D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Arduin's]

Arguably.

I prefer levels being equal among classes(ex, a 10th level Fighter is about on par with a 10th level Wizard is about on par with a 10th level Barbarian, etc).

I would too but, at 10th level they aren't equal. Hence, the differing XP tables in the original game.

 

[EnglishLanguage]

I would too but, at 10th level they aren't equal. Hence, the differing XP tables in the original game.

And that's always been one of D&D's biggest failings and why I've stayed away from it until 4e.

 

[Obryn]

That's why I prefer unique XP charts for classes. If as the GM you have determined that a 10th level Wizard is twice as powerful as a 10th level Fighter, you require 2X the XP to reach that level for the wizard. Self balancing. Since in most games all the PC's get roughly the same XP per session, the Wizard levels much more slowly.

Or, better yet, you scale advancement so that 1 level of Wizard is just as good as 1 level of Fighter and "level" means something even when divorced from a class name.

Ad hoc buffet multiclassing more or less relies on the assumption that 1 level of a class is a meaningful "chunk" - and that one level of one class is just as valuable as one level of another class. If you can't manage this, you shouldn't be implementing it, imo.

 

[Sadras]

Since a 1st level Fighter gets that why wouldn't a multi-class 1st level fighter? A fighter that later takes a level in Wizard gets all that 1st level spell casting ability...

Arguably, being able to wear armour and use most weapons is better in the long run than 2 x 1st level spells. I'm implying the 1st level dip is to fighter is far more mechanically beneficial, IMO, than 1 level dip in mage. Do you agree with this or disagree?

 

[pemerton]

That's why I prefer unique XP charts for classes. If as the GM you have determined that a 10th level Wizard is twice as powerful as a 10th level Fighter, you require 2X the XP to reach that level for the wizard. Self balancing. Since in most games all the PC's get roughly the same XP per session, the Wizard levels much more slowly.

at 10th level they aren't equal. Hence, the differing XP tables in the original game.

Which "original game" are you talking about?

In 1st ed AD&D a 10th level fighter needs half-a-million XP. A 10th level MU needs less than 375,000. (I haven't got my PHB here, but OSRIC tells me that it is 250,000, the same as fighter needs to get to 9th level.)

For a given XP total, a wizard will be equal to or higher level than a fighter from 40,000 XP (where both are 6th) until one-and-three-quarter-million (where the fighter reaches 15th while the MU is still 14th).

 

[Dausuul]

Or, better yet, you scale advancement so that 1 level of Wizard is just as good as 1 level of Fighter and "level" means something even when divorced from a class name.

Ad hoc buffet multiclassing more or less relies on the assumption that 1 level of a class is a meaningful "chunk" - and that one level of one class is just as valuable as one level of another class. If you can't manage this, you shouldn't be implementing it, imo.

Yes to all of this. XP tables by class are complexity for complexity's sake. If 2,500 XP is level 2 for the wizard but level 3 for the rogue, and the wizard and rogue are balanced at this point, then the designers should do one of the following:

• Take everything the 3rd-level rogue gets, give it to the 2nd-level rogue, and put the rogue on the wizard's XP table.
• Take everything the 2nd-level wizard gets, give it to the 3rd-level wizard, create an intermediate wizard level, and put the wizard on the rogue's XP table.

The end result is that the relative balance of the classes at 2,500 XP remains unchanged, but "level 2" and "level 3" now have a consistent meaning across classes.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Well said, Dausuul --

Individualized XP tables is a way of correcting a fault in level design. It's needless complexity, shifting "balance" from levels (a 20-point scale) to XP.

 

[Arduin's]

Or, better yet, you scale advancement so that 1 level of Wizard is just as good as 1 level of Fighter and "level" means something even when divorced from a class name.
.

Well, that "D&D" game doesn't exist. So, just going with what rule sets are available...

 

[Arduin's]

Arguably, being able to wear armour and use most weapons is better in the long run than 2 x 1st level spells. I'm implying the 1st level dip is to fighter is far more mechanically beneficial, IMO, than 1 level dip in mage. Do you agree with this or disagree?

That depends on circumstance and how a GM runs things. A wizard taking one level in fighter may not benefit that much at higher levels compared to spending that effort into the next wizard level. In my game that wiz can't wear armor if casting spells so there goes one big advantage.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, that "D&D" game doesn't exist. So, just going with what rule sets are available...

If there were an edition where classes with varied advancement charts were balanced by XP (there isn't, but we can pretend), then it would be straightforward to apply the method I described to balance them by level. Level is just a label we slap on a package of stats and abilities. It's trivial to peel it off and stick it on a different package instead. With some interpolation for the levels where the XP values don't line up exactly, you'd end up with a unified level chart and the XP balance unchanged.