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).
D&D 5E Multiclassing Broken Down
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
"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
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
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:
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.)
Last edited:
keterys
First Post
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.
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
Legend
"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.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
They're doing rather well.. and they're a staple accompaniment to Indian food in the UK. Yum.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
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.
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.
...
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)
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)
