D&D 5E multilass builds (kits)

[howandwhy99]

I think it misses the point of what overlapping core classes are not to mention cumulative XP. A class like this would normally be a new core class only it overlaps too heavily with two existent ones and then lacks its own niche. Could it be done? Not without rewriting core game systems into something that would no longer be a game system really. It would be like designing something to be featureless when I think what you want is two well-detailed areas of play, but without any drawbacks like having to gain XP in both.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't know... we'd be talking about a LOT of "combo kits" here. I don't know if it would be worth the space in the book.

If you end up with like 12 classes... isn't that 66 different pairs of classes which you'd have to create "kit" identities for? Especially if you then try and create original combined Maneuvers and Spell Lists for each of these kits? That's a lot of extra design work and page count.

We've had several editions where we players have made up our own "class names" for the multiclass combos (the fighter/cleric is the 'templar'!, the barbarian/wizard is the 'rage mage'!) that I do not know if we really need to have WotC do that kind of work for us.

So long as each class has its 'multiclass half list' of lessened abilities (in amount if not power) like we got with the 4E Hybrid system (so that you could combine both hybrid class halves into a whole)... they can leave the nomenclature and the tweaking to make them "original" to us.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't know... we'd be talking about a LOT of "combo kits" here. I don't know if it would be worth the space in the book.

If you end up with like 12 classes... isn't that 66 different pairs of classes which you'd have to create "kit" identities for? Especially if you then try and create original combined Maneuvers and Spell Lists for each of these kits? That's a lot of extra design work and page count.

We've had several editions where we players have made up our own "class names" for the multiclass combos (the fighter/cleric is the 'templar'!, the barbarian/wizard is the 'rage mage'!) that I do not know if we really need to have WotC do that kind of work for us.s.

We dont need every combo, just ones they have cool ideas for. Then they can add more if they get a cool idea. Then people can write in ideas for dragon mag

 

[Li Shenron]

It is no more then picking a tradtion or style... Infact in a multi class it is one LESS because you would pick each, now it is one choice instead of two

Edit: instead of being a fighter(slayer)/wizard (warmage) you would be a fighter/wizard (bladesinger) and still have the option of background and theme

So do you mean that "Bladesinger" would be effectively selected in place of Fighter's Style AND Wizard Tradition, possibly but not necessarily under some multiclassing restriction such as (for example) spreading out 50% levels in the two classes?

So there could be Bob the Fighter/Wizard with Slayer (Fighter's Style) and Warmage (Wizard's Tradition) using standard multiclassing, and there could be Joe the Fighter/Wizard with Bladesinger (eating up the selection of both FTR Style and WIZ Tradition)?

I think it would be an interesting option. It could definitely coexist with a more general-purpose multiclassing rules framework which would allow simple 3e-style multiclassing.

 

[Bluenose]

I don't see how it works with 3e style multiclassing, to be honest. You aren't multiclassed at 1st level, which is presumably when you select the ability. AD&D style multiclassing would be much more workable.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So there could be Bob the Fighter/Wizard with Slayer (Fighter's Style) and Warmage (Wizard's Tradition) using standard multiclassing, and there could be Joe the Fighter/Wizard with Bladesinger (eating up the selection of both FTR Style and WIZ Tradition)?

I actually wouldn't expect Slayer or Warmage to be available as options for the Fighter/Wizard multiclass... because both of them imply you get the full suite of features. And if multiclassing does indeed go the way that Mearls and company have hinted at... you won't get a class's full suite of abilities. You'll get a stripped down "half class" like they had in the 4E hybrid rules. And if that's true... the full-sized Styles and Traditions won't be options to take.

Thus, what I think GMForPowerGamers was talking about was taking the "half suite" of maneuvers you'd get from the fighter and the "half suite" of spells and features you'd get from the wizard, and give it an actual "kit name" (for lack of a better term). Thus the Fighter/Wizard's "kit name" would be Bladesinger.

Fighters have Styles
Rogues have Schemes
Clerics have Deities (or Domains)
Wizards have Traditions
Multiclasses have Kits

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't see how it works with 3e style multiclassing, to be honest. You aren't multiclassed at 1st level, which is presumably when you select the ability. AD&D style multiclassing would be much more workable.

Ok, lets say bladsinger gives you:

Style-
1 parry
2 spring attack
4 tumbling dodge
8 compose attack
10 danger senese

And Tradition- atwill coolspell nicespell and almostbroken spell
signitire spell magic thingy
Special-blade song...


That works fine if you are level 1 wizard or fighter....