D&D 5E Multiclassing in Next

[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.