D&D 5E Multiclassing--Which and Why?

[Bluenose]

BTW, what is classic multi- and dual-classing?

Multi-classing, available only to characters who are not human, involves a character who is a Fighter/Magic-User (or several other combinations depending on race/edition) at 1st level. They gain experience as normal, but that experience is split between the two classes. So where a Fighter would require 2000xp to reach 2nd level, a F/MU will only reach 2nd as a Fighter when they have 4000xp overall (and 5000xp to reach 2nd as MU). Mostly you get the combined abilities of both classes, so the F/MU can train any weapons that a Fighter could train, fights like a Fighter, has the better saving throws of the classes involved; one exception being hit points, where you get half as many from each class when it goes up (one third as many if you're triple-classed), and another being that if a class was banned from using certain items then it didn't matter that the other was permitted them, so a F/MU usually didn't wear armour.

Dual classing was available only to human characters. Start off normally with one class, then you had the option (I think between 3rd and 9th level only) to drop the first class and advance in a second. Until your second class exceeded the level of your first, you couldn't use any abilities from the first without losing all your experience from that adventure. On the other hand, you retained the hit points and I think saving throws. And once you reached a higher level with your second class, you could use the first classes abilities freely. So if your character started as a Thief, reached 3rd level and restarted as a Fighter, they couldn't use their thievery skills or backstab until they were a 4th level Fighter, but once they did they were free to carry on.

 

[slobo777]

Multi-classing, available only to characters who are not human, involves a character who is a Fighter/Magic-User (or several other combinations depending on race/edition) at 1st level. They gain experience as normal, but that experience is split between the two classes. So where a Fighter would require 2000xp to reach 2nd level, a F/MU will only reach 2nd as a Fighter when they have 4000xp overall (and 5000xp to reach 2nd as MU). Mostly you get the combined abilities of both classes, so the F/MU can train any weapons that a Fighter could train, fights like a Fighter, has the better saving throws of the classes involved; one exception being hit points, where you get half as many from each class when it goes up (one third as many if you're triple-classed), and another being that if a class was banned from using certain items then it didn't matter that the other was permitted them, so a F/MU usually didn't wear armour.

Dual classing was available only to human characters. Start off normally with one class, then you had the option (I think between 3rd and 9th level only) to drop the first class and advance in a second. Until your second class exceeded the level of your first, you couldn't use any abilities from the first without losing all your experience from that adventure. On the other hand, you retained the hit points and I think saving throws. And once you reached a higher level with your second class, you could use the first classes abilities freely. So if your character started as a Thief, reached 3rd level and restarted as a Fighter, they couldn't use their thievery skills or backstab until they were a 4th level Fighter, but once they did they were free to carry on.

As I remember it, the demi-human multi-classing mostly worked out OK, as it typically put you a couple of levels below the pure classes in terms of raw power, but with a *lot* of flexibility to make up the difference. It was neither a power-play move nor a trap option, and when we played it, it was mostly for the fun of doing something different.

The dual classing however, was considered a waste of time in circles I played in, and I don't think I saw anyone seriously bothering, other than to try and claim it at character build time, in which case it was considered a cheesy way to squeeze out some extra power if the DM had set an xp total for starting characters.

 

[Li Shenron]

Am I the only one with a soft spot for Gestalt?

"Here. Have another class. Think it's too powerful? Give it to your monsters, too. Throw bigger things at them. Too much for you? Can't handle the awesome?

Monsters are not the problem vs gestalt PCs. Single-classed PCs are. Either all PCs are Gestalt, or none, so it forces everyone to have 2 classes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Monsters are not the problem vs gestalt PCs. Single-classed PCs are. Either all PCs are Gestalt, or none, so it forces everyone to have 2 classes.

Yeah, but that's a little like forcing everyone to eat free delicious pie.

"Oh no, life's so hard, I have to eat this slice of free delicious pie, why are they making me eat this free delicious pie, this would be so hard if it was not free and also delicious."

I mean, Gestalt CLEARLY isn't the "ideal" way to multiclass, but it's still got some fun elements and a simplicity that I really like.

 

[lutecius]

3e multiclassing by far.
no matter how flexible classical/gestalt/hybrid are at creation it just doesn't make sense to me to be stuck on one path.

the idea behind 4e's multiclass feats also had its merits but it was far too restrictive (too costly, some class features were off-limits...) and I hated that you had to "forget" some of your old powers to gain new ones (this was also the case for single-class characters but it was particularly jarring when multiclassing)

sure, the 3e way had some balance issues but nothing that can't be fixed imo (and the others weren't much better in this regard except maybe 4e feats).

 

[slobo777]

Yeah, but that's a little like forcing everyone to eat free delicious pie.

"Oh no, life's so hard, I have to eat this slice of free delicious pie, why are they making me eat this free delicious pie, this would be so hard if it was not free and also delicious."

I mean, Gestalt CLEARLY isn't the "ideal" way to multiclass, but it's still got some fun elements and a simplicity that I really like.

Actually you could combine gestalt with AD&D's multi-classing, splitting xp between your classes, and it *might* get closer to balanced with single class PCs once you are out of the low levels.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Monsters are not the problem vs gestalt PCs. Single-classed PCs are. Either all PCs are Gestalt, or none, so it forces everyone to have 2 classes.

Unless you allow.. DOUBLE FIGHTERS.. with all the class features twice!

 

[Bluenose]

As I remember it, the demi-human multi-classing mostly worked out OK, as it typically put you a couple of levels below the pure classes in terms of raw power, but with a *lot* of flexibility to make up the difference. It was neither a power-play move nor a trap option, and when we played it, it was mostly for the fun of doing something different.

The dual classing however, was considered a waste of time in circles I played in, and I don't think I saw anyone seriously bothering, other than to try and claim it at character build time, in which case it was considered a cheesy way to squeeze out some extra power if the DM had set an xp total for starting characters.

I only saw a few dual-classed characters myself. Usually they had Cleric or Thief levels, either as their first class or second one, since the XP requirements were lower. With 16 Wisdom, you could take 3 levels of Cleric, have four 1st- and three 2nd-level spells and you'd only have 3000xp. That's enough magic to be mildly useful, especially at low levels, without making much difference to how fast you'll get to higher levels in other classes. With Thieves, I know someone who took a few levels in Fighter, switched to Thief later, and had better hit points, sometimes weapon specialisation, and still was more competent in Thief skills than a multi-class MU/T.

Actually you could combine gestalt with AD&D's multi-classing, splitting xp between your classes, and it *might* get closer to balanced with single class PCs once you are out of the low levels.

That more or less is what multi-classing is in AD&D. Two classes, the abilities and restrictions from both, split XP evenly between them to determine what level you are. Balanced reasonably with single class characters. It would seem like a much easier way to handle multi-classing in Next. Maybe, for people wanting to change their character focus later, with something like the 4e feat-based system as well.

 

[keterys]

1) Make every class have two buckets of awesome features.
2) Taking a class gives you one of those two buckets.
3) Make everything "gestalt", so you get two buckets every level.

Bam, fighter/wizard or fighter/thief compare fine with fighter/fighter.

Note: I do not intend to suggest combining this with 3rd edition's mix and match leveling scheme, which I do not feel is a good default decision for the game. It's an excellent optional module, but I feel there needs to be a simpler option that is less likely to create horrible (underpowered, overpowered, misshapen chimerical) characters.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Logically. I just leveled up after I was in an adventure as a fighter, so now I can take a level in any other class, despite no training or practice.

It doesn't make any less sense than a Wizard coming back from an adventure and suddenly being able to cast new spells, despite no research or study. All level-ups have that problem unless they can only happen after a long period of training/study (which was the original design).


To me, it's all about letting people do it whatever way they want to. In a D&D5 with the multiclass system they're talking about, the game will be able to do 3e style, feat style, and dual-class style (as well as no multiclassing at all, since players can opt out and DMs can just say no). It still wouldn't have a great way to be equal parts one class and another from level one (like AD&D multi, gestalt, and hybrid), which to me is the only real downside.

Pie chart time!

 

[Magil]

Unless you allow.. DOUBLE FIGHTERS.. with all the class features twice!

This reminds me of something...

 

[steeldragons]

It doesn't make any less sense than a Wizard coming back from an adventure and suddenly being able to cast new spells, despite no research or study. All level-ups have that problem unless they can only happen after a long period of training/study (which was the original design).

This might warrant its own thread,as it has nothing to do with multi-classing, specifically...but...

What ever happened to this?! The training/study/research time...necessary for leveling up, I mean!

Yeah, I know it was handwaved away a lot, and that's fine. We hand waved it at times (stuck in the Underdark miles underground for a few months at a time and in desperate need of that new level, comes to mind).

But, I mean, when did it happen that training was no longer an assumption of the game (house-rules are gonna handwave if they wanna no matter what)?

Seems to me a LOT of certain styles of play/players problems, specifically those stemming from internal consistency, could be easily quashed by putting "two weeks" or "a month" or however long it takes "go by while you train into your next level" back into the game, even handwaved!

And, as I recall, much fun, NPC interactions and side-quests had a way of popping up while you were "stuck in town" for a few weeks.

But, again, not really the point of the thread, just something that jumped to mind from GX.Sigma's post.

We can discuss it elsewhere if anyone's interested.
--SD

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, but that's a little like forcing everyone to eat free delicious pie.

"Oh no, life's so hard, I have to eat this slice of free delicious pie, why are they making me eat this free delicious pie, this would be so hard if it was not free and also delicious."

I mean, Gestalt CLEARLY isn't the "ideal" way to multiclass, but it's still got some fun elements and a simplicity that I really like.

No. No it isn't. It has two fundamental problems.

1: There's no "simple class". Everyone needs to play something complex.

2: It gives problems with archetypes.

It's more like adding cream to a nice sweet Death By Chocolate cake. I like chocolate. I like cream. But at some point my arteries are going to look at it and say "No way".

 

[I'm A Banana]

1: There's no "simple class". Everyone needs to play something complex.

Heh. A gestalt DOUBLE FIGHTER is still probably less complex than the original 4e fighter. But it is a fair point.

2: It gives problems with archetypes.

Eh. Much less so than the standard 3e multiclassing, anyway, where dips and drops lead to a very personalized ability set for many players -- though many others would just dump 20 levels into one thing anyway.

It's more like adding cream to a nice sweet Death By Chocolate cake. I like chocolate. I like cream. But at some point my arteries are going to look at it and say "No way".

Only if your arteries are pansy little noddle babies.

Again, I don't think Gestalt is the best idea. But I do love many aspects about it, and I think it may be a bit premature to count it out as a potential model, or at least a model whose good ideas can be looted for something a bit less wahoo.

 

[BobTheNob]

4E style multiclassing feats.

It's far from perfect and too weak, but i like the dipping modularity that it gives PCs.
3.5 multiclassing would be ideal, but that has too many problems. I think that 4E multiclassing feats are a very similar system, but much more limited and controlled. And you have the choice of how much and when you dip.
(But the limit of one multiclass would have to go)

I thought 4e multiclassing was crap. Utter crap.

However, oddly enough, I agree with your post. The implementation in 4e was just weaksauce, but the principle has some teeth. Generally 4e feats were POWA boosts to what you class actually did, but with multiclassing (had they got it right) you could have given up some of the primary class focus to diversify into the capabilities of another class.

So instead of feats being the icing on your class cake, you could have a second cake.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I thought 4e multiclassing was crap. Utter crap.

Agreed 100%...and I still multiclass because I love multiclassing more than I hate 4Ed's take on it.

 

[keterys]

If they redid 4e multiclass feats nowadays, I think they'd either make all of the power swaps into a single feat for a swap of each type, or let you swap as part of the base multiclass feat. Obviously PMC is an utterly failed experiment.

That said, base multiclass feats in 4e are extraordinarily worthwhile to take. Class benefits and a skill trained is good stuff. It's actually surprisingly often worth taking a carefully cherrypicked power swap feat (ie, for the best and brightest power of your MC's class) but that level of optimization isn't what folks are looking for.

 

[Li Shenron]

It doesn't make any less sense than a Wizard coming back from an adventure and suddenly being able to cast new spells, despite no research or study. All level-ups have that problem unless they can only happen after a long period of training/study (which was the original design).


To me, it's all about letting people do it whatever way they want to.

For me the issue is more about campaign look & feel, let's call it CL&F.

The "training between levels" concept is not something that gamers should be divided between those who think it's true/right and those who think it's false/right. It's simply a CL&F matter: you can use it and enforce it in one campaign and totally ignore it in another, and the game can be just as fun. Each one is entitled to her preference, but there's no right or wrong. The point is to understand that the choice made will significantly change the look & feel of playing such campaign: for example, enforcing training rules will make every player spend more time thinking and planning about what their PCs are doing between adventures.

But "multiclassing" also it a CL&F matter, and within multiclassing we can consider "even multiclassing" and "class-dipping" separately as two different CL&F choices. Whatever choice a gaming group makes for the next campaign, it will tell a lot about how the world looks and feels. For example, no multiclassing will imply that learning the path of a class is generally hard and requires committment to the point that once you make your choice there is no going back, while class-dipping at the opposite side of the spectrum may suggest that in this world knowledge is easily accessible and skills are easily learned.

The concept of freedom is related but IMHO should be kept separate. That's another matter, to make a more general gaming choice about whether we want restrictions or not. But it has to be fully understood that while for a gaming group freedom really means freedom and yields to a more enjoyable gaming experience, to another group restrictions means more freedom (it might be hard to understand for those who are in the first group tho, but in a sense restrictions can help a lot making each campaign different when the gamers are otherwise not able to use their freedom to achieve the same and always end up with the kitchen sink).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...no multiclassing will imply that learning the path of a class is generally hard and requires committment to the point that once you make your choice there is no going back,

Or that there are significant racial, social, or religious pressures that impose such rigidity, like a caste system.

...while class-dipping at the opposite side of the spectrum may suggest that in this world knowledge is easily accessible and skills are easily learned.

Or that new paths are difficult enough to learn that few people have the commitment to go beyond the rudiments of what options are available with those new paths, like a Jeet Kune Do master who tries to only learn those martial skills from other fighting traditions that improve techniques he already has or fills in a gap.

 

[Manbearcat]

If they redid 4e multiclass feats nowadays, I think they'd either make all of the power swaps into a single feat for a swap of each type, or let you swap as part of the base multiclass feat. Obviously PMC is an utterly failed experiment.

That said, base multiclass feats in 4e are extraordinarily worthwhile to take. Class benefits and a skill trained is good stuff. It's actually surprisingly often worth taking a carefully cherrypicked power swap feat (ie, for the best and brightest power of your MC's class) but that level of optimization isn't what folks are looking for.

I agree with this. The feats are quite good and if you just allow people to endlessly Power Swap (negotiated with DM, of course) after a second multi-class feat is chosen it goes a long way toward opening up archetype availability. It doesn't typically improve potency but rather just it diversifies repertoire mechanically and thematically...which is pretty much the point of multi-classing, isn't it? There will be some potent, thematic synergistic combos, that are ability score neutral, here and there but that has always been the case in multi-classing (and should be retained).

For my money, however, this was 3.x's greatest contribution. The ability to customize to archetype by way of the multi-class system was wonderful. Unfortunately, it had its (well-known...which I won't reiterate) drawbacks due to the schematics of the class and prestige class build-structure. If those drawbacks can be curtailed, then 3.x's multi-class rules would easily be my preference.