D&D 5E Multiclassing Broken Down

[Chris_Nightwing]

Over on another thread, 3E-style multiclassing is winning the poll, followed by a strong showing for classic multiclassing/4E hybrid classes (which are awfully similar in intent) and then 4E multiclass feats. I think this poll might indicate a division between how people see classes and levels on a more fundamental level, so I made a poll.

Designing a multiclass system comes with several important questions:

1. Should you have to decide your class mixture in advance (classic, 4E hybrid) or not (3E)?
2. If not 1, should your first class be special? (classic dual-classing, 3E to some extent, 4E feats) or not?
3. Should the divergence of your different classes be limited in some way (4E feats) or not (classic dual-classing, 3E)?

I think that there's a split between people who want to be able to mix-and-match classes as much as they like, deciding as they level-up, and people who think that you should have to commit right from the start to a particular concept. In my mind, this is actually an ideological choice about how important your class is. The mix-and-match approach treats levels like currency and, if anything, would function better with less distinct classes - where abilities might overlap considerably between classes and the tree-climbing required to get the best class abilities would be reduced (9th-level spells, I'm looking at you). The committed approach likes distinctive classes right from the start, and wants some abilities to be unachievable unless the class is fully committed to. This works better if every class has its best abilities at the top of tall trees, and with almost no overlap between classes.

 

[slobo777]

I don't see a split between all the options, so much as wanting to see choice for players. The more of it that the designers can get to work, and work together, the more fun we can have building characters mechanically for whatever reason (match or create a concept, exploring possibilities, optimising).

So I'd happily see more than one approach in D&D Next.

However, I guess D&D Next should pick one for the core rules, and add more later on.

If we have to choose one, I'd happily see a "special" first class, and commitment required (in terms of investing levels) to get an even split between abilities over time. That does leave players wanting an even split from the get go a little out on a limb - only a little, there is the option of starting at high enough level, 5th say - where this can be sorted out in a starting build.

I think that means I'm pretty aligned with what WotC claim to be doing. I really don't like the messiness of "specially-for-multi-classing" class progression tables that they will create, but I think they are a necessary evil to make the base classes for non-MC players simpler.

 

[Halivar]

There was no option for "all of the above" so I did not vote.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There's no option for 'all of the above' because, I believe, it's impossible to design the system both ways - the extremes being levels as currency (where the first level isn't that special) vs. classes as unique.

 

[underfoot007ct]

There was no option for "all of the above" so I did not vote.

I didn't vote either, I don't really care which way Multi-class goes, If the system works. Hopefully makes some sence, is NOT front loaded. I was not really stratified with 4e, and not happy with 3e pick everything & anything.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Looks like the majority likes ad-lib multiclassing, and there's an even split between first class special and first class not special.

But... wouldn't a "first class not special" system be able to do both?

 

[slobo777]

Looks like the majority likes ad-lib multiclassing, and there's an even split between first class special and first class not special.

But... wouldn't a "first class not special" system be able to do both?

First class not special would need to weaken low levels of all classes, making first level starting point less standard/expected. If necessary to match feature list of current 1st level characters, you may need to start with e.g. 3 or 4 levels to build a character with enough class features to be "complete".

That makes building a ready-to-go character more complex, raising the bar against new players.

Or . . . just perhaps the designers could reduce power of class and level, loading more features into race, speciality and background (I live in hope, but expect not).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

First class not special would need to weaken low levels of all classes, making first level starting point less standard/expected. If necessary to match feature list of current 1st level characters, you may need to start with e.g. 3 or 4 levels to build a character with enough class features to be "complete".

That makes building a ready-to-go character more complex, raising the bar against new players.

Or . . . just perhaps the designers could reduce power of class and level, loading more features into race, speciality and background (I live in hope, but expect not).

I don't think it has to result in less powerful 1st level characters, but it does have to tie less to your class, as you say. A clever hybrid system might give you three ability picks at first level, and you could take everything from one class if you wanted, or mix and match a bit, with each subsequent level giving you only one pick. This is a bit like starting at 3rd level though, I guess.

 

[slobo777]

I don't think it has to result in less powerful 1st level characters, but it does have to tie less to your class, as you say. A clever hybrid system might give you three ability picks at first level, and you could take everything from one class if you wanted, or mix and match a bit, with each subsequent level giving you only one pick. This is a bit like starting at 3rd level though, I guess.

Yes, and the same objection on basis of complexity.

However, I'm not objecting for myself, I like complex and flexible build systems. I'd get rid of classes entirely if I could.

I suppose you *could* have both if the added on multi-class system let you mix and match features in a level 1 character, with those rules kept clear of the basic system. Feature "picks" would need to be balanced out though (probably by bundling weaker things together, so you chose between either "Expertise Dice" or "+1 Str, + to hit" ), so I'm not sure if that would be true flexibility or worth the effort.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Yes, and the same objection on basis of complexity.

However, I'm not objecting for myself, I like complex and flexible build systems. I'd get rid of classes entirely if I could.

I suppose you *could* have both if the added on multi-class system let you mix and match features in a level 1 character, with those rules kept clear of the basic system. Feature "picks" would need to be balanced out though (probably by bundling weaker things together, so you chose between either "Expertise Dice" or "+1 Str, + to hit" ), so I'm not sure if that would be true flexibility or worth the effort.

I think you would have to take a step towards a classless system, without actually getting there. A key objective would be to reduce the depth of subsystems like spellcasting and expertise dice, and to try to bring them together wherever possible. That way, when you gain a level in a particular class, you will gain abilities related to what that class is good at, but they will mostly synergise with the abilities you have from other classes.

3.5 ended up with the awkward system it had because everything to do with physical fighting synergised across all classes (BAB, feats, proficiencies), but absolutely nothing did in spellcasting (cleric levels and wizard levels had no bearing on each other).

 

[GreyICE]

I like the current idea they're kicking around where you get to take the benefits that the class would earn at that level. It would take some doing to make it work with things like combat superiority, but it's far better than the 3E mish-mash multiclass or the 4E 'little from column A, little from column B' version that left some classes virtually untouched while others were unusuable (Wizard multis, for instance, could take 3 out of 4 Dailies as Wizard Dailies and pretty much ignore the middling encounter and at-will powers of the Wizard, while psionic classes were kicked in the teeth and then sucker punched for even considering it).

 

[Lanefan]

"None of the above".

My vote would be for flexible non-additive* multiclassing with a hard and low limit on how many classes a character can be.

* - by this I mean that a 5th-Fighter/5th MU is NOT considered a 10th level character; it's closer to about a 6th in terms of actual power.

Lanefan

 

[Dausuul]

In theory, I like the 3E approach where you pick the class you want each time you level up. In practice, however, I don't think that approach works well, because of the way level scales in D&D. You end up with the phenomenon that fighter-types multiclass all over the place, taking advantage of the ability to stack a lot of front-loaded bonuses, while casters avoid multiclassing like the plague because it hurts so much to lose a caster level, and dipping into a caster class is almost always a total waste.

What I would prefer is something along these lines: All multiclassing is gestalt-style. Instead of stacking classes on top of each other, you get the best of both worlds. When you gain a level, you can do one of the following:

• Gain 1 level in each of your classes. (Fighter 7/wizard 3 --> fighter 8/wizard 4.)
• Gain a new class, with level equal to your current highest level minus 4. (Fighter 7/wizard 3 --> fighter 7/wizard 3/rogue 3.)
• Increase one of your lower-level classes to your current highest level. (Fighter 7/wizard 3 --> fighter 7/wizard 7.)

These numbers might have to be tweaked for balance purposes, but you get the basic idea.

 

[keterys]

In theory, bounded math should make level less of a swing than it was in 3e - 3e did assume a rough doubling of effectiveness every 2 levels, but I really don't think that's the plan for Next.

I've poked at it a bunch, and I can't imagine any sane way to balance 3e multiclassing. Which implies to me that the plan might be to not balance it. But maybe they've got something magic up their sleeve. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

 

[Li Shenron]

1. Should you have to decide your class mixture in advance (classic, 4E hybrid) or not (3E)?
2. If not 1, should your first class be special? (classic dual-classing, 3E to some extent, 4E feats) or not?
3. Should the divergence of your different classes be limited in some way (4E feats) or not (classic dual-classing, 3E)?

"Not" to all three.

I am not really a fan of multiclassing, I prefer single-class (but prestige classes are another matter), but if there has to be multiclassing in D&D, then let it be totally free.

Also because you can (almost) always recreate the above restrictions when you are free, but not viceversa.

 

[Gorgoroth]

darn it

now I want to try lime pickles!! you just know it's gonna be nasty, but you must taste the bitter tangyness for yourself

Multiclassing : yes. Lime pickles....maybe? Likely a trap option, but for a one-off.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

now I want to try lime pickles!! you just know it's gonna be nasty, but you must taste the bitter tangyness for yourself

Multiclassing : yes. Lime pickles....maybe? Likely a trap option, but for a one-off.

They're doing rather well.. and they're a staple accompaniment to Indian food in the UK. Yum.

 

[Ratskinner]

I think this could work in several different ways. So while I voted, I felt like I wanted to check several boxes.

3e-style multiclassing makes some sense in a vaguely Simulationist-Character development way. However, it seems to carry a lot of troublesome baggage with it. Any solutions to that baggage need to be concise and easy, IMHO. I hate mechanics/architecture that aren't worth the effort.

 

[Gorgoroth]

...

I'd agree with keeping it relatively simple, and multiclassing can lead to less powerful characters in one pillar, but not all three.

If you're a fighter, and multiclass rogue, you immediately should get a bump in the non-combat pillar of the game. This is where 4e failed miserably. In making combat taking so high a proportion of the game time, any optimization potential in your multiclassing rules inherently has to favour that pillar. (most of the skills we NEVER used, they were just too boring, and actually took the fun out of their use due to it being too simple and limiting, but I digress). But when you're talking about having fun optimizing your character, you're either into that or not, and if you are, you can be sure that any rules system will have optimization eigenvalues. Hopefully in DDN they won't all boil down to : find a way to get Twin Strike as your at-will, or simply "Be a revenant and win, all other choices are fluff after that"

I'd like a multiclassing system that's not front-loaded too, but I doubt that's gonna happen. Having to splurge your feats to another a level of something else...hmm, could work but the feat itself shouldn't be just a tax on multiclassing, it should confer something decent and worthwhile. We don't want a repeat of the 3.0 thing where every rogue takes one level of ranger, or the pathfinder other extreme where two weapon fighting is so feat intensive, you need your entire archetype / build to be set around it to be worth taking (and even then...all you end up with is a mess of dice rolls and varying combat bonuses that in practice are very annoying for other players to sit through...and probably you, too).

For me, if a system can account for multiclassing in chunks, like taking a PP or an ED, (how about every five levels instead of every 1). I know that at work, specialising will end you either in utter job security because you have an extremely sought-after set of (rare) skills and cannot be easily replaced, or with no job security at all because most people end up having to wear many hats. A fighter who can barely move is not much use out of combat, or even in dynamic combats, so taking a few levels or feats that allow faster movement while heavily armored SHOULD be worth taking. I like those "optimization" pitfalls that you may look at a sheet and say this guy is more optimized for combat, but will likely die because he has no self-healing or survival skills in the wilderness, or a high level wizard who can get smoked in one lucky sword chop or arrow (to the knee).

Not really sure where I'm going with this...sorry!! haha. But lots of good points in here. Let's see how it all shakes down. I hope that Aragorn is possible at various scales. Instead of Ranger in heroic, then Paladin as PP, then Warlord in epic, I'd like the option to build the same thing in a smaller level window, like levels 1-3 taking ranger, then 5-7 paladin, then the rest as some kind of mix. 4e did come up with a lot of good ways to break up class abilities with the hybrid system, though they are not all created equal (paladin's lay on hands, or channel divinity -- compared to armor+shields?-really --terrible. why even print it, it was insulting)