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!