Multiclassing: What I'm hoping for

[Savage Wombat]

Multi-classing in 5E should be based around the following concept:

A player should be able to build a functional fighter/magic-user without needing a specialized class.

If the rules allow for this, then I'd think that all the other multi-classing balance issues have been solved. And really, isn't that what 90% of multi-classers really want? Fighter/rogues are a great build, but if there weren't multiclassing rules we'd find another way to simulate it.

If the rules allow somebody splitting between fighter and spellcaster to (a) hit his opponents in melee for reasonable damage, and (b) cast a few spells that actually impact the fight or encounter, then I'd say the rules are adequate.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I prefer 3e's system of wide open multiclassing.

It can be fixed by spreading out abilities instead of making those 1 and 2 level dips so attractive. That is the main problem with that system. 2 levels of fighter for 2 BAB, 2 d10 hd and 2 bonus feats, 2-5 MAX levels of Paladin unless you intend to be a paladin forever (just long enough to get all of your Save bonuses and mount, if that's important to you), a few levels of ranger etc etc. If they spread some of that stuff out OR made a mechanic that delayed getting certain abilities if it wasn't your "primary", it would help.

 

[El Mahdi]

I prefer what I call Restrictor-Plate Multi-Classing (or less jokingly, Feat Based Multi-Classing).

One of the concepts of Class structure is that the abilities (Feats, Skills, BAB, Proficiencies, etc.) are all things that a character learned in the time (likely years) leading up to the beginning of the game...even at 1st level. They've spent significant time learning their Profession (their Class).

A Fighters/Warriors skills are from months or years of weapons training or military service.

A Wizards/Sorcerers skills are from months or years of study into the Arcane, whether on their own or through a school/mentor.

A Clerics skills are from months or years of theological study, prayer and meditation, and physical exercise/practice.

A Rogues skills are from months or years of living on the street or education by a "Patron/Mentor".

Etc., Etc., Etc.


So, in my own houserules, I've created a Cross-Training Feat for each Class. By taking the Feat for a specific class, you're simulating spending some time (likely weeks or months) going through that Classes version of "Basic Training" - which provides you with the most basic skills of that class (i.e.: the ability to use magic and a couple of spells; an apprentice levels worth of skill points in the skills specific to the class; proficiency with all the weapons of a class and the ability to progress with the new classes BAB from that point on - but not retro-actively; Etc., Etc., Etc.). Then, from that point on, the Character can take other Feats specific to that class (that have the Pre-Requisite of the specific Cross-Training Feat) to add other abilities of that class as they progress.

I find it makes a lot more sense, limits "Power Bloat" from getting a mass of front-loaded abilities, and is much more balanced than "Wide-Open' Multi-Classing.

 

[Sunseeker]

So, you want 4e's multiclassing(more or less).


I didn't really like 4e's multiclassing, it was too limited. I didn't like 3.x's either, it was too wide open and lead to needing an extreme level of system mastery which was usually used to break classes(and subsequently, games).

Before Wizards decides on their style of multiclassing, first they need to decide on their style of single-classing.

Are classes going to be like 3.x? Where some when to level 12, others to level 15, some to 20, most to around 8 or 10 before they petered out? Are they going to be like Pathfinder? Where every class is solidly(but perhaps a little repetitive) built all the way to 20? Are they going to be like 4e where each class goes to the end of the game, but lightens up with the expectation of added features from Prestige classes and Epic Destinies?

Once they decide on this, THEN they can decide on how they want to multiclass. Because whichever one of these they go with, will decide how important multiclassing is to the game. I LOVE that in a Pathfinder or 4e game, I don't have to multiclass in order to make a solid character. I hated it in 3.X where aside from casters(who everyone knew were broken anyway), there was no way to simply pick a class and stick with it.

My general sentiments is this:
There needs to be a maximum number of base classes in which you can multiclass.
There needs to be a minimum number of levels you have to take in each one(I'm feeling like 3 is a good number, and this also plays along with Wizards idea that you don't get all your class features @ lvl1).
There shouldn't be XP penalties because that gets metagamey and gets in the way of game-flow for folks like myself who don't use XP(I award levels for completing certain quests or major plot points).
MOST IMPORTANTLY: MULTICLASSING SHOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT
-there should be no need to multiclass other than player want in order to create a certain thematic build(such as a battlemage) or a certain playstyle(again, cast spells & swing sword)

 

[BobTheNob]

[MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]
Your not half wrong. Its hard to speculate on how multiclassing should work until we have a clear idea on how classes should work.

That said, Im actually looking at 4e multiclassing. Now, I thought 4e multiclassing was not very good. In PHB you have a multiclass feat (which was always a good feat to take) but then you have power swap...? Give up 3 feats for the option to swap 3 powers? Not ONE player over 3 years did it. Why? Because it was no gain, instead of the feat contributing to growth, it diverted it. Then you had the whole "which stat is the power keyed to" issue, if you were a fighter and wanted feasible wizard power you needed a good INT, making your MAD as a hatter. The you had the multi-class paragon, which was just underwhelming.

Later when hybrids came along things were a little better, but again, no-one wanted to touch them. Fidly and still massive victims if absolute MADness.

So, with all that ire, why am I interested in 4e feat based approach? Lets say every X levels (2 just to be easy) you get a multiclass "feat". This feat allow you to give up an feature of your class for the feature of another. You dont have to exercise this right (you can just leave your class vanilla and thats that), and you cant use it for anything else. Its not a feat, its an entitlement to swap.

So your fighter can one day say "Hmm, Im an 8th level fighter and I want to diversify. Can I give up a power strike for the rgoue feature to re-roll failed stealth checks. At the same time, can I give up stance-X for some wizarding ability...I want some spells to give me some oomph". Ok, thats 2 swaps. Seek appropriate trainer, get swap done, and if required he can make 2 more at some point in future.

At his core he will remain a fighter as the number of swap he can make will ensure that the bulk of his capabilities are fighter capabilities, but after that he can cherry pick a little.

 

[Storminator]

I'd like to see a design that was solid enough to stand up without arbitrary restrictions on things like the number of classes you can take, or the level when you have to start choosing. Those sorts of rules are red flags of bad design to me.

3.x ran into the level dip problem because each level 1 in a class had to carry enough oomph to make a respectable PC. So by level dipping you could gather up a host of cool class abilities. In some cases those turned out to be fantastically synergistic, and in other cases horribly incompatible. I'd rather see PCs get a batch of power from being a first level character, then add in abilities for each level. That way, frex, a Rogue 3 doesn't get all weapon and armor profs for 1 level of fighter. Similar to the hybrid talents of 4e, where hybriding doesn't give you everything from both classes. (I think the hybrid rules are a bit fiddly and arbitrary so I wouldn't take that analogy too far)

But I'd rather see the best of the 3.x system, fixed, than starting with a base of the 4e system.

PS

 

[Mercule]

None of the current ways (levels-are-equal, feat-based, or hybrid) are perfect, but they all have some value and exist to solve different issues. More precisely, they solve for different "purity" of multiclassing; with feat-based being very weak and hybrid being pretty strong.

Level-based multiclassing is a middle ground that should be able to be used as a sliding scale, which makes it the most attractive, if they can get the math to work. With the rumored flattening of level bonuses, the level-stacking problems should be pretty well mitigated. I don't think I have a great idea for the front-loading, other than spreading out class features.

 

[Greg K]

What I want.

1. You need access to a trainer and time to train as the default rather than as an optional rule.
2. As El Mahdi stated, class armor and weapon proficiencies and save bonuses, etc. take time to learn. Like him, I also used training feats. However, I would like to go with something built in from the start as per Star Wars Saga multiclasssing which does not grant the new classes armor and weapon proficiencies. The armor proficiencies and weapon proficiencies are listed as starting feats and the character gets to take one upon multiclassing and can take an additional feat when they learn a new feat.
3. The one thing that I would do is make class save/Defense bonuses as startings feats using Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflex or only grant the class save bonus to the starting class and require multi-class characters to use their starting class bonus and have to take the feats.

 

[Minigiant]

I believe the key to solving the solving the multiclassing problem is to unlock certain class features from their classes.

You shouldn't have to multiclass with a wizard to learn how to prepare an arcane spell. A full wizard is smashed of the arcane but not the only one with it. Players should be a le to able to trade or delay class features to gain other ones. A fighter could choose to not learn a weapon specialization to gain a few arcane spell slots or a sneak attack die. This would remove most of the dabblers.

True multiclassing would display a split dedication that could be then penalized or limited accordingly through favored classes, nonstacking abilities, and class number limits.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

No. I want multiclassing to be fluid and not set in stone. If they are going to bombard us with options through splatbooks they need to have a quick, easy, and efficient way for us to use those options with our current characters in the next session rather than having to create a whole knew one.