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

[Warbringer]

Must spread XP. Not for being funny, but instead for reminding me that I am officially NOT a geek because I've only seen Princess Bride once.

That is SAD - geek or not

 

[Falling Icicle]

There is still a key difference, and that is in a limit on both number of spells that can be cast and on the number of high level spells that can be cast.

It is actually quite significant. I do not support a spell point system at all. The slot system works a lot better.

That's true, a spell slot system does prevent you from casting several 9th level spells or dozens of 1st level spells.

 

[MerricB]

That's true, a spell slot system does prevent you from casting several 9th level spells or dozens of 1st level spells.

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.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Reasons for multiclassing

-For optimization
-For a sprinkle of extra flavor (get a perk)
-For blending archetypes
-To be truly unique in the world, (I'm an empowered and special elf who just loves to kick tiefling asses and have studdied and practiced all techniques available to do that. I have a sense of camaraderie and respect with paladins and good rangers alike. Oh and one of my ancestors was a dragon too, my class levels just happen to be rogue5/ranger2/paladin1/sorcerer7 it is all coincidental)
-To show and express character growth

Your model "dipping only and then some set in stone blending of two" doesn't really deliver in all of those cases. Also it brings out to much class bloat and still isn't as flexible.

I agree with all the reasons you list. Where we disagree is while I think the "truly unique" reason exists, I don't think 5E should address it. Or rather, I don't think 5E should address it via 3e-style multiclass dipping. The player of the rogue5/ranger2/paladin1/sorcerer7 is essentially building his own custom class. That person should play the infinite number of other RPGs that offer a true custom/classless system. D&D is, historically, a class-based system. In my opinion 5E should embrace that.

The other reasons you listed can be addressed with 5E's existing feats and backgrounds, or via perks created via DM/player collaboration. Class bloat is going to happen anyway. Flexibility is there, and the person who wants unlimited flexibility is better served with a classless system. Such as FATE Core.

4e featured your model, while good for blending archetypes it wasn't truly satisfactory. Since you mentioned 3.x as something to get away from, I mention 4e already did that and it wasn't so good.

I see your point. However, 4E's multiclassing was necessarily tied into 4E's power-based (and feat-based) system: the multiclass feats allowed for (feat-expensive) swapping of powers, and (more importantly) unlocked access to class-specific feats and paragon paths. They were pitiful in and of themselves (+1 to one attack once per encounter? One at-will power that you can use once per encounter?!); they were nothing more than gateway feats to unusually powerful combos. I suggest that that system might be why you judge 4E multiclassing to be unsatisfying.

I meant that your attempt to catter to roleplayers actually happens to exclude roleplayers.

I disagree with that statement. "Exclude roleplayers" is a pretty big, and incorrect, stretch for what I wrote.

 

[Li Shenron]

But then multiclassing could delay your acquisition of feats. I don't think a multiclass character should get fewer feats, or have to wait longer to get them, than single class characters.

Just noticed this on twitter (answering a question about when does a multiclassed PC get feats):

It's based on your class and level within that class. Multiclassing does, by design, delay feats.

 

[Aloïsius]

I agree with all the reasons you list. Where we disagree is while I think the "truly unique" reason exists, I don't think 5E should address it. Or rather, I don't think 5E should address it via 3e-style multiclass dipping. The player of the rogue5/ranger2/paladin1/sorcerer7 is essentially building his own custom class. That person should play the infinite number of other RPGs that offer a true custom/classless system. D&D is, historically, a class-based system. In my opinion 5E should embrace that.
[...] Flexibility is there, and the person who wants unlimited flexibility is better served with a classless system. Such as FATE Core.

5e is about allowing people to play how they like. You are saying "3e multiclassing was badwrongfunD&D, go elsewhere", I hope WotC does not share your point of view. (and 3e multiclassing was roughly the same as human multiclassing in 1&2e anyway).

 

[keterys]

3e style multiclassing is a big stride towards turning D&D into a point-based, rather than class-based system (even if a level is a pretty darn big point). I'd personally been hoping that it would be a module, rather than the default, because my experience is that it greatly complicated the game and made character planning get potentially insane.

It'll help if they avoid making anything (feats, PrCs) have prereqs, I suppose. And make the 1st level of every class as (good / crappy) as the X (X = 2 - 20)th level of every class. And warn people about things that break the system - which it sounds like they're doing with gish (fighter / wizard) type builds, but it worries me that they're already planning a patch on the system with special subclasses to address that.

So, yeah, not enthusiastic about the announcement.

P.S. Dual classing in 1e / 2e was almost nothing like 3e style multiclassing. Unless it suddenly has a "you forgot everything you knew. You'll suddenly remember it in a year" clause, among other things

 

[MoonSong]

I agree with all the reasons you list. Where we disagree is while I think the "truly unique" reason exists, I don't think 5E should address it. Or rather, I don't think 5E should address it via 3e-style multiclass dipping. The player of the rogue5/ranger2/paladin1/sorcerer7 is essentially building his own custom class. That person should play the infinite number of other RPGs that offer a true custom/classless system. D&D is, historically, a class-based system. In my opinion 5E should embrace that.

I disagree with that statement. "Exclude roleplayers" is a pretty big, and incorrect, stretch for what I wrote.

You claim to have roleplayers best interests in mind with your proposal, yet your dismisal of wanting to do something unique (the "custom class") does exclude roleplayers because wanting to do something unique is a roleplayer trait.

The other reasons you listed can be addressed with 5E's existing feats and backgrounds, or via perks created via DM/player collaboration. Class bloat is going to happen anyway. Flexibility is there, and the person who wants unlimited flexibility is better served with a classless system. Such as FATE Core.

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 see your point. However, 4E's multiclassing was necessarily tied into 4E's power-based (and feat-based) system: the multiclass feats allowed for (feat-expensive) swapping of powers, and (more importantly) unlocked access to class-specific feats and paragon paths. They were pitiful in and of themselves (+1 to one attack once per encounter? One at-will power that you can use once per encounter?!); they were nothing more than gateway feats to unusually powerful combos. I suggest that that system might be why you judge 4E multiclassing to be unsatisfying.

Maybe from an optimizing point of view this may be true, but from a roleplaying side of things being encaged on whatever you decide for first level and having to plan longterm in order to barely escape out of it was the problem, even if it took no effort, not being to multiclasse out of your first class is what makes 4e so restrictive

3e style multiclassing is a big stride towards turning D&D into a point-based, rather than class-based system (even if a level is a pretty darn big point). I'd personally been hoping that it would be a module, rather than the default, because my experience is that it greatly complicated the game and made character planning get potentially insane.

It'll help if they avoid making anything (feats, PrCs) have prereqs, I suppose. And make the 1st level of every class as (good / crappy) as the X (X = 2 - 20)th level of every class. And warn people about things that break the system - which it sounds like they're doing with gish (fighter / wizard) type builds, but it worries me that they're already planning a patch on the system with special subclasses to address that.

So, yeah, not enthusiastic about the announcement.

P.S. Dual classing in 1e / 2e was almost nothing like 3e style multiclassing. Unless it suddenly has a "you forgot everything you knew. You'll suddenly remember it in a year" clause, among other things

What made 3.x complicated (or at least from my perspective, I'm not an optimizer) wasn't the ability to multiclass at every level, but the heavy requisites for prestige classes which commonly included the need to multiclass.

 

[the Jester]

Instead of looking at the mechanics of multiclassing, 5E's designers should take a step back and look instead at the intent of the player.

Why do players want to multiclass? What roleplaying or mechanical void are they trying to fill? Which desires aren't being met by the current lineup of classes?

I suspect that most players who want to play multiclass characters fall into two camps:

1. Minmaxers looking for optimal mechanical efficiency. I was in this camp in 3E's multiclass-friendly system. I abused the heck out of it, winding up with a rogue/ranger/fighter/wild runner/scout/shadowdancer/dread commando with a flying, incorporeal, can-only-be-harmed-by-magic undead companion. That character was sick, and could solo most anything. Sigh. Ah, 3E.
2. Roleplayers looking for a little differentiation. A dash of flavor to an otherwise vanilla straight-class character.

What I want the 5E designers to do is ignore the first camp. That game already exists, and it's called 3.x (including Pathfinder).

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.

Instead, focus on the second camp. It's a much bigger camp.

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.

Focus instead on the desires of the roleplayers. Start by adding cantrips or single armor or weapon proficiency to the existing Backgrounds, as appropriate: cleric cantrips for priest, mage cantrips to sage, longsword or chainmail to Soldier, and so on. Then, give everyone a first-level feat that can only be spent on a restricted feat list: the Disciple feats for those that want to dabble in casting, a suite of similarly-powered feats for dabbling in non-caster classes, and a small collection of low-power generic-but-universally-useful feats (improved initiative and such) for those who don't want to dabble.

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

Finally, throw a bone to those seeking true hybrids by (shudder) bloating the class list.

This 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.

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?

It's inevitable anyway given the demands of the RPG marketplace. Might as well make class-bloat a feature by introducing, via supplemental rulebooks, new classes that are hybrids of all the basic class combos. ftr/wiz, ftr/rog, ftr/clr, wiz/rog, wiz/clr, clr/rog. Instead of a straight mish-mash of class features from the source classes, these would be all-new classes thoughtfully designed to present a true hybrid experience. No need to hybridize classes that are already hybrids (bard, ranger, paladin). And barbarian, druid, and monk don't feel like they lend themselves to hybridization.

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.

That seems like a straighter, better path. Satisfies the needs of everyone, prioritizing roleplayers first, and not repeating the... mistakes is the wrong word, let's call it simply "choices" of previous editions.

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.

I agree with all the reasons you list. Where we disagree is while I think the "truly unique" reason exists, I don't think 5E should address it. Or rather, I don't think 5E should address it via 3e-style multiclass dipping. The player of the rogue5/ranger2/paladin1/sorcerer7 is essentially building his own custom class. That person should play the infinite number of other RPGs that offer a true custom/classless system. D&D is, historically, a class-based system. In my opinion 5E should embrace that.

The other reasons you listed can be addressed with 5E's existing feats and backgrounds, or via perks created via DM/player collaboration. Class bloat is going to happen anyway. Flexibility is there, and the person who wants unlimited flexibility is better served with a classless system. Such as FATE Core.

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

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

 

[keterys]

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.

Actually, I'll go ahead on record and say that's bad. There are a few reasons that might occur, and a few ramifications, but there are almost certainly better ways for the system to support that. Even if it's just the DM and player designing a custom class so it's not "Well, I really want a gladiator pit fighter type who fights near-naked with any weapon that comes to hand, like a net and spear, and kicks and stuff. Oh, and I want to be able to work the crowd some - so I guess that's a level of this, 2 levels of that, 2 levels of this, 1 level of that" etc.

Multiclassing strictly for individual rules pieces (ex: monk unarmored fighting, flurry, ranger TWF, etc) is not something I support. Doing it for RP reasons has better justification, perhaps, but now the system is letting the RPer unbalance their character (Okay, so you can't fight or cast at even half your character level and your skills are kinda scattered, which I guess makes you a jack of all trades and not really contributing to your party, so congratulations)

At the end of the day, if I want a point-based system I'll play a game intended as such. D&D's attempts to mimic one have largely been failures.

That said - I'm all for the inclusion angle, and think the method is a perfectly fine module for those who need it. I just think it's a really bad default state for the game. It inhibits the learning curve, mismatches power badly, and creates weird offshoots (well, I guess now we need a mystic theurge to patch _that_, etc)

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.

Fwiw, I totally agree that 5e should have an answer for those who want to play a barbarian/druid equivalent. And not necessarily one that takes 10 levels so you can qualify for the bear rager prestige class