D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Obryn]

Given that we have At-Will multiclassing, what do you suggest the fix is?

If we're stuck with it, only allow lesser versions of secondary, tertiary, etc. classes.

The easiest way to do it is to organize the more powerful features into the ... themes/subclasses/specializations/whatever they're called. And you only get one of them, no matter how many classes you pull in.

A more complex way to do it is to make "multiclass versions" of the four basic classes which likewise strip out all the troublesome features.

After a lot of discussion, I agree that stat restrictions are a terrible way to go about balancing it all. Between rolled stats, building characters above 1st level to take out the painful levels, etc., it's insufficient.

 

[bogmad]

If we're stuck with it, only allow lesser versions of secondary, tertiary, etc. classes.

Is this for mechanical balance reasons?
Or is it more to prevent archetypes being mixed and if they must be then the mixed multiclass should be sufficiently sub-par, so as to make a person think long and hard if she wants to sacrifice flexibility for effectiveness?

 

[Obryn]

Is this for mechanical balance reasons?
Or is it more to prevent archetypes being mixed and if they must be then the mixed multiclass should be sufficiently sub-par, so as to make a person think long and hard if she wants to sacrifice flexibility for effectiveness?

Both. Mechanically, if there are fewer features, there are exponentially fewer interactions between them.

Archetypally, because I think D&D is best when it leverages a strong and vibrant class system. I'd rather see a new class for "Fighter/Wizard" than clumsily try to fit together pieces of each class.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Both. Mechanically, if there are fewer features, there are exponentially fewer interactions between them.

Archetypally, because I think D&D is best when it leverages a strong and vibrant class system. I'd rather see a new class for "Fighter/Wizard" than clumsily try to fit together pieces of each class.

I agree that D&D has traditionally been a strongly class-based game, and I don't like diluting it with level dipping essentially turning it into "build your own class." However, I also feel that the traditional multiclassing options from AD&D have a venerable place in the system. Even BECMI had fighter/wizard elves. So the question for me is how to preserve that tradition, and most of the multiclassing we've seen since AD&D has rather poorly accomplished it.

 

[Dausuul]

So the question for me is how to preserve that tradition, and most of the multiclassing we've seen since AD&D has rather poorly accomplished it.

You can take "most of" and "since AD&D" out of that sentence. Thanks to exponential XP charts, AD&D multiclassing within the level range of most campaigns amounted to "Instead of being a wizard X, you are a wizard X-1/fighter X-1 gestalt." It was crazy-broken. With 3E you had to wait for ill-conceived splatbooks to really exploit the multiclass system. AD&D let you do it out of the box.

IMO, the ideal multiclass system would support both the 1-2 level dip and the even split. I think they're on the way to accomplishing that; there is clearly a lot of thought going into it. To enable a more "old-school" feel, they could include a module along these lines:

Limited Multiclassing
If your DM chooses to allow only limited multiclassing, you use the multiclass system as described, but with the following restrictions:

• Non-humans who multi-class must spread their class levels as evenly as possible. Your level in any class can never be more than 1 level ahead of any other class. Furthermore, once you reach 2nd level in any class, you can never add another class.
• Multi-classed elves must be part wizard.
• Multi-classed dwarves must be part fighter.
• Multi-classed halflings must be part rogue.
• Humans do not have to keep their levels balanced. However, once you put a level in a new class, you have abandoned your old class forever and can never advance in it again.

 

[TwoSix]

The same logic works even better in reverse: What's a fighter going to do with a level of wizard, that could possibly compare to the value of another fighter level? We have people arguing that wizards get too much benefit from dipping a level of fighter. I disagree but they make a decent case. I challenge anyone to show significant value in a fighter dipping a level (just one level, we already know Aura of Antipathy is broken, Mearls has said it's being fixed) of wizard.

I've been in enough balance fights on MMO forums to know that if half the people think something is too weak, and half think it's too strong, it's probably just right.

 

[MoonSong]

Archetypally, because I think D&D is best when it leverages a strong and vibrant class system. I'd rather see a new class for "Fighter/Wizard" than clumsily try to fit together pieces of each class.

YMMV on this one, your strong and vibrant archetypes are my rigid and singleminded stereotypes. Maybe to you strong archetypes are cool and work smoothly, but to me they get in the way of having characters that are unique individuals. A lot of my characters don't truly fit into an archetype. (And no, please no "if you don't want it go play a point buy game", those things have their uses, but are too demanding and it takes a very long time to get a character done in for example GURPS. Asking for "at-will" multicalssing isn't a matter of wanting to undermine the class system, but rather revindicating it. IMO being a cleric doesn't mean much if you can act like a cleric by taking feats and reskinning everything you do.)

 

[Obryn]

YMMV on this one, your strong and vibrant archetypes are my rigid and singleminded stereotypes. Maybe to you strong archetypes are cool and work smoothly, but to me they get in the way of having characters that are unique individuals. A lot of my characters don't truly fit into an archetype. (And no, please no "if you don't want it go play a point buy game", those things have their uses, but are too demanding and it takes a very long time to get a character done in for example GURPS. Asking for "at-will" multicalssing isn't a matter of wanting to undermine the class system, but rather revindicating it. IMO being a cleric doesn't mean much if you can act like a cleric by taking feats and reskinning everything you do.)

Of course this is just my opinion of what's at the heart of D&D, no question, and I'm not claiming anything otherwise. My opinion, which I've come to only in the past few years, is that at-will multiclassing "broke" D&D in a substantial and maybe irreversible way, and that it represents the biggest fundamental shift from the game's roots and legacy in its 40 year history. But I don't expect others to hold that as any kind of divine truth, it's just some jerk on the Internet's crazy belief.

That's why I'm more arguing about design and balance concerns, which are a lot less abstract and a lot less prone to hyperbole and nonsense.

 

[Dausuul]

What purpose(s) do you see D&D's strong archetypes serving? I also have a sense that there is value there, but it's tricky teasing out exactly what that value is, so I'd like to hear your view. It makes things easier for new players, of course, but for experienced players what do you feel is the benefit?

 

[ccooke]

What purpose(s) do you see D&D's strong archetypes serving? I also have a sense that there is value there, but it's tricky teasing out exactly what that value is, so I'd like to hear your view. It makes things easier for new players, of course, but for experienced players what do you feel is the benefit?

New players