that you can pick up a class - Rangering, Thieving, Magic Use, Clericism, Bard, any of which in theory should take years of study and practice to even get to 0th-level in never mind 1st - on a whim!

At least with 1e there was some sort of organic progression - the mechanical development vaguely followed some sort of in-character forethought. I've suggested elsewhere (and here too? I forget) how to tweak this to solve the issues the 1e system did have...

Lanefan

TBH I have this problem with levelling up irrespective of whether PCs stick to a class or not. The assumption of course is that "off screen" the PCs are practicing/training and refining their abilities. Edit: Also, of course, whacking a goblin on the head can improve your ability to identify plants or craft intricate wooden items!

Multi-classing IME doesn't work out as "on a whim", as you typically need a decent prime stat in the second class. Also, I found that players and DMs that cared about this would add something towards it feeling OK in the story by focussing on some of that normally off screen time (typically player will RP "being taught" from another PC or NPC for a level) - not that the rules require it, but it goes a long way to making it flow nicely.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At least with 1e there was some sort of organic progression - the mechanical development vaguely followed some sort of in-character forethought. I've suggested elsewhere (and here too? I forget) how to tweak this to solve the issues the 1e system did have...

1) AD&D multiclassing as is only supports the concept of the guy who always has been and always will be This/That/This other thing. It does not at all support someone who dabbles, or who finds another path later in life...IOW, someone like me, who just finished his third postgraduate program. Or Brian May (guitarist for Queen, recently earned his PhD in astrophysics). And others.

2) you suggested your workaround in another one of the recent Multiclassing threads- mine I think.

3) I've never seen it as a "whim"- the training for 3Ed multiclassing merely occurs off-screen. Of course, that's no change. As I recall, even back in 1Ed, PCs were supposed to "train" before leveling. Most people hand waved that away and simply folded that into typical adventuring life. Even if the PC in question never used abilities from all of his classes...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, here is your workaround...

That's because your thinking is stuck in 3e mode, where everything is additive and a "10th level character" might not have any actual levels higher than 3, as in Ft-3/Wz-1/Rg-2/Cl-2/Bd-2

It shouldn't be that way.

First off, 5-class monstrosities like my example simply should not exist, period.

Second, if the levels advanced independently of each other and a 9-1 was thus only trivially different from a single-class 9, your issue would go away.
This is trivially easy to work around. All you need is some guidelines for how one might pick up a class during one's career - I'd suggest it would involve at minimum a half-year's training (i.e. adventuring downtime) to become a raw 1st with 0 XP in the new class. Then, you carry on as if a 1e multi from there.

Example: I start off as a straight Fighter for the first 5 levels (say, 20,000 XP worth), then decide I want to pick up a bit of MU on the side so I can do my own Identify spells on my armour and weapons. I take 6-12 months off from adventuring and spend this time instead in a crash course in spellcasting*. When I come back I'm a F-5/MU-1 and my XP are split at 20000-0. I decide from here on I'm going to divide my earned XP 50-50 between my two classes.

Next adventure earns me a total of 6000 XP; so I'm now at 23000 on the Fighter side and 3000 on the MU side, which bumps me to MU-2: I'm now F-5/MU-2. And I carry on from there.

Point is, using 1e as a jumping-off point doesn't necessarily mean you have to multi right from the start.

* - some sort of lengthy training time is essential - this business of just jumping into an entirely new class on a whim when you bump (as in 3e) is so lame it can't stand up.

Lanefan

I'd have posted that in my last post, but my "Edit" Button has disappeared.