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

[Minigiant]

By the looks of it, I think the patch works nicely for casters, but will depend critically on what you get from the features list for non-casters.

Some non-casters only get nice stuff from specific features in their progression table, or through stuff you couldn't reasonably let them have in the houserule. E.g. fighters progress mainly through BAB increases and feats. Being a "level X" fighter for most other purposes is meaningless.

In other words, the house rule will make it very worthwhile for a level 10 fighter to dip a level of Cleric (access to many spells up to level 3 from cleric list, at the cost of +1 BAB), but absolutely not the other way around (a bonus feat and some armour/weapon proficiencies, at the cost of not getting access to level 6 spells!)

Fighters still gain bonus feats as they get bonus feats at level 1. So a level of fighter after level 3 is 2 instant feats. Not the best but it's some. The wizard doesn't get bonus feat til 5, so it's something to work for.

True. It does skew how classes are viewed. Taking fighter at level 11 just gets you 3-4 fighter feats (1 fighter level + bonus levels) which might seem bad. But my friend did it for instant Shock Trooper Feat gain and spammed Heedless Charge.

Doesn't make fighters any better but it does make the high level fighter playable.

 

[slobo777]

Fighters still gain bonus feats as they get bonus feats at level 1. So a level of fighter after level 3 is 2 instant feats. Not the best but it's some. The wizard doesn't get bonus feat til 5, so it's something to work for.

True. It does skew how classes are viewed. Taking fighter at level 11 just gets you 3-4 fighter feats (1 fighter level + bonus levels) which might seem bad. But my friend did it for instant Shock Trooper Feat gain and spammed Heedless Charge.

Doesn't make fighters any better but it does make the high level fighter playable.

Throwing in the bonus feats is nice. It's an interesting patch, and I'd be happy to see something similar in Next i.e. some class features dished out for each level as you gain it, others handled based on an 'effective class level' which scales somehow against your total class levels.

The only problem I *might* have with it in practice is if the pendulum has swung too far. Unless the front-loading of saves bonuses, proficiencies and nice little extras (+10' move for Barbarian) is toned down, then multi-classing is just plain better than single class in a lot of cases.

Having said that, I'm kind of ok with "multi-classing is de-rigeur for the best builds" if that's an up-front thing. It's preferable to it being a trap option, and it opens up more choices than the opposite of "pure builds only are the best". And 4E pretty much has this too - the MC feats are considered good enough, it's not whether you'll take one, it's more "what do I spend my one MC feat slot on?"

My ideal is still that MC builds should have less absolute effectiveness, but more flexibility. If we can avoid mechanics quirks around "dipping" being too good, but still make it fun and worthwhile, that's the sweet point for me.

 

[Gargoyle]

3e was my favorite by far, because it accomplished the main goal of multiclassing: allow players to build the characters they wanted to play. Feats in 4e just didn't seem to go far enough and hybrids were tacked on too late in the design, and earlier editions had too many restrictions IMO.

If DND Next can do it in this style without the warts of 3e (excessive min-maxing that was mostly precipitated by qualifying for prestige classes;and balance issues, particularly with multiclassed characters being too weak) I will be happy.

 

[Danzauker]

3rd Edition by far and large.

A multiclass system that does not let me choose which other class I want to get along the way, is NOT a multiclass sytem at all, IMHO.

Of course 3rd Ed. multiclass system needs a big fix, but it seems they are already thinking about it.

After all, the playtest documents already say "when you pick class [x] as your FIRST class you get...", so I think the front loading problem is already under close scrutiny.

 

[am181d]

The hack I do for 3.5 multi-classing is to let treat caster level as character level. So a 19th level fighter, 1st level magic-user will only have a couple first level spells, but they'll be able to cast them at 20th level caster level. (So at least they'll get all 5 missiles from the magic missile.)

A more complicated way to do it would be to break up spell casting classes by what you get *new* for that level. So a fighter who takes one level of magic-user at 17th level, would get a small handful of spells, including a 9th level spell. This will rub a lot of folks the wrong way, but if we're talking about legendary heroes, I can see an argument for this approach. My real objection to this approach is that the rules for this would be messier.

 

[Salamandyr]

I like the classic 1e style multi-classing. If I'm playing a warrior mage, I want to play it that way from the beginning of the game.

I've never thought 3e multiclassing was everything it was cracked up to be.

It encourages builds...I hate "builds".

It took several levels for your character to do the things you actually wanted to do with the character.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It really comes down to "What is a classs?"

If your class is nothing more than a loosely conneted set of abilities then 3.X multiclassing works.

If your class represents how you approach the world then multiclassing should either be a huge thing or done very lightly. Classic 1e multiclassing or 4e hybrid rules (let's face it, the conceptual difference between the two is minor) allow for you to approach the world hovering between two viewpoints and the 4e multiclassing rules allow you to pick up some tricks while not fundamentally changing who you are. Dual classing also fits this paradigm even if it's something I don't really want.

So it comes down to whether we see classes as both classic D&D and 4e presented them - or whether we think the 3.X model is accurate. I wish the poll had been a tick box rather than radio button because the way it's presented unnecessarily splits what is a consistent viewpoint.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In principle, I'm more a fan of the 3e approach.

The math can really get screwy; I think it's clear that a fighter 1/barbarian 1 should not have a better fort save than a fighter 2, and the same issues get deeper when you start talking about class abilities. That being said, it's eminently fixable, especially with flatter math.

There are also a lot of class balance issues that popped up due to dipping. Classes really need to be balanced such that taking 1 level is helpful, but not abusive, and that all classes have reasons to look forward to leveling.

One of the big advances in 3e was being able to just "take a level" of something. I'd never want to go back.

***

The whole prestige class thing was really an interesting permutation. It started our small but sure got big. In a way, I'd really like to have seen (sort of like d20 Modern), the base classes get reduced to 10 levels, and having everyone multiclass, either to another base class or an "advanced class". Instead of playing a straight wizard 20, you'd play a wizard 10/archmage 10 (or necromancer 10 or loremaster 10 or wizard 5/rogue 5/arcane trickster 10 whatever). After all, the proliferation of prestige classes and the poor design of the base classes made this common practice anyway (though PF did a nice job of taking a hard look at 20-level viability of the base classes). Probably too much of a sacred cow to kill though.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Classes really need to be balanced such that taking 1 level is helpful, but not abusive, and that all classes have reasons to look forward to leveling.

I read this and I mentally translate it as "classes need to be boring, bland, and homogenous at level 1". Because if you give them character defining abilities (and a class should define a character) at level 1 and they dip then they have two sets of interesting and powerful abilities. And this is always going to be better than the slight increment presented by a flat math system.

If you're setting up your classes so they can all take one level dips you mgiht as well go point buy. The whole purpose of a class based system is so you can have widely differentiated classes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you're setting up your classes so they can all take one level dips you mgiht as well go point buy. The whole purpose of a class based system is so you can have widely differentiated classes.

That's why multiclassing is optional.

and a class should define a character

That I don't agree with. I wouldn't put character defining abilities in classes at all. Combat is a rules system that can exist independent of the fighter. Magic is a rules system that can exist independent of the wizard. I conceptualize classes as convenient packages of abilities that make you better within those systems, not the gateway to those systems.

Even a single-classed character can transcend his class if played well.

"classes need to be boring, bland, and homogenous at level 1"

And this is always going to be better than the slight increment presented by a flat math system.

Not at all. A 1st level wizard can get access to spells, but can't cast them in armor. A 1st level fighter can get access to weapon and armor proficiency. A fighter 1/wizard 1 can be interesting, but not overpowered due to the inherently contradictory nature of his abilities.