D&D 5E New legends and lore.....multiclassing sneak peak

[Cyberen]

Don't forget there is supposed to be an advanced ruleset discussing custom class building. I think "multiclassing" would be better left out the Basic and Standard game, and adressed by exception based design, on a case by case basis. Also, common hybrid tropes/archetype, such as the "gish" deserve their own (official, thoroughly designed and playtested) subclass rather than be one combo amongst a bazillion possible, as would be "big 4 + a la carte multiclassing".
IMO, 3e multiclassing was unbound madness. I wish for "bounded madness" ;-)

 

[Greg K]

3e is my preferred edition (with the caveat of avoiding the WOTC race, class, and alternate new power supplements in favor of certain 3rd party offerings).
That stated, I think multi-classing was handled ass backwards in 3e. In my opinion, the optional training rules of time and having a teacher in the DMG should have been the default. Completely, free multiclassing, should have been the optional rule. Personally, I would add some pre-requisites as well (e.g. the ability to cast cantrips and ranks in an appropriate lore skill to take a level in wizard (or whatever it is being called in the latest packet)).

However, I like that they are limiting what can be gained by multiclassing into a class as opposed to starting in it.

 

[Warbringer]

Multi-classing is about enabling a player to execute a specific concept. It may be role-play based, it may be power-game based, it may be "that seems a cool idea".

In designing that, I believe that the designers need only be aware of two items: Balance and Complexity; the rest is bs or flavor depending on your stance.

Balance: Does the system permit you the ability to take more features by selecting a level than you would get by spending a feat. This means feats need to be balanced against features, which given the new power lift should not be difficult (IMO features have always been more powerful on the whole, or build a cost element (see below)).

Complexity: How complex is the system form a build perceptive. In 2e, NWPs did not cost the same, while in many games your can pay for more powerful feats/aspects/traits by spending more or taking a flaw. Do you build a system that is more balanced in terms of cost for the complexity of a new mechanic to track cost. How to you manage scalability and true complexity (interaction of simple rules to create increasing returns).

To an extent these are complimentary, to an extent the are a trade-off. This to me is axis that they need to balance along.

Not sure what my point was , but my own personal take (and my houserules as a consequence) assume that all classes are build on a chassis that essentially draws form the same feature/feat pool for every class. This requires balancing features (spellcasting, special attacks/abilities (sneak attack, lay on hands, turn undead) into a common benefit language that then interacts with the framework (again, in my campaign this is done through "Prowess" and "Essence") for the player to have a trade-off in mind. You want to take Light Armour proficiency as a Mage, sure: the trade off is less gain "magical" power this level; Fighter, you really want to tap into the ability to manipulate magic, sure you can get a spell or two, but trade off is hit point growth and a little combat ability.

Yes, this is more like a trait system (with levels), but, that's really what multiclassing is at the end of the day, where every trait costs 1 feat/feature slot.

 

[billd91]

I saw with 3E how spell points work in D&D - otherwise known as the psionic system - and it was pretty bad. The min-maxer playing the psion could very easily break the system, and it caused all sorts of trouble with pacing.

For the most part, I thought the structuring of the points worked pretty well. I thought the primary falldown was allowing too many ways for a psion to burn extra points to make the powers more effective - particularly by raising the save DCs. It made going nova too effective. Get rid of those and I think the system has a pretty good core.

 

[billd91]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that, for instance, a fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is somehow bad, that there is something wrong with making a pc with that number of classes and combinations. But you haven't really said why it's bad, especially not in a convincing enough way to persuade the players who like to tinker with pc builds like that. What's wrong with them? If you don't like pcs with 4 or 5 or 6 classes, is it so hard to house rule it that you want to force your preference on the entire gaming community? The "not an archetype" argument doesn't hold water here- how does letting someone play the pc they want ruin everyone's fun?

I'm not going to outright say it's bad, but I will say I don't like it and when I run games I'll tell a player to dial it back. For those players who look at character classes as just collections of mechanics, I can see why engaging in that kind of multiclassing would appeal. But I don't look at character classes that way, so I don't value that style of play and I won't encourage it in any D&D game I run.

 

[Warbringer]

I'm not going to outright say it's bad, but I will say I don't like it and when I run games I'll tell a player to dial it back. For those players who look at character classes as just collections of mechanics, I can see why engaging in that kind of multiclassing would appeal. But I don't look at character classes that way, so I don't value that style of play and I won't encourage it in any D&D game I run.

Which is fair enough, but no reason why the mechanics shouldn't support it.

 

[keterys]

I don't think anyone is objecting to supporting it. Personally, I hope the game supports almost everything. I think the objections are to _encouraging it_.

We're talking about a version of D&D where skills are in an optional module because they're too complex for core. How could 3e style multiclassing not possibly qualify for the same scrutiny?

 

[Zaruthustran]

IMO, 3e multiclassing was unbound madness. I wish for "bounded madness" ;-)

Wow, you win the award for brevity. Thanks for writing that; it's a much more concise expression of my view, as well.

Hold on, there, Tex!

5e isn't being made as a completely new game to try completely new stuff and not retread what D&D has done before. Just the opposite, in fact.

Any proposal for a major section of the rules that starts with "Let's not enable 3e players to recreate their favorite pcs" is a nonstarter right off the bat.

I like your style, the Jester.

Totally disagree with you though. While stated design goals are to honor previous editions, 5e is a "completely new game." The simple test of this is that when it comes out, you will buy it--because you do not yet own it. Because it's completely new.

I see your point in your phrase about not allowing 3e players to recreate their PCs. A stated design goal for 5e is for whatever edition you love the most, you can feel at home in the new edition. Another goal is optional modules. So sure, include an optional rule for 3e-style multiclassing for players of 5e who want a multiclass experience that's very close to 3e. My suggestion regards core/default rules; to identify the issue (that some players want to flavor their characters with elements from other classes), and to offer a less intrusive core/default solution to that issue (beef up backgrounds and feats).

Do you have any evidence for this? I've never seen even an attempt to quantify this, but I think you're wrong, and I also think the distinction between "roleplayer camp" and "powergamer camp" is much softer than you paint it. Almost all players are a mix of the two.

I have no more evidence than you have. Anecdotal evidence from conversations with industry folk (primarily designers and marketers); observations, intuition. There's no independent 3rd party certified research source, and I suspect the sort of person who spends time online on message boards and responds to surveys would impose a terrible selection bias anyway. So if you think there are more power gamers than roleplayers, that's fine--we can reasonably disagree.

And of course most players are a mix. However, that mix is almost certainly not 50/50; people will lean one way or another. But I don't want to spend time on this tangent; I included those terms as a reference to Robin's widely-recognized player styles as a useful shorthand for my actual point, which is player motivation. My suggestion is for 5Es designers to think long and hard about why a person would want to multiclass, and to build a default/core solution that best meets that want. As opposed to a solution that best fits mechanics or previous editions. In other words, have the customer drive the game instead of having the game drive the customer.

A quick sidebar on what I mean by that. 3e-style multiclassing is an example of game driving the customer because it simply takes two distinct game frameworks--class levels and character levels--and mashes them together: "when you advance a character level, add a new class level." This is a simple solution, but it's not necessarily the best solution. As we saw with 3E, it runs into problems because many classes are front-loaded with powers and abilities. There's a good reason why those problems exist: a 1st level character should be effective and enjoyable right from the start. So to "solve" the self-imposed problem of 3E-style multiclassing, the game has to twist over itself and make that 1st level less than complete. And the overall game is weakened by attempting to address self-inflicted issues.

And there's no reason for it. Few players multiclass (again, no hard evidence, just experience and what folks in RPGA, design, and marketing tell me). It's silly to contort the game with 3e's simple and inelegant solution.

So again: I suggest to focus on motivation, instead. Explore if a dash of flavor and minor (but relevant) abilities will suffice. Players enjoy Backgrounds (again: anecdotes and experience), so let's see if we can lean on this new core/default mechanic.

Remember the part of the design where they are making feats completely optional? That makes this another nonstarter.

Yes, I'm essentially advocating for multiclassing to be optional. And that option being accomplished via (also optional) feats.

This [new classes for core hybrids] is so not the path that I want to see D&D take. A bloated class list is a patch that's not needed for a feature (multiclassing) that players have loved and enjoyed since 1e and maybe even before. There is no reason to replace multiclassing with MOAR CLASSES- we'll have enough of those eventually anyhow, and I don't see how that improves anything.

I don't want to see it either. But come on: you've got a join date of 2002 and 20,000 posts. You're an experienced game consumer. Surely you recognize that WotC will be required to produce supplemental rulebooks. Those are coming. They're an integral part of the business model.

So since we're going to get them, I'd rather they feature classic hybrid classes like ftr/wiz and wiz/clr, instead of weirdo fringe classes. That said, I acknowledge that this is a matter of taste.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that, for instance, a fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is somehow bad, that there is something wrong with making a pc with that number of classes and combinations. But you haven't really said why it's bad, especially not in a convincing enough way to persuade the players who like to tinker with pc builds like that.

I have said why it's bad. I'll say it again: what's bad about fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is that it's essentially a custom class, and D&D is fundamentally a class-based game. When 5e was introduced they talked a lot about identifying what's D&D, and what's not D&D. fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is "not D&D." It's bad because due to necessary front-loading of 1st level abilities, it results in a character with abilities outside the game design's base assumptions. Which is bad because such characters combine abilities thoughtlessly, rather than thoughtfully--instead of an experienced designer carefully constructing a ftr/wiz archetype that fits within the game's ecosystem, you get a gross mash of abilities. Which is bad because adventure designers will be caught between designing for single-class characters (which dipped classes will run riot over), or for multiclassed characters (which single-classed characters will be slaughtered by). You can attempt to solve the problem by spreading core abilities over multiple levels, but then you're worsening the default single-class experience for the majority of players in an attempt to cure a problem introduced by a minority of tinker players, and you have to take such "dip" considerations into account for each and every new class you introduce for the entire lifetime of the product. Which is bad because it imposing unneeded design constraints.

I'm not saying tinkering is bad. I'm a tinkerer. I enjoy optimizing. But address that customer desire separately, through other mechanics within single classes. Or through a non-core, limited and truly optional module for 3e-style multiclassing.

how does letting someone play the pc they want ruin everyone's fun? So what do you do for a barbarian/druid? If your answer is "ban them", that's yet another nonstarter. 5e needs to help enable many playstyles, not restrict other people to yours or mine.

Easy, cowboy. You're veering into hyperbole here, and injecting emotion into a design discussion.

As you can see, it doesn't satisfy everyone's needs (heck, you started off by discarding the needs of the powergamers!). And while you didn't like the way multiclassing worked in 3e, the vast majority of gamers that I've played with love it. So let's go ahead and repeat that choice.

Whoa, take it easy. I said ignore powergamers when designing for a solution to the customer want of multiclassing. D&D has plenty of other systems and mechanics to address the needs of powergamers, and as a powergamer I heartily hope that the designers fully explore those systems. And yes, plenty of people liked 3E multiclassing. 5e is not 3e. It's an opportunity to do something different, and address the customer desire motivating multiclassing in a new way.

So "Screw you, go play another game" is your solution to this one?

Inclusion, man, inclusion. That's the whole point of 5e.

Yes, that's totally what I'm saying. I think Wizards of the Coast should launch a branding campaign "D&D Next: screw you!"

I'm liking your style less now. Come on. You're better than that.

And yes, inclusion. I'm all about inclusion. Why not include 3e-style multiclassing, perhaps as a web supplement or other optional rule module? Makes sense. But the core product? I'd prefer something more considered, something that doesn't impose unnecessary design constraints on every other class for the lifetime of the edition.

Tell me then how can you use this to represent "it's mid-campaign I've decided I'm no longer a thief and I'm going to spend the rest of my time praying and doing good deeds" whit only backgrounds and feats. Any result when you just keep getting better at being a rogue every singel level up while never improving as a cleric does not fit the bill.

I haven't forgotten about you! Your example is totally not served by what I advocated. Very good point. I think such a major change is very rare--so rare that it shouldn't impose changes on the core system. That said, such an occurrence could be served via a respec, via the optional 3e-style multiclassing module mentioned above, or via a custom solution worked out between DM and player.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

So far I'm mostly liking the multiclassing system, though I'm a little wary. I find it a little kludgy to need a special class for each combination of fighting class and casting class just to solve the problem. I'd prefer not to have to see a special class for Fighter/Wizard, Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/Druid, Ranger/Cleric, Ranger/Wizard, and so on. With each new caster class that comes out we'd need 10 new multiclass classes.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't think anyone is objecting to supporting it. Personally, I hope the game supports almost everything. I think the objections are to _encouraging it_.

I'm willing to be the bad guy here and say I object to supporting it. IME, supporting something is the same as encouraging it. If people are allowed to take 10 different classes at 1 level each, they will if it benefits them.


I like archetypes and I find allowing excessive multiclassing ruins those. I'd much prefer a system where 2 or 3 classes was the most you could have. More like 2e or 1e.