D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Obryn]

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?

There's a few big benefits, starting with simplicity. Even for experienced players, it's helpful to package all your stuff together. Choices are important, but the critical information about a PC should imo be their class, so you can say "paladin" and have a good idea what that means.

A secondary, mechanical benefit is the removal of weird synergies, allowing you to put interesting stuff into a class at multiple levels while not worrying about how they all interact.

I think there's less definable benefits, like hooking your imagination into archetypes and keeping a good game mechanical shorthand to talk about characters, but yes, those are hard to define being all full of "feels."

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

Do you believe it can be done without being broken? I think it can, especially with the more balanced classes in next. There should be a way for a 20th level split-class character to gain class features from both classes at a level higher than 10th. Maybe not all class features, and definitely not at level 16+, but enough to cement your identity as an expert member of both classes.

 

[Derren]

There's a few big benefits, starting with simplicity. Even for experienced players, it's helpful to package all your stuff together.

Do you really believe that the average D&D player, even new ones, requires things to be this simple and any more complexity would be a deal breaker for them?

 

[Obryn]

Do you really believe that the average D&D player, even new ones, requires things to be this simple and any more complexity would be a deal breaker for them?

You have it backwards.

I think simplicity is one of the only reasons to use a class based system, as opposed to skill based or point buy.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

You have it backwards.

I think simplicity is one of the only reasons to use a class based system, as opposed to skill based or point buy.

I go even further than that. Given that skill-based systems often provide optional templates to add simplicity, I don't even think that works as a reason for class based systems. Class-based primarily exists for the purpose of balance and tradition.

 

[Derren]

You have it backwards.

I think simplicity is one of the only reasons to use a class based system, as opposed to skill based or point buy.

I didn't ask if a class based system would be more simple, I asked if you think if this kind of simplicity is for whatever reason required.

 

[Obryn]

I didn't ask if a class based system would be more simple, I asked if you think if this kind of simplicity is for whatever reason required.

For fluffy and feels reasons, I think D&D is best when it leverages a strong and vibrant class based system that hews closely to archetypes.

And I think there's little reason to have classes if they're not easy to manage. So...

 

[Derren]

For fluffy and feels reasons, I think D&D is best when it leverages a strong and vibrant class based system that hews closely to archetypes.

You do not need classes to have Archetypes.
The people who want to play archetypes will build their characters according to them anyway, no classes needed. And people who want to play something different, for whatever reason, are not hindered to do that by the rules.

 

[Obryn]

You do not need classes to have Archetypes.
The people who want to play archetypes will build their characters according to them anyway, no classes needed. And people who want to play something different, for whatever reason, are not hindered to do that by the rules.

There's a design space cost to at will multiclassing that I described above, re: interactions. If you make it the default, class design becomes necessarily more limited.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

In my experience, the crazy broken x-1/x-1 gestalt you speak of was never more powerful than the single classed character in AD&D. Maybe the spells scaled better. But I remember playing many such "gestalts" and finding it more difficult than single classed players.

But we also played at average level 10-14** so we were outside the "typical" level range you are probably talking about.


** All of our campaigns would start at 20,000 xp or about 4-5 level. So getting to 10th level is not unreasonable with a year or two of weekly playing.