D&D 5E Multiclassing in Next

[Lanefan]

So, if a 10th level fighter / 3rd level wizard can't cast any better than a 3rd level wizard, can they fight better than a 10th level fighter?

How about a 10th level fighter / 3rd level rogue compared to a 10th level fighter (or 3rd level rogue, whatever)?

Fighter/Barbarian?

That's a heck of a double standard... and more and more reason not to use 3rd edition's multiclass model by default, to dodge it

To all three example questions the answer should be that the F-10 side determines the Fighting ability - you take the better of the two and an F-10 fights way better than an anything-3.

Fighter/Barbarian is an almost-redundant multiclass in that all you're gaining - or should be gaining - from the B side is rage.

Lanefan

 

[Bluenose]

Anyone can learn to fight, not everyone can bend reality to their will with a few words and gestures.

So what's the requirement for someone to be able to "bend reality to their will"? Int 11, as far as I can see. Not too hard, half the population has that by random generation.

Also, if "anyone can learn to fight", why did so many cultures put so much effort into training certain people into being good at it? Were they all unaware how easy it was? Or maybe it's harder than you think.

 

[keterys]

To all three example questions the answer should be that the F-10 side determines the Fighting ability - you take the better of the two and an F-10 fights way better than an anything-3.

Fighter/Barbarian is an almost-redundant multiclass in that all you're gaining - or should be gaining - from the B side is rage.

Lanefan

"Take the better of the two" is an interesting theory. So that sounds like a fighter 15 will be much better at fighting than a fighter 10 / barbarian 5.

Which I guess would match well with the effectiveness of multiclassing with a caster, and just mean that multiclassing is almost always a poor idea from a performance standpoint, but a reasonable option for adding character breadth. Still potentially a trap for those who don't understand the system enough to avoid system problems, and a potential paralysis point for new players.

It'd still be an advantage to drop people planning out their characters level by level before play, to make sure they get all the benefits from the classes they want, get into the right prestige classes, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

NO

GOD

NO

NO

NO

This philosophy is what got us quadratic wizards in 3E. It's what got us into this mess in the first place. "Glitterdust is always useful! Grease is always useful!" Well by the time the wizard hits level 16, he has like 30 useful spells! He's not a limited caster, he's the goddamn Batman!

If spell slots are just as useful at level 16 as they are at level 1, Wizards better get them reeaaaaalllll slowly (like, starting with 4 at first level and moving to 8 at 20th, with no spell being higher than level 3).

So what's your alternative? That after a few levels a large number of the Wizard's spells progressively become useless?

 

[mlund]

So what's your alternative? That after a few levels a large number of the Wizard's spells progressively become useless?

Should they become useless? Never. You can strike fear into the hearts of 1/2HD Kobolds and impress folks at children's birthday parties with those until the cows come home.

Should they become statistically irrelevant to appropriately leveled challenges? Definitely!

They idea that you get to defeat Level 12 challenges with the same spell slots you could use at level 1 or 3 while you now have level 6 spell slots is just absurd.

- Marty Lund

 

[tlantl]

Anyone can learn to fight, not everyone can bend reality to their will with a few words and gestures.

I guess this isn't as true as one would like to believe in a game where two-thirds to three-quarters of the base classes are spell casters of one kind or another.

 

[DEFCON 1]

All this talk makes me want to just send things back to where multi-classing only occurred at character creation and the two classes leveled simultaneously (either by being a few levels behind single-classes characters but with full abilities a la AD&D, or with less ability from each class but at top level a la 4E Hybrids).

If some PC really needs to "change" what he is halfway through his career... use the Prestige class system at Level 11 for that. Have them select a PC like "Swordmage" that begins granting arcane spells to a class that doesn't have them.

 

[Li Shenron]

They idea that you get to defeat Level 12 challenges with the same spell slots you could use at level 1 or 3 while you now have level 6 spell slots is just absurd.

So should there be also something the Fighter or the Rogue has, that becomes irrelevant at higher levels?

BTW, you don't have to imply that those 1lv slots are as good as the 6lv slots to defeat the lv12 monster. Maybe it takes 2-3 of those 6lv spells but it takes 10-15 of the 1lv spells to achieve the same results. Just because you have a bazooka with 2 ammos, doesn't mean that you can leave your gun home... maybe the gun can't take out a tank, but maybe it can, if you use it smart. But once again, the comparison doesn't work well because we only think about damaging spells, but that Grease or Glitterdust can and should still be useful, maybe you just need to use them more cleverly to make them so.

 

[Bluenose]

So should there be also something the Fighter or the Rogue has, that becomes irrelevant at higher levels?

What new abilities do the Fighter and Rogue get at high levels that are more powerful than their low level abilities? If there aren't any, just bigger numbers, then you might find it rather hard to take abilities away and leave them anything to do.

 

[slobster]

So should there be also something the Fighter or the Rogue has, that becomes irrelevant at higher levels?

Fighters and rogues work differently. They don't have a dozen low-level maneuver slots left over from earlier levels, they have a handful of tricks (slowly widening, but at nowhere near the pace of the wizard) that they use to meet challenges at all levels.

 

[DaCowboy]

I'm in agreement with those who don't think the spells should be more powerful and such. Basically I think multiclassing should be for specific archtype purposes. A fighter with counterspell, a rogue/thug with a greatsword, a cleric who dabbles as a warlock.

Most of the issue would be fixed with the frontloading of the classes not passing in multiclassing but that doesn't mean the "powers" of a class should be bumped up from lvl 1 regardless of character level. Maybe you should have waited till you were such a good fighter before trying to be a wizard. Or maybe you have a plan.

Also, maybe limit the amount someone can multiclass. Something like 2 until level 8 or 10 then you can dabble in a 3rd.

Regardless of any of this, someone will always find a way to exploit any system so the DM should have a certain level of control on the game (Even if his/her choice of control is none).

And as far as the real life justification of level dipping. I think that comes down to RP. For instance, I like the idea of a fighter with counterspell so maybe I pick up a book on magic at a town and study or peak over the wizard's shoulder when he's reading up at night.

 

[Magil]

Anyone can learn to fight, not everyone can bend reality to their will with a few words and gestures.

But anyone can learn to bend reality to their will with just a few words and gestures. At least, that's what the lore behind the wizard class tends to say.

So should there be also something the Fighter or the Rogue has, that becomes irrelevant at higher levels?

Not quite as comparable, considering that the rogue and fighter don't tend to get the myriad of options that a wizard gets. It'd be comparable if the rogue and fighter each had, say, 9 different special maneuvers at 5th level to compete with the wizard's 9 spells.

 

[mlund]

What new abilities do the Fighter and Rogue get at high levels that are more powerful than their low level abilities? If there aren't any, just bigger numbers, then you might find it rather hard to take abilities away and leave them anything to do.

Bingo. The Fighter and Rogue don't have an expanding tree of slots like casters do. If all the Wizard got was more and more 1st level spell slots and maybe the ability to cast more of them every turn then you might have parity. That's not how it is, though. There's no AEDU enforced parity in Next, so that's Apples and Oranges.

I suppose you could relate to the fact that the Fighter's first level HP, HD, and weapon damage + 1d6 stand no chance to overcome Level 12 challenges. It's the other 11 levels of HP, HD, and Combat Superiority that make it possible. That individual level of HP, HD, and damage is the equivalent of the Wizard's first level spell output. Neither is up to a Level 12 challenge.

The Fighter's low-level assets contribute a small fraction all the time. The Wizard's low-level assets contribute a small fraction, but you'd seldom use them until you're out of high-level assets. That's simply the difference between Daily vs. Static resources.

- Marty Lund

 

[Li Shenron]

I just can't possibly understand how you guys want a game where you have "old stuff" on your character sheet that is useless.

 

[slobster]

I just can't possibly understand how you guys want a game where you have "old stuff" on your character sheet that is useless.

This is why a spellpoint system appeals to me. Or a system where you don't have spell slots of any particular level, just a few (six to ten-ish) that can be used to prepare spells of any level, with low-level spells scaling so that they remain viable options at higher character levels.

Plus some simple at-will magic options, of course.

 

[DaCowboy]

This is why a spellpoint system appeals to me. Or a system where you don't have spell slots of any particular level, just a few (six to ten-ish) that can be used to prepare spells of any level, with low-level spells scaling so that they remain viable options at higher character levels.

Plus some simple at-will magic options, of course.

I do like this concept. This would certianly control the level of power a caster level would have. Access to spells would have to be worked into this, otherwise you're just a sorceror.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So what's the requirement for someone to be able to "bend reality to their will"? Int 11, as far as I can see. Not too hard, half the population has that by random generation.

Also, if "anyone can learn to fight", why did so many cultures put so much effort into training certain people into being good at it? Were they all unaware how easy it was? Or maybe it's harder than you think.

Learning how to fight a little bit is easy. Mastering it is very difficult.

Learning how to bend reality to your will like a Mage is like being a quantum physicist- learning just a little bit of useful quantum theory is a mentally challenging task.

I guess this isn't as true as one would like to believe in a game where two-thirds to three-quarters of the base classes are spell casters of one kind or another.

Don't confuse variety with number of members in those various classes.

There are lots of different sub-specialties (classes) in science, but scientists as a whole amount to about 1 in 600 professionals with post-graduate degrees in the USA...and are rarer in developing nations.

IOW, depending on the campaign, the number of Clerics or Wizards alone might outnumber the total of all other full casters in the world. And we know from past DMG demographic suggestions, all of the clerics AND wizards combined will be outnumbered by Fighters.

 

[Magil]

I just can't possibly understand how you guys want a game where you have "old stuff" on your character sheet that is useless.

I admit, my problem is more with the current model of spellcasting being used more than anything else. You either have "since 1st/2nd level remain useful throughout your adventuring career, anyone who continues to gain more spells becomes exponentially more powerful than those who do not," or you have "after x levels, your lower-level spells become less and less useful." Even within the restrictions of the action economy, the spellcaster will be more flexible than one who cannot cast spells, which is a form of power.

Neither is particularly appealing, which is why I like 4th edition's approach to powers. But DnD Next isn't going to have the 4th edition approach, with good reason--I have a feeling even most 4th edition fans wouldn't pay much for a repackaging of 4E. But as long as they keep the current model of spell progression for wizards/clerics in DnD Next, I'm not seeing many good solutions. What I'm seeing is once war clerics pass mid-levels, they use Divine Favor over and over for their 1st level spell slot because it scales so well (especially with bounded accuracy).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I just can't possibly understand how you guys want a game where you have "old stuff" on your character sheet that is useless.

It's only useless if you can't come up with a use for it...

I've seen partymates use Grease to ruin a Lich's day, and as a DM, used a trio of spells 3rd level and lower to take the wind out of the sails of an "Epic Level" party.

That is not to say I'm averse to change. A few weeks ago in this very forum, I suggested that spells should have Cantrip, standard, greater and Ritual forms. As one increased in power (levels), the caster could learn more powerful versions of the spells they already know.

 

[mlund]

I just can't possibly understand how you guys want a game where you have "old stuff" on your character sheet that is useless.

Good point! Once you reach, say, 4th or 5th level spells casters should really have to trade out lower-tier spell-slots on a 1-for-1 basis to keep everything tidy and relevant.

4/4/4/4 levels up to 2/4/4/4/2 and eventually 0/4/4/4/4, 0/0/4/4/4/4 etc. Or you could mix-and-match among them with no more than 4 spells of any particular level, no more than X (2-4 based on level) of your max tier, and no more than 16 spells total at a time. That could work.

- Marty Lund