D&D 5E Multiclassing in Next

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think 5e will have to walk a very careful tightrope because you don't want taking a level in a new class to give too much or too little. Unfortunately, it appears that simplicity (or alternately, rules elegance) will be the casualty.

I've always been of the view that one of the key reasons why spellcaster multiclassing was problematic in 3e was because gaining one spellcaster level led to gains in three or four dimensions:

1. An increase in the number and power of spell slots available (this can be further decomposed into the total number of slots and the power of each slot);
2. Access to more powerful spells, about every other level or so; and
3. An increase in the power of individual spells.

What we're seeing at the moment is a healthy dose of both 1 and 2. Wizards are quadratic (I'll argue that before they were cubic!).

The problem is, gaining a level in a non-spellcasting class gives you perhaps a bit more to-hit, a bit more damage, a special ability. Gaining a spellcasting level gives you more spells and better spells. In the simplest case, a level of Rogue gives you another +1d6 on sneak attack, and you can do that as frequently as you previously could. A level in Fighter gives you slightly better, perhaps more, expertise dice, which you can use as frequently as you could before. A level in Wizard gives you more frequent use of your existing spells and you get new, more powerful spells.

To fix this requires a fundamental shift in how spellcasting progresses. It needn't be the one size fits all approach of 4E, but something has to change.

If we had to keep 9 spell levels (which is hard work), then I would attempt to detach the ability to cast them from Wizard level. Perhaps return to the requirement of 10+spell level Intelligence to cast a particular spell. Then I would have a spell-point-like preparation system, so that a Wizard gets an increasing number of spell slots available, but higher level spells take up more slots. A Wizard would have an entry in their class table for 'spell slots' and 'maximum number of spells', but spell level would be detached (hence this would be much easier if there were fewer levels and they could be curved less dramatically). Getting a single level of Wizard might let you cast a pretty good spell, but you'll just have one, or you can have a suite of lower level spells. The only problem is preventing super-spells being available immediately (and my suggestion here is returning to the days of no automatic spell learning - these things exist but must be earned!).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I started off with AD&D back in the 1970s, 3Ed/3.5Ed style multiclassing is far and away my favorite.

 

[FireLance]

The only problem is preventing super-spells being available immediately (and my suggestion here is returning to the days of no automatic spell learning - these things exist but must be earned!).

There is one other possibility that could work, but which would add an additional layer of complication to spells: anyone who wants to learn a spell must meet certain prerequisites. This is an approach that was previously tried for the maneuvers in the 3.5e Book of Nine Swords.

Prerequisites could be expressed in terms of knowledge of a specific spell or spells (e.g. before you can learn fireball, you need to learn burning hands), knowledge of a certain number of spells of a particular type (e.g. before you can learn wall of fire, you need to know at least two other fire spells), a particular level of skill (e.g. before you can learn 3rd-level spells, you need 4 ranks of Magical Lore), etc.

Of course, this also works better when there are more restrictions to learning spells. A wizard who can just add spells to his spellbook would find this to be more of just a speedbump and less of an actual constraint.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There is one other possibility that could work, but which would add an additional layer of complication to spells: anyone who wants to learn a spell must meet certain prerequisites. This is an approach that was previously tried for the maneuvers in the 3.5e Book of Nine Swords.

Prerequisites could be expressed in terms of knowledge of a specific spell or spells (e.g. before you can learn fireball, you need to learn burning hands), knowledge of a certain number of spells of a particular type (e.g. before you can learn wall of fire, you need to know at least two other fire spells), a particular level of skill (e.g. before you can learn 3rd-level spells, you need 4 ranks of Magical Lore), etc.

Of course, this also works better when there are more restrictions to learning spells. A wizard who can just add spells to his spellbook would find this to be more of just a speedbump and less of an actual constraint.

I think this sort of thing would work and create appropriately themed Wizards (rather than the swiss army spellcasters we have had before).

Basically, there has never been much of an effort to restrict access to abilities related to skills and physical combat, but there is a huge barrier to entry to casting a decent spell.

 

[Jack99]

Presumably the intention is to ensure that you can only play your character concept once you've got several levels behind you and picked up the relevant prestige class. That's one more tick in the "No Sale" column for me.

That's some assumption you have got going there.

While I started off with AD&D back in the 1970s, 3Ed/3.5Ed style multiclassing is far and away my favorite.

Haha. I totally read. "When I started off with AD&D back in the 1970s, 3Ed/3.5Ed style multiclassing was far and away my favorite. Which would be much more fun.

 

[MoonSong]

There is one other possibility that could work, but which would add an additional layer of complication to spells: anyone who wants to learn a spell must meet certain prerequisites. This is an approach that was previously tried for the maneuvers in the 3.5e Book of Nine Swords.

Prerequisites could be expressed in terms of knowledge of a specific spell or spells (e.g. before you can learn fireball, you need to learn burning hands), knowledge of a certain number of spells of a particular type (e.g. before you can learn wall of fire, you need to know at least two other fire spells), a particular level of skill (e.g. before you can learn 3rd-level spells, you need 4 ranks of Magical Lore), etc.

Of course, this also works better when there are more restrictions to learning spells. A wizard who can just add spells to his spellbook would find this to be more of just a speedbump and less of an actual constraint.

I'm not sure, to me this imposes a heavy penalty on sorcerers, as that further restricts their versatility. Anything you do to the wizard, the sorcerer suffers it twice as hard.

 

[Grimmjow]

i like it!

 

[tuxgeo]

What do you think a rogue with the necromancer theme and soldier background is? He's a thief/mage/fighter. Doesn't even have to be a half-elf (2nd edition represent! [just kidding]).

I'm glad you said, "just kidding," because I don't believe that description.

To me, a 1st-level rogue with the necromancer specialty and the soldier background is a has-been warrior who is a member of the rogue class, but who has no magic capability at all because the "Aura of Souls" feat requires spellcasting ability before a character can take it.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

Another choice I can't get behind WotC.

 

[Greg K]

This won't work for me. 3e is my favorite edition (provided I stay away from most WOTC supplements), but I thought that the default multi-classing rules sucked)). I want characters to have to learn 0-level spells before taking a level granting 1st level, etc. I also hope that the training rules (time, access to a trainer, etc.) are there as a default and that there are even pre-requisites skills (Magic Lore for Wizards, Forbidden Lore for Warlocks, etc.) and, possibly, a feat granting the ability to cast 0-level spells or going through 0-level in a class

If they do go with a 3e approach, I
1. hope they reintroduce 0 level/0 level multiclassing at first level or some equivalent
2. make multi-classing work more like Star Wars: Saga Editon. Class Armor and Weapon Proficiencies are feats granted to first level characters. If one multi-classes into a new class, the character can choose to take either
a. an Armor Proficiency feat;
b. a Weapon Proficiency feat; or
c. another class feature;

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm glad you said, "just kidding," because I don't believe that description.

To me, a 1st-level rogue with the necromancer specialty and the soldier background is a has-been warrior who is a member of the rogue class, but who has no magic capability at all because the "Aura of Souls" feat requires spellcasting ability before a character can take it.

What do you think of my hafling Magic user theif Fighter?

What about my Dwarven Acolyte Sage Rogue (Theif)

 

[tuxgeo]

What do you think of my hafling [sic] Magic user theif [sic] Fighter?

What about my Dwarven Acolyte Sage Rogue (Theif) [sic]

I would like to see the builds, but basically I think this: The halfling fighter is a fighter, and the dwarf rogue is a rogue.
They're not multiclassed, but they do get some of the benefits of other classes. More to the point, the halfling won't get the wizard's automatic +3 to magic attacks, and the dwarf won't get the cleric's automatic +2 to magic attacks; and neither character gets any kind of "Spell DC" or "Channel Divinity" or "Spells per Day" or "Spellbook." If the campaign uses XP, neither of these characters will have to divide the XP between one class and another.

If the halfling used Finesse Weapons, that could reduce his/her multiple attribute dependency. Also, stealthy dwarves are "unexpected," so that's kind of neat. (Are these fully fleshed out characters with sub-races and names, or are they simply talking points?)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would like to see the builds, but basically I think this: The halfling fighter is a fighter, and the dwarf rogue

see I see the hafling as a skirmisher and the dwarf as a researcher

(Are these fully fleshed out characters with sub-races and names, or are they simply talking points?)

the hafling is and the dwarf was mostly real fleshed out.

I drew both up, and my elf ranger up as my 3ideas but the hafling got the most play. (High elf bounty hunter healer fighter(bow))

My hafling fights with short sword and sling

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I sort of like the general idea - have a short chapter like the 4e "hybrid" chapter that goes through each class and details how it works in multiclassing. And I imagine SOME of the confusion will be solved by having spells and powers scale by "character level" instead of "class level."

But this bird's-eye view of the issue doesn't really explain a lot of the obvious issues with such a system. The biggest one is a point others have already made: to be balanced and useful, your fighter10/wizard1 needs high-level spells, but to be "realistic," it seems weird that he can learn Cone of Cold before he even learns Magic Missile. I'm guessing they're going to have to rely on rules options to please everybody here: for example, there could be an optional rules module saying you can only multiclassing by alternating two classes starting at first level (to simulate hybrids or 2e dual-classing).

But even after they decide where they're coming down on that dilemma, there's still a lot of trickiness to be figured out here. Everyone in this thread is focusing on spell levels, since that was such an issue in 3e, but what about fighter expertise dice? Does a wizard10/fighter1 get 1d6, or does he get something like 1d12? 4d6? 4d12? If he only gets one die he'll probably never be able to use high-level fighter maneuvers like Whirlwind that require 3+ dice - would that be akin to a multiclass wizard stuck with useless low-level spells?

How about a rogue10/sorcerer1 - how much Willpower does he get? Probably less than a level 11 sorcerer but more than a level 1 sorcerer, but what's the formula? Does he get all the origin transformations of an 11th level sorcerer, or just the first-level one, or somewhere in between? How about origin-specific spells like Dragon Breath?

How about warlocks - right now the only difference in combat between a level 1 and level 5 warlock is 1d6 of Eldritch Blast damage (and a few more invocations known, almost all of which are defensive, evasive, or non-combat in nature). If a rogue10/warlock1 gets the same Eldritch Blast damage as a warlock11, is it really worth all those extra warlock levels just for the versatility of more invocations known (when you're still stuck using only 2 of them per encounter)? How about pact powers?

And of course every other class, and every new class, would have an equally thorny bundle of questions to be resolved, many of which would seem to require a bunch of different variables. Now, each of these questions can be answered with careful consideration and playtesting, but I'm not sure how they could avoid it being utterly confusing and 100 pages long when written up into a chapter.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, it looks like I've got yet another drum to bang: non-additive levels.

A Fighter-10/Wizard 1 is just that - a 10th-level Fighter and (mechanically independently) a 1st-level Wizard. She fights like a 10th and cast spells like a 1st. She takes the better of her two options when it comes to things like saving throws, she can use devices usually available only to Wizards, she has to take her armour off before casting any spells, etc. Because her levels are so disparate her hit die remains a d10, gained only when her Fighter side bumps. (were the levels more even her hit die would reflect this - a 50-50 split here would give a d7, for example). And XP earned are divided down between the two classes (though to get a F10/W1 it would take about a 99%-1% split; either that or she spent a bunch of time to pick up the Wizard side after running as a single-class Fighter for several levels) on a ratio determined by the player before each adventure.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The biggest one is a point others have already made: to be balanced and useful, your fighter10/wizard1 needs high-level spells, but to be "realistic," it seems weird that he can learn Cone of Cold before he even learns Magic Missile.

I really can't agree that a F10/W1 needs to be "balanced & useful." He's a fighter who learned some minor magics, so he should be a little bit better & more flexible than F10, and a lot tougher than W1. That's it.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

3.X style multiclassing because the difference in power between level X and level X+1 is not exactly the same for all values of X in many games.

They pretty much have to figure out how much power each level will give and its comparable benefits to going from Level 0 to Level 1 in a new class.

 

[keterys]

3e's multiclassing and prestige classes are some of the scarier elements to pluck from that edition. I think I'd prefer any of the other options than 3e's for that particular mechanic. Maybe as a purely optional system, but also provide at least one or two other purely optional systems that are _much_ simpler, allow multiclassing at first level, require less effort to prevent "gaming" them, and aren't so laden with character performance failing pitfalls.

I suspect I'd most like something between 1st edition's and hybrid rules, preferably without making things too complicated. Like for every class set its primary/secondary abilities and multiclassing loses one bucket.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The main reason I disliked AD&D multiclassing- after the racial restrictions that need not be dragged along- is that it only supported one kind of multiclassing PC concept, namely, someone who has always mixed their adbvancement and always will.

With 3Ed's version and- pains me though it does to admit it- 4Ed's version, your PC can decide to come to a class later in life and only advance in it so far as he/she/it chooses.

Both are valid PC concepts that should be supported, IMHO.

Like I said upthread, I think 3Ed's take on multiclassing flexibility is superior, so I fully support that.

However (and I should have said this sooner), choosing between AD&D's and 4Ed's takes on "always had it, always will" multiclassing, I prefer 4Ed's Hybrids. Why?

Because in AD&D, the penalty was typically about 1-2 levels of lag in class level abilities, which generally wasn't much of a penalty for all the added flexibility you got. You might lose a dice off an attack spell, and getting that 9th level of spells was a struggle, but the flexibility you had was grand.

In contrast, a Hybrid character chooses which few things from each class he'll master...and ignores/loses the rest of the class features. What things he can do within a class he does basically as well as a non-Hybrid member of that class, but that which he has set aside to gain flexibility is lost to him.

So, my FULL answer is that I'd like to see a melding of the 3Ed multiclassing rules and their flexibility partnered with the 4Ed Hybrid model.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Sounds pretty groovy so far, no front-loaded-cherry-picking (Fighter 1/Divine Bard 4/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Dwarf Paragon 1/Hammer of Moradin 4, etc, rubbish) and spells are no longer dependant on level.

Though i do like the 1st/2nd Ed multi-class (fighter/magic-user/thief) from level 1 action.