D&D 5E Multiclassing in Next

[Minigiant]

Here's how I think it'll work. This is the multiclass wizard:

Level 1: 1d4HD, MA+2, WA+0, Spell DC 10+INT, Arcane Magic, Spellbook
Level 2: 2d4HD, MA+2, WA+0, Spell DC 10+INT,
Level 3: 3d4HD, MA+2, WA+0, Spell DC 10+INT, Cantrips
Level 4: 4d4HD, MA+3, WA+0, Spell DC 11+INT,
Level 5: 1d4HD, MA+3, WA+0, Spell DC 11+INT,

Spell power (based on total level)
Level 2: 1 1st level spells
Level 3: 2 1st level spells
Level 4: 3 1st level spells,
Level 5: 4 1st level spells, 1 2nd level spells
Level 6: 4 1st level spells, 2 2nd level spells

What does it mean?

A 3rd level fighter multiclasses in wizard. She gets:
a 1d4 HD
+0 to Weapon Attacks
+2 to Magic Attacks when casting wizard spells
the ability to cast Arcane Magic
A Spellbook
3 1st level spells casted as a 4th level wizard with a DC of 10+ her INT mod

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

Trailblazer (a d20 variant) has a neat take on this. Casting ability stacks by giving casting classes a "base magic bonus". In order to cast/learn a spell of level X, you must have at least X levels in a class that has that spell on its list and 10 + X in the relevant ability score.

I've recently been musing about creating an AEDU/Vancian hybrid system using Bo9S abilities as melee "spells" to let all multiclassing and classes work this way. Maneuvers and Spells would be Stunts that would follow one universal chart based on character level. Prolly have to make up a Stunt list for rogues, etc. though....lotta work, that. Maybe too much.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

I see a lot of references to how Star Wars Saga Edition does multi-classing. I ran a long running campaign and I'm playing in one now. Multi-classing in D&D should be different than Star Wars.

In SWSE, everyone multi-classes their characters. I don't know anyone that sticks with the same class with the exception of a few jedi. Most jedi players I know tend to dip in either noble or soldier. My armored soldier dipped into scout just so he could get the Evasion talent. Mult-classing in SWSE is how you optimize. It works for SWSE, but I don't want that system for D&D.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Multiclassing was done right the first time. Every version since has either been weaksauce or overpowered. Looks like 5e will be no different.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

Now that makes a little more since. And the fighter is a much better example then the wizard. I dont want to see that multi classing eaither.

A 8th level fighter who takes his 9th level as wizard, and gains 2 spells.per day but they can be 1 second and 1 3rd seams fine to me, he still isnt close.to the power of a wizard. On the other hand a rogue 8 who takes 1 level of fighter and gets 2d6 combat sup at will and any 2 manuvers sounds way over the top.


Takeing level 1 of a class at level 9 should give you some cool level aprprate tricks, but it should always be less and worse then a level 9 of that class.


To go back to your example, a rogue should not be able to throw people like a rag doll as easy as a fighter, but at some point if he is multi class he should be able to get a lesser version of it

 

[Grimmjow]

i feel like base attack bonus should be givin only from your first class, makes it feel more real, at least to me

 

[airwalkrr]

"You can expect that the multiclass rules will break out abilities so that a player cannot take a single level in one or more classes in order to combine a number of signature abilities."

It looks like R&D finally hit upon the real problem with multiclassing in 3e: cherry-picking. I like where Mike Mearls is going with this so far. I think the concept is great so far. I am interested to see how it develops further.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

That's because your thinking is stuck in 3e mode, where everything is additive and a "10th level character" might not have any actual levels higher than 3, as in Ft-3/Wz-1/Rg-2/Cl-2/Bd-2

It shouldn't be that way.

First off, 5-class monstrosities like my example simply should not exist, period.

Second, if the levels advanced independently of each other and a 9-1 was thus only trivially different from a single-class 9, your issue would go away.

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.

This is trivially easy to work around. All you need is some guidelines for how one might pick up a class during one's career - I'd suggest it would involve at minimum a half-year's training (i.e. adventuring downtime) to become a raw 1st with 0 XP in the new class. Then, you carry on as if a 1e multi from there.

Example: I start off as a straight Fighter for the first 5 levels (say, 20,000 XP worth), then decide I want to pick up a bit of MU on the side so I can do my own Identify spells on my armour and weapons. I take 6-12 months off from adventuring and spend this time instead in a crash course in spellcasting*. When I come back I'm a F-5/MU-1 and my XP are split at 20000-0. I decide from here on I'm going to divide my earned XP 50-50 between my two classes.

Next adventure earns me a total of 6000 XP; so I'm now at 23000 on the Fighter side and 3000 on the MU side, which bumps me to MU-2: I'm now F-5/MU-2. And I carry on from there.

Point is, using 1e as a jumping-off point doesn't necessarily mean you have to multi right from the start.

* - some sort of lengthy training time is essential - this business of just jumping into an entirely new class on a whim when you bump (as in 3e) is so lame it can't stand up.

Lanefan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Next adventure earns me a total of 6000 XP; so I'm now at 23000 on the Fighter side and 3000 on the MU side, which bumps me to MU-2: I'm now F-5/MU-2. And I carry on from there.

OTOH, if you gain more than that, you might pop up a couple of levels in MU. Not sure I like that.

Nah...still prefer 3Ed's version.

 

[pemerton]

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.

The problem is that, in 3E, the XP paid for that level were much higher than if (for example) it has been acquired as a F1, or a F5.
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s idea seems better to me in this respect - of decoupling class levels and not treating them as additive - although it mucks up hit dice (as you also note in your other thread).