D&D 5E Multiclassing in Next

[mattcolville]

The Fighter 10/Wizard 1 challenge is good to use as an exercise.

The Fighter 10 who takes Wizard 1 isn't doing so because he wants 1D4 damage every round. He's doing so because he wants to augment his Fighting in a Wizardly way.

How you make that work, I don't know. I have some ideas, but they'd be super noodly. Like, A fighter, mutliclassing into Wizard, should get different stuff than a Cleric multiclassing into Wizard. Because the Cleric doesn't take a level of Wizard because he wants to augment his Fighterness, he does it to augment his Clericness.

The 3E system was elegant in conception. Levels became a resource to "spend." I like that, I've always liked it. But I think the 3E team took the whole thing way too literally.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wonder if we will see mystic theurge or spell swords

 

[I'm A Banana]

If level 1 is the problem...

I don't see why they don't silo level 1 differently.

This goes back to the vertical/horizontal axes in game design.

As 4e rather correctly realized, it's not a fair trade to trade one for the other. If you trade that +1 to hit for a magic missile, that's not a fair trade, and it leads to things like "I can do 1,000 different things...none of which can be effective at all at the level I'm at!"

This is a good discovery, and it deserves to be kept.

So, I guess in 5e as it stands now, if I understand mearls correctly, they think that level 1 offers too much horizontal advancement, and that future levels don't offer enough vertical advancement.

So, you have a cleric. Clerics channel divinity and cast divine magic and have weapon and armor proficiencies and maybe have feats or whatever.

The risk is that a Fighter who gained level 2 takes a level of Cleric and now has way too much at his disposal.

The risk is also that the same fighter who takes Level 16 of Cleric only gets first level magic that's useless against the 16th-level undead he's fighting.

5e is going to try and solve both problems. So if you're a 15th level fighter taking your 16th level in cleric, you can still do things as mightily as a level 16 cleric can, and if you're a 1st level fighter taking your 2nd level in cleric, you won't be doing ALMOST EVERYTHING your cleric buddy can do.

The problem can be partially solved like this: you have a character level that measures your overall vertical power. Your assortment of class levels measures your overall horizontal power.

So if you're a 15th level fighter taking your 16th level in Cleric, you'll have the same raw dice potential as a 16th level cleric (your heals will be 16th level, your smites will be 16th level, your spells will be 16th level), but you'll have 15 Fighter Tricks for your one Cleric Trick.

There is a problem with this, called out above, in that it takes some rationalization.

Wizard: "Finally! I've attained great magical power and have mastered the manipulation of reality that grants me the ability to call upon raw elemental fire! I've learned Fireball!."
Fighter: "Hey! Me too!"
Wizard: "But...I've studied and sacrificed for this moment. I have abandoned friends and family and cloistered myself in my tower...all so I can learn these secrets."
Fighter: "Ha! Silly wizard. I got drunk and partied hard and now I can do it, too!"
Wizard: "But...my life's work..."
Fighter: "Hey, don't look so down! You can still do a whole bunch of other magical tricks! Like that one where you can make a magical hand carry your stuff! And that one that keeps your beers cold! That's cool!"
Wizard: "Mere cantrips...all in preparation for this..."
Fighter: "Well, you can sit here in a stupor, I'm gonna go blow things up with a fireball. I've got enough HP, I can probably even stand in the middle of it!"
Wizard: "YOU'LL BE FRIED ALI-...wait...actually, that's far superior to my strategy..."
Fighter: "HA! You sound like a liberal arts major. All Boo-hoo, I've wasted my life, all this debt for no reason, wah-wah-wah..."
Wizard: "...all my sacrifice..."
Fighter: "Ha! Well, later! Doot dee doo!"

The above illustrates one of the more critical problems with this: you loose one of your main motivators for gaining levels. If I've been a cleric for 15 levels focusing on that awesome 8th-level cleric spell I've always wanted and Thiefy McGee comes along and takes one level of Cleric and all of a sudden can do the same thing, that stops me from feeling special. Even if I can do hundreds of other things, having that carrot shared between me and and the rogue is a bit of a bitter pill. And then you'll have the "jack and master of all trades" category, where you get a character taking one-level dips into everything and not only being a 16th level character overall, but being effectively a 16th level rogue, a 16th level wizard, a 16th level fighter, a 16th level cleric...all in one character. Okay, they can't do EVERYTHING each of them can do, but they can do at least one thing from each, at a significant level of power. I can choose to sneak attack, and fireball, and stunt, and heal and all of a sudden I am a one-person party (which isn't an undesirable result for some games!)

So there needs to be some refinement of that idea. One option is for "class exclusive abilities," things that need X levels of a class in order to open up. These should typically be big, defining things. You don't get Fireball until you've had at least 3 levels of Wizard, or something.

As for the level 1 breadth-buster, what I would prefer is instead to have special rules governing your first character level, rather than overload a class with level 1 abilities so much that it mandates you invent an entirely new table for it just to cover that spread.

So, for instance, only your first level of any particular class grants you weapon and armor proficiencies. Only your first level gives you the +1 to an ability score that your class gives you. Etc. After your CHARACTER passes level one, they don't get that from their class anymore.

That'd certainly avoid duplicating the class tables!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Fighter 10 who takes Wizard 1 isn't doing so because he wants 1D4 damage every round. He's doing so because he wants to augment his Fighting in a Wizardly way.

How you make that work, I don't know. I have some ideas, but they'd be super noodly. Like, A fighter, mutliclassing into Wizard, should get different stuff than a Cleric multiclassing into Wizard. Because the Cleric doesn't take a level of Wizard because he wants to augment his Fighterness, he does it to augment his Clericness.

For me, it was like that.

When my high-level Ftr dipped into Wizard, he did so to gain things like...say...the ability to Mage Hand some keys from the jailer when he got tossed in the klink when his buddies weren't around. A thief who did likewise might want Grease to slow down pursuit when he goes "solo shopping"...after hours.

OR

Perhaps that F10/W1 was a Mage first, but decided he liked the catharsis he felt whacking people over the head with a great big piece of metal.

(BTW, I have played that psychotic Fighter/Mage who drops a Fireball on his own position...fun, fun fun!)

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The spells vs. other stuff problem is fundamental to the multiclass issue because of the depth of these two features.

Access to spell levels is deep, like a feat tree but with 17 stages. Access to +1 to hit is shallow because it does the same thing for everyone, there's no requirement to use it. For multiclassing to work, spellcasting needs to become more shallow - fewer levels, or some different approach to accessing more powerful spells. I don't want to see crazy special rules just to make this work.

 

[keterys]

I'd still prefer something like casters get 6-8 spells, max. So they get cooler and cooler spells as they go up, but hit a maximum number they can use in the day. Like the example wizards in Vance who really only had a few spells.

And then you can multiclass and get a lot fewer spells, at a slightly reduced rate. But having an 11th level character (ftr 10 / wiz 1) magic missile for 1d4 is silly. As is having an 11th wiz have 30 spells and they toss out their lvl 1s for big buffs, cause there's no real cost.

 

[slobster]

I'd still prefer something like casters get 6-8 spells, max. So they get cooler and cooler spells as they go up, but hit a maximum number they can use in the day. Like the example wizards in Vance who really only had a few spells.

And then you can multiclass and get a lot fewer spells, at a slightly reduced rate. But having an 11th level character (ftr 10 / wiz 1) magic missile for 1d4 is silly. As is having an 11th wiz have 30 spells and they toss out their lvl 1s for big buffs, cause there's no real cost.

I've always liked this idea. Even if they don't do it for the wizards, I'd like to see it visited for another casting class down the line, say illusionists or shadowmagi.

 

[Zaran]

It's the plausibility that bothers me too. I suppose one could justify it from the fact that the XP it takes to go from 10th to 11th is a lot more than what it takes to go from 1st to 2nd; so gaining that level represents getting multiple levels of wizard?

EDIT:

Also, it's hard not to be a little cynical about trying to enforce prestige-classes-as-organizations. We'll see.

You know I doubt they are doing this but this could work. Your 10th level fighter goes to wizard school. If their XP went back to 0 without losing the 10 levels of fighter , they would go up quickly in power with 11th level adventuers but will still never make up the xp already spent on the fighter.

What I'm saying is what if it takes 10000 xp to go from 10th level to 11th level fighter. If a 10th level fighter decides he wants to be a wizard. That 10000 xp might be worth 4 levels of Wizard. so by the time the party is 11th level the fighter/wizard is 10/4 because they are essentally starting from scratch in xp. The big IF for this would be to make sure 4 levels of wizard is never as good in martial fighting ability as 1 level of fighter.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I wonder if we will see mystic theurge

I would like to see a return of that in some form, but obviously not the butt-ass broken way it was implemented in 3rd Ed.

 

[keterys]

I would like to see a return of that in some form, but obviously not the butt-ass broken way it was implemented in 3rd Ed.

For clarity... do you mean overpowered, underpowered, or just 'works really badly'?

I mean, I could see an argument for any and all of those.

I think I'd just go with "unsatisfying", rather than broken, myself.

 

[mlund]

The real problem in the math is going to stem from figuring out some sort of scaling metrics to deal with all the math problems.

First of all, the cost you paid for an off-class level increases retroactively as you level. Fighter 1 / Thief 1 doesn't seem like a big deal. You pull from the table for a single level at Level 2. By Fighter 9 / Thief 1 that Thief level is costing you Fighter 10. Are you still only getting what you got at second level for it? If it isn't scaling then multi-classing would be a sucker's bet.

But then how do you reconcile that with the number of levels put into multi-classing? What makes it any better to go Fighter 8 / Thief 2 vs. Fighter 9 / Thief 1 vs. Fighter 8 / Thief 1 / Magic-User 1. How does spell-casting scale so that Fighter 8 / Magic-User 2 is that much more powerful in casting ability than Fighter 8 / Magic-User 1 / Cleric 1?

The devil is in the details for this sort of thing, and there are a TON of details to work out.

- Marty Lund

 

[Steely_Dan]

The real problem in the math is going to stem from figuring out some sort of scaling metrics to deal with all the math problems.

First of all, the cost you paid for an off-class level increases retroactively as you level. Fighter 1 / Thief 1 doesn't seem like a big deal. You pull from the table for a single level at Level 2. By Fighter 9 / Thief 1 that Thief level is costing you Fighter 10. Are you still only getting what you got at second level for it? If it isn't scaling then multi-classing would be a sucker's bet.

But then how do you reconcile that with the number of levels put into multi-classing? What makes it any better to go Fighter 8 / Thief 2 vs. Fighter 9 / Thief 1 vs. Fighter 8 / Thief 1 / Magic-User 1. How does spell-casting scale so that Fighter 8 / Magic-User 2 is that much more powerful in casting ability than Fighter 8 / Magic-User 1 / Cleric 1?

The devil is in the details for this sort of thing, and there are a TON of details to work out.

Well obviously Weapon and Magic Attacks will be adjusted accordingly.

And magic is not level-dependant; a sleep spell is a sleep spell, always useful, as this edition seems to aspire to (keep it up).

 

[john112364]

Maybe what Mearls meant was that the 10 th level fighter who becomes a 1st level wizard will just get access to higher level spell slots rather than higher level spells. Didn't they say at one point that spells don't scale unless you put them in a higher slot? So say the burning hands that does 4d4 in a first level slot may do, say 9d4 in a 5th level slot. In such a case our example fighter/wizard will still have first level spells, but can put them in higher level slots. Still very useful, but not as powerful as the wizard who has sacrificed for 10 levels.

Just spitballing here.

 

[The Shadow]

Maybe what Mearls meant was that the 10 th level fighter who becomes a 1st level wizard will just get access to higher level spell slots rather than higher level spells. Didn't they say at one point that spells don't scale unless you put them in a higher slot? So say the burning hands that does 4d4 in a first level slot may do, say 9d4 in a 5th level slot. In such a case our example fighter/wizard will still have first level spells, but can put them in higher level slots. Still very useful, but not as powerful as the wizard who has sacrificed for 10 levels.

This is where my thinking is going too. It still suffers from plausibility issues, but not nearly as badly.

And perhaps it could be handwaved away by saying that the Wizard 10's Burning Hands does more damage because it's hotter, while a Fighter 9/Wizard 1's Burning Hands does more damage because he instinctively knows where to place it to hurt the most?

 

[howandwhy99]

The article sounds like the best possible version of a 3e multiclass option. I don't prefer 3e multiclassing, but I think it will be very popular.

What I would warn against is making every class the same class again. Once combat is no longer considered the standard of measuring abilities and ability groupings, then we can progress to different game play and design support.

 

[FireLance]

What I would warn against is making every class the same class again.

Exactly. The Chinese all look different now. Why can't we do the same for classes?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

First of all, the cost you paid for an off-class level increases retroactively as you level. Fighter 1 / Thief 1 doesn't seem like a big deal. You pull from the table for a single level at Level 2. By Fighter 9 / Thief 1 that Thief level is costing you Fighter 10. Are you still only getting what you got at second level for it? If it isn't scaling then multi-classing would be a sucker's bet.

It would be more accurate to say that, in a game with 20 levels, the opportunity cost of a level dip is the benefits of your 20th level in a single class. IOW, the cost of a W1 dip for a fighter is F20.

The cost does not change, merely your perception of it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I bet the Bounded Accuracy system they're planning on using has something to say about the cost of that dip. Spells don't need to scale as vertiginously if defenses don't scale much (or at all).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is a problem with this, called out above, in that it takes some rationalization.

Wizard: "Finally! I've attained great magical power and have mastered the manipulation of reality that grants me the ability to call upon raw elemental fire! I've learned Fireball!."
Fighter: "Hey! Me too!"
Wizard: "But...I've studied and sacrificed for this moment. I have abandoned friends and family and cloistered myself in my tower...all so I can learn these secrets."
Fighter: "Ha! Silly wizard. I got drunk and partied hard and now I can do it, too!"
Wizard: "But...my life's work..."
Fighter: "Hey, don't look so down! You can still do a whole bunch of other magical tricks! Like that one where you can make a magical hand carry your stuff! And that one that keeps your beers cold! That's cool!"
Wizard: "Mere cantrips...all in preparation for this..."
Fighter: "Well, you can sit here in a stupor, I'm gonna go blow things up with a fireball. I've got enough HP, I can probably even stand in the middle of it!"
Wizard: "YOU'LL BE FRIED ALI-...wait...actually, that's far superior to my strategy..."
Fighter: "HA! You sound like a liberal arts major. All Boo-hoo, I've wasted my life, all this debt for no reason, wah-wah-wah..."
Wizard: "...all my sacrifice..."
Fighter: "Ha! Well, later! Doot dee doo!"

The above illustrates one of the more critical problems with this: you loose one of your main motivators for gaining levels.

Yea that is one way it could go, or

Wizard: "Finally! I've attained great magical power and have mastered the manipulation of reality that grants me the ability to call upon raw elemental fire! I've learned Fireball!."
Fighter: "Hey! Me too!"
Wizard: "Really, you can use magic like me?"
Fighter: "Ha! Silly wizard. I just picked up the cliff notes and got some big blasts"
Wizard: "So you can pretend to be a sorcerer, only once a day, well I make the laws of reality shut up and do what I want"
Fighter: "But it is your best offensive spell"
Wizard:"Yea once per day we are equal, my other X spells per day on the other hand, my counter spell, my illusions, my wizard tradtion, and all you can do is blow a big boom"

(((For the record I realize both are equaly unlikely reactions, but over reaction one way deserves one the other)))))

I would like to see a return of that in some form, but obviously not the butt-ass broken way it was implemented in 3rd Ed.

I really liked the idea behind the mix prestige classes and do feel they really could be improved, but mystic theurge sticks out even more then the gish ones (witch really we know will be there)to me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

(((For the record I realize both are equaly unlikely reactions, but over reaction one way deserves one the other)))))

You ain't wrong, but I think there's a nuance I could explain better, so lemme try.

Often, especially when you're new, picking a given class is more a matter of archetype and "cool toys" than it is anything else. If I decide to play a fighter, it's because I like the idea of being the dude who can walk up to the dragon and stab it in the face, and because I like what the fighter gets to do to help them do that (stunts in 5e's current iteration) -- maybe I saw that at level 7, Fighters get to throw creatures around like ragdolls, and I think that's awesome, and want to do that, so I pick "Fighter."

Those elements are part of the fun I get from the game. I get to pretend to be a badass warrior. I get to throw people around.

Now, when the rest of my party reaches level 7 along with me, the rogue grabs that ability, too.

Suddenly, my strength isn't special anymore. Anyone can learn to do anything. Classes have little meaning, and the pigeonholes they can be have little value. A "Fighter" isn't someone so strong they can chuck a troll, anyone can do that. Your grandma can do that, assuming she reaches Level 7 in her AARP Member class. Your class is that much more meaningless.

The two most obvious ways around this that I see are to reserve some abilities as "exclusive" so that biters can't get it (which cuts into what is cool about multiclassing), and/or to tie class abilities closely to ability scores, so that if the rogue picks up the Troll Chuckin' ability at level 7, he's at least gotta have a STRENGTH on par with my fighter to do that.

Or if he doesn't, he's gonna not be as great as me at it.

Which is still kind of small potatoes, but at least it's something.