Multiclassing Fix?

[CapnZapp]

No?
A multiclassed character hits 20 at the same time as a level 15-16 classed character. At most you'll be five levels ahead. But even then, that's mostly sideways progression rather than vertical.

I'm afraid you were unlucky when you had that thought.

Imagine two 3,000 XP characters.

The first is a level 4 Barbarian.

The second is a level 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 Bard/Cleric/Druid/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard.

 

[schnee]

Yeah, this idea of yours breaks the game in all kinds of ways. And there is no reason for it. Multiclassing is the best it's ever been since I've been playing, and that was off and on since Blue Box Basic. (I skipped 2 and 4.)

The beauty of multiclassing now is that each level is such a HARD decision. You get so much! You give up so much! It's so difficult to call. And you generally break even. You gain breadth, and it's offset by depth.

The ASI's falling on 4 levels per character class is excellent. Since classes are front-loaded, it balances it all out by punishing the urge to do a bunch of 1-2 level dips to build a Pun-Pun. So, build a character, not a spreadsheet of optimal math.

 

[Yunru]

I'm afraid you were unlucky when you had that thought.

Imagine two 3,000 XP characters.

The first is a level 4 Barbarian.

The second is a level 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 Bard/Cleric/Druid/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue/Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard.

Yeah that's not possible.

Level 1 in first class: 0 xp total.
Level 1 in second class: 600 xp total.
Level 1 in third class: 1500 xp total.
Level 1 in fourth class: 2700 xp total.
Level 1 in fifth class: 4200 xp total.
Level 1 in sixth class: 6000 xp total.
Level 1 in seventh class: 8100 xp total.
Level 1 in eighth class: 10500 xp total.
Level 1 in ninth class: 13200 xp total.
Level 1 in tenth class: 16200 xp total.

So at 3000 xp the two are going to be equally leveled.

 

[Mephista]

Ehh..... not that great. While it could even work alright for warrior characters, it basically drags expertise-classes and spellcaster classes through the mud. If your intent is some kind of hybridized classes, its still leaving them hurting, while opening up other problems.

Spellcasters - while they do increase spell slots, they do not increase spells known, which hurts a lot. A level 5 cleric is far better than a wizard 3/cleric 3. And that's not touching on class features that improve their abiilties.

Expertise-users (rogue, ranger, parts of bard) - sneak attack, bardic inspiration, magic secrets, and various mobility and scounting options all fall away without class leveling. Experts don't necessarily focus on pure damage, but rather on skills and other tricks for exploration and interaction.

This just opens up more shinanigans by making things like the warlock 2/ sorcerer X better, which were already viable under the old system, and leaving the whole host of undesirable combinations untouched.

 

[Yunru]

Ehh..... not that great. While it could even work alright for warrior characters, it basically drags expertise-classes and spellcaster classes through the mud. If your intent is some kind of hybridized classes, its still leaving them hurting, while opening up other problems.

By making them cheaper?

Your logic makes no sense. If I had a range of items for sale, and reduce their prices by £1, they are all cheaper even if some benefit more than others.

Claiming that making multiclassing cheaper drags expertise classes through the mud is akin to saying that reducing the prices in the above makes certain prices dearer.

 

[Hillsy7]

What with redundant levels and delaying of features and whatnot, multiclassing feels a little off.

Not to the level it's broken, but enough that I want to play around with it a bit.
At first I tried working out a hybrid system a la 4e, but it was too much work (did get a nice Barbarian/Ranger cross-class out of it though).

So now I'm thinking simpler.
What if instead of experience being a static number you had to spend it to gain a level in a class, and then the experience points to level up can be applied to each class seperately.

So the first level in a single class costs 300 (?) XP, no matter how many other levels you have in other classes.

What problems can you forsee coming from this?

I'm really struggling to assess whether your solution(s) so far have game damaging drawbacks or not, because I'm somewhat confused as to the problem you're trying to solve.

It appears your complaint falls into 2 broad categories...

1) You might have to buy levels you don't care about (as there are very few "redundant" levels of any class in 5e)
2) The abilities you want appear too late in class progression, so you have to multi class more levels than you want to get an ability.

Aside from the issue around fundamentally redesigning classes in the first place....why should someone who wants to 'dip' a few levels of something get to avoid these 'issues', but someone who wants a pure class has to suffer them? Can I start as Commoner Class 0 and have 20 levels of Multiclass into Fighter please?

I don't get it - if you don't like level progression, change level progression. Why make level progression different depending on where you start? Are you just annoyed that 5e isn't Pathfinder where pureclassing is considered a n00b error?

 

[Yunru]

I'm really struggling to assess whether your solution(s) so far have game damaging drawbacks or not, because I'm somewhat confused as to the problem you're trying to solve.

It appears your complaint falls into 2 broad categories...

1) You might have to buy levels you don't care about (as there are very few "redundant" levels of any class in 5e)
2) The abilities you want appear too late in class progression, so you have to multi class more levels than you want to get an ability.

Aside from the issue around fundamentally redesigning classes in the first place....why should someone who wants to 'dip' a few levels of something get to avoid these 'issues', but someone who wants a pure class has to suffer them? Can I start as Commoner Class 0 and have 20 levels of Multiclass into Fighter please?

I don't get it - if you don't like level progression, change level progression. Why make level progression different depending on where you start? Are you just annoyed that 5e isn't Pathfinder where pureclassing is considered a n00b error?

Because people who want to "dip" know what they're getting into, they can avoid the issues and pratfalls that multiclassing brings.

They work around spellcasters being weaker, extra attack not stacking and the likes.

But the gal who goes "I want to be a X/Y because [character concept]!" Doesn't. And they get punished for it.

Multiclassing trades power for versatility, at a 1:1 ratio, which doesn't hold true in most cases.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

By making them cheaper?

Your logic makes no sense. If I had a range of items for sale, and reduce their prices by £1, they are all cheaper even if some benefit more than others.

Claiming that making multiclassing cheaper drags expertise classes through the mud is akin to saying that reducing the prices in the above makes certain prices dearer.

Your system makes picking up early levels of a class very cheap. This encourages dips which are already quite viable in the current system even further. If it is goping to cost you several thousand XP to level up again, spending an encounter or two's worth of XP to pick up Second Wind, Action Surge, and maybe even a better crit range or superiority dice is going to be well worth it.

Or picking up Expertise cheaply: The classes that get it often value it quite highly; often above the level-dependent aspects of the class. Under your system, a couple of levels dip to pick up expertise is going to be of minimal cost compared to going up a level in your primary class.
Giving much easier access to what the expert classes may regard as the prime aspect of their class to everyone is going to devalue those classes.

As pointed out, this system encourages the plucking of the low-hanging fruit that is already a common reason for multiclassing, just makes the cost of it even less impactful.

 

[Yunru]

Your system makes picking up early levels of a class very cheap. This encourages dips which are already quite viable in the current system even further. If it is goping to cost you several thousand XP to level up again, spending an encounter or two's worth of XP to pick up Second Wind, Action Surge, and maybe even a better crit range or superiority dice is going to be well worth it.

Or picking up Expertise cheaply: The classes that get it often value it quite highly; often above the level-dependent aspects of the class. Under your system, a couple of levels dip to pick up expertise is going to be of minimal cost compared to going up a level in your primary class.
Giving much easier access to what the expert classes may regard as the prime aspect of their class to everyone is going to devalue those classes.

As pointed out, this system encourages the plucking of the low-hanging fruit that is already a common reason for multiclassing, just makes the cost of it even less impactful.

But the XP is not truly the cost, the XP is the speed at which you can acquire.

The cost is very much the levels you take. 1 level in anything other than your main class loses you your capstone. 2 loses you your level 19 ASI. 4 loses you 9th level spells (if you're a caster). Etc.

You only have 20 levels still, it's just going sideways doesn't take as long.

 

[Hillsy7]

Because people who want to "dip" know what they're getting into, they can avoid the issues and pratfalls that multiclassing brings.

They work around spellcasters being weaker, extra attack not stacking and the likes.

But the gal who goes "I want to be a X/Y because [character concept]!" Doesn't. And they get punished for it.

Multiclassing trades power for versatility, at a 1:1 ratio, which doesn't hold true in most cases.

OK - assuming that these issues are indeed issues (I'm not convinced), you've made 2 decisions I personally don't think hold water.....

1) The Gal who says I want to be X/Y also has a GM at the table - collaboratively, the GM can allow a minor class rejig if the player feels they have made a mistake in MC-ing, or have a quick conversation about choices to alert the multiclasser they might be making an "error"....if they still want to push ahead because it fits thematically, what the hey.....

2) You say Multiclassing Should trade power for versatility 1:1 - but that only makes sense if you believe Pureclasses trades XP for Power at a 1:1 ratio. It doesn't. Therefore, you're making a demand for multiclassing that you don't apply to pureclassing.

Again, it seems to me you want a level [x] character to be as powerful/versatile with a make-up of any classes as long as the class level equals [x].....the problem there lies in class progression and class abilities, not multi-classing. By making multiclassing "cheaper" as a solution so people can make non-optimal choices for less cost, all you are doing is eradicating the natural balance over the course of 20 levels for each class that's been designed into the game.

Considering that by your own measure, an acceptable solution is for a GM to say to an unaware player "By the way, just a warning, are you aware that you are going to have to put 4 levels in this class to get what you want, and that means you'll miss out on 'this'....are you ok with that decision?".....Completely dismantling the balance of the class system built into 5e seems excessive and open to crazy abuse....