D&D 5E (2014) New legends and lore.....multiclassing sneak peak

[keterys]

To be fair, they also will even if it _doesn't_ benefit them

 

[the Jester]

Z, you make some good points! I'm just going to cull out a few things to reply to; I think in the end we simply have different preferences for multiclassing, and I doubt whether either of us is going to convert. Here's hoping 5e supports both of our styles!

Few players multiclass (again, no hard evidence, just experience and what folks in RPGA, design, and marketing tell me).

Interesting. My experience- dating back to BECMI/1e days- is exactly the opposite; probably around 1/3 of all the pcs I've seen over the years have been multiclassed (less in 4e, more in 3e, but overall). But of course, I played in and dmed games that kind of cultivated the sort of "excessive multiclassing" that you don't care for, so it makes sense that there would be more of that kind of thing in my experience.

However, I will say that I disagree that 3e's system was inherently bad. With improved implementation, it could work great. For instance, if all classes gain attack bonus at the same rate and some (e.g. fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc) get additional attack bonuses as class features at certain levels, then the attack bonus problem more or less solves itself. The proficiencies issue is pretty easy to address just by adding a line differentiating between "Starting in this class" and "multiclassing into this class". And so on.

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

I'm with you on having multiclassing be optional. However, I don't like being forced to include feats to use multiclassing options. A 1e-style game might have multiclassing with no feats, for instance.

...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.

Sure, but I'd rather avoid race and class bloat. I'm all for a book of spells, a book of feats, even a whole book of backgrounds. I'm all for monster book after monster book, a 5e Frostfell and Sandstorm and Stormwrack, books on the planes, setting books, etc. Extra base classes and races, though? My least favorite stuff.

But as you say, it's a matter of taste.

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 disagree with you here, except in that it's bad to impose unneeded design constraints. I don't think that it's bad to build custom classes for D&D; in fact, that's been going on since 1e and earlier. While a fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is "not D&D" to you, it certainly is to the guy whose favorite character is that fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1. And what if he's not built that way as a power build (frankly, it doesn't look like one to me), but rather just through the natural evolution of his character (fighter first; wilderness time to gain ranger; urban adventures teach rogue; retreat to the wilderness and learn monk skills; then travel and tell your tales, bard)?

I like 3e multiclassing precisely because it allows finer tuning that previous versions of the game's class systems have.

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.

Except that 3e style multiclassing is, or at least seems to be, hugely popular.

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.

Firstly, I think it's silly to ignore powergamers when designing a given major subsystem of the game, just as it would be silly to ignore the heavy-roleplay crowd when designing that same subsystem (though, probably, certain of the game's systems- combat, interaction, etc- have to veer one way or the other). Why arbitrarily exclude them from the fun here? Multiclassing is a big enough part of a ton of campaigns; it should serve everyone.

As far as new ways of doing multiclassing, while I'm open to the idea- I like the idea of "dip" feats, for instance- if we're going to use a new system for it, it should be an improvement over the 3e system. We tried multiclassing via feats in 4e; frankly, while it's not quite underpowered, it more or less sucks. Something new, different and better? Sure. I just haven't been sold on anything else yet. I think 3e had D&D's best multiclassing, though, so I'm obviously prejudiced.

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.

Fair enough, I guess I did get carried away there, didn't I!

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.

I think the solution is better implementation. The main problems with 3e multiclassing can all be fixed pretty easily IMHO. They just need a little attention and- dare I say it?- playtesting!

 

[the Jester]

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.

The best thing about loose multiclassing (if you will) is organic character growth. You can't design a custom class to accommodate that if you don't know how the character will grow over time until it happens.

 

[keterys]

Organic character growth is one of the hallmarks of point-buy systems, yep. Like my PC in a HERO game I'm playing has altered quite a lot as the game has progressed. There are tons of great ones out there, and I'm happy to play them, though I generally prefer playing a more D&D style game.

I am adamant that the basic core of D&D is not point-buy, however. It is a level and class system based around strong archetypes. 3e style multiclassing is a good option, much like gridded battlemaps and skills, but I do not feel it serves the goals of Next (stated and unstated) to make it the default.

We'll have to see more: things like what stuff you keep from your first class, to know more though.

 

[Greg K]

Personally, I want some more base classes with their own subclasses. To me it would saves needless hoop jumping. Save 3e multiclassing for a character that changes their actual class due to character development.

Arcane Warrior: subclasses: battle sorcerer, Spellsingers, Spellswords, Duskblades, Eldritch Knights, etc. Light armored, hybrid arcane warrior caster. Make channel through weapons a feat or optional ability. Heavier armor can be granted by taking feats.
Arcane Trickster: arcane/rogue hybrid
Monk (OA Shaman): casting/martial arts hybrid. subclasses: arcane (enlightened fist) , divine (Sacred Fist), nature (?). Rename the, current monk something else (even scrap it and make a more customizeable martial artist or warrior monk class).
Mystic Theurge: the arcane/divine hybrid caster
Psychic (psionicist)
Psychic Warrior:
Shaman: spirit pact primal caster. variants would be different totems and traditions (and I would look to Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook).
Warden
Witch: arcane/divine/nature casting hybrid.
Insert name:dexterous lightly armored rogue/fighter hybrid, Duelist (3e sword and fist), Martial Rogue (3e unearthed arcana), Swashbuckler

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think the solution is better implementation. The main problems with 3e multiclassing can all be fixed pretty easily IMHO. They just need a little attention and- dare I say it?- playtesting!

I'm wary of this. Mainly because it's a system without constraints. Simply saying "Every level you go up, you can choose a different class" doesn't take into account the 30-50 classes/subclasses that are likely to exist out there eventually and how combining their abilities together in the hundreds of thousands of different combinations possible could affect game balance.

It's rather impossible to give each and every one of those combinations proper testing and it's almost a certainty that broken combinations will exist that will make some players unhappy.

 

[JamesonCourage]

First, let me start with this:

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

I don't want to say "deal breaker", but this is just about as close as I can get. This is just terrible, in my book. To the current discussion:

You know what's interesting (to me, at least)? My RPG is point-buy. But, for my latest campaign, I made 10 classes, and had my players use them. This has given me some insight into point-buy vs. classes, recently.

First, let me say that my players used the classes at low levels (level 2-10), and then built high level characters (level 15, same campaign world), and they never broke the system. I'll also note again that there were only 10 classes, but some were pretty robust, and I don't think having 10 or 50 classes would've made a difference.

Why? Well, because everything they could do was even more constrained than normal for my RPG. No matter what combination they came up with when combining classes, they could do even more in my normal RPG (since it's point-buy), and I had done all the initial balancing with the point-buy model in mind. So, there was no combination of Fighter / Wizard (as an example, since I didn't have "Fighter" or "Wizard") that became too powerful, since you could just build a fighting guy with wizardry stuff in the normal point-buy game and not break stuff.

Also, my multi-classing rules were extremely relaxed. You could take any level of a class you dipped into, up to your character level. So, if you're a level 9 Fighter that is going up to level 10, and you dip Wizard, you could take 1 level of Wizard from level 1 to 10, your choice. I did put a restriction on that, though, that you had to meet the prerequisites within the class. Spells I (1st level spells) was necessary before Spells II (2nd level spells), etc. So, he'd likely become Fighter 9 / Wizard 1 (with Spells I), and then next level Fighter 9 / Wizard 2 (and pick up Wizard level 3 for Spells II), etc.

I don't propose this system because I think it might be a bit complex for many D&D players (though certainly not my group), but the class experiment did show me something interesting: if you build things with a point-buy basis, it'll protect your classes when multi-classing comes up. I don't have to worry about people mixing "iconic class abilities" and getting some unholy combination; I already ironed those bits out when anybody could buy anything with points.

Right now, I think that approaching classes from the standpoint of "this is iconic to this class, so we look at it at a lens of only with this class" is fairly toxic to designing for 3.X-style multi-classing. You get things like "a Monk needs to fight unarmored, so we'll give him that at level 1, so he doesn't get destroyed in combat" being mixed with Clerics or Druids and their high Wisdom, just because it works well and is a nice dip (especially if you trade armor proficiencies away for other benefits, via alternate class features, subclasses, or whatever).

I think that if they're set on 3.X-style multi-classing (which I prefer), then they should stop making so many exceptions with the classes. More unified rules structure, more abilities designed with every class in mind, etc. Heck, I'd support there being the three core books, and a fourth book revealing all the math they use (the point-buy behind the curtain) so that DMs and players can make their own classes, races, etc. without breaking the game.

Based on recent experience, I just feel that a point-buy base makes for a much stronger game, and it in no way prevents strong, themed classes (like my Bloodletter, Blacksoul, Hand of Dawn, Order of the Obsidian Flame, Magician of Nyt, etc. classes). It just makes it so that, once the point-buy kinks are worked out, the game doesn't break when you allow even very loose multi-classing. They seem to be approaching things from a "math later" angle (which I think is a mistake), and they certainly won't swap to a point-buy basis this late, but I think that it makes for a much stronger foundation upon which to build 3.X-style multi-classing (which I'd like to see in the game).

Here's hoping that they work it out, because I quite like my Wiz 3/Pal 3/Rog 4/Ran 2/Ftr 3 characters in the game, occasionally. About just as much as Mnk 15 or Bar 15, really. Both are about as boring or as interesting as you make them, and both can have good reasons or bad reasons or no reasons for being what they are, mechanically. Anyway, just my thoughts on it. As always, play what you like

 

[Warbringer]

I'm wary of this. Mainly because it's a system without constraints. Simply saying "Every level you go up, you can choose a different class" doesn't take into account the 30-50 classes/subclasses that are likely to exist out there eventually and how combining their abilities together in the hundreds of thousands of different combinations possible could affect game balance.

It's rather impossible to give each and every one of those combinations proper testing and it's almost a certainty that broken combinations will exist that will make some players unhappy.

Maybe it will be you can only dip into other non-class classes, meaning you can't dip into multiple sub-classes of a class.

Fighter/Wizard -> OK
Ranger/Illusionist -> OK
Fighter/Ranger -> No
Fighter/Mage/Cleric -> OK

Also constrains you to 4 classes over the life of the multi-classer...

 

[Ratskinner]

The best thing about loose multiclassing (if you will) is organic character growth. You can't design a custom class to accommodate that if you don't know how the character will grow over time until it happens.

I disagree with you here, except in that it's bad to impose unneeded design constraints. I don't think that it's bad to build custom classes for D&D; in fact, that's been going on since 1e and earlier. While a fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is "not D&D" to you, it certainly is to the guy whose favorite character is that fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1. And what if he's not built that way as a power build (frankly, it doesn't look like one to me), but rather just through the natural evolution of his character (fighter first; wilderness time to gain ranger; urban adventures teach rogue; retreat to the wilderness and learn monk skills; then travel and tell your tales, bard)?

I like 3e multiclassing precisely because it allows finer tuning that previous versions of the game's class systems have.

I think heavily multiclassed characters are side-effect caused by 3e's multiclassing (especially prestige class requirements), rather than a breath of fresh air finally permitted by 3e's multiclassing. By which I mean: If (from the start) a player desires a character concept which is best expressed by a fighter2/monk3/etc.etc., then I think that concept is likely better served by a formal custom class (or subclass) system, rather than wait 6 levels before being adequately expressed. Hopefully that could be accomplished more smoothly than the Skills and Powers era of 2e. I would especially think that the subclasses will make this a bit easier.

I certainly do think that the idea of organic character growth you express is important. However, I am less certain that the free-wheeling multiclassing of 3e is an effective representation of that growth. Particularly if level 1 characters are to be heroic from the get-go, front-loading can become quite an issue. I don't have any great ideas as a substitute or modification, but the 3 amateur levels sounds pretty good.

I will throw in on the "ignore powergaming" end of things. Powergamers are going to powergame whatever system is there. There's simply no need to account for that desire at this stage of the game (except to guard against it vis-a-vis balance).

 

[Zaruthustran]

Z, you make some good points! I'm just going to cull out a few things to reply to; I think in the end we simply have different preferences for multiclassing, and I doubt whether either of us is going to convert. Here's hoping 5e supports both of our styles!

I think you're correct. My intention is not to convert, it's to discuss. I adore this game and enjoy talking about it. It's why I searched for and joined Eric Noah's 3rd Edition News way back in the day, why I wrote such a favorable review of the game when it came out, and why I come back to what is now ENWorld to geek out on new edition speculation. It's been my honor and privilege to be an in-the-book credited playtester for 3rd, 4th, and (assumedly) now 5th. And of course that same honor and privilege to argue design merits with knowledgeable enthusiasts such as yourself.

Interesting. My experience- dating back to BECMI/1e days- is exactly the opposite; probably around 1/3 of all the pcs I've seen over the years have been multiclassed (less in 4e, more in 3e, but overall). But of course, I played in and dmed games that kind of cultivated the sort of "excessive multiclassing" that you don't care for, so it makes sense that there would be more of that kind of thing in my experience.

I'd wager that the more experienced of a roleplayer you are, the more likely you are to want to tinker with your character. In 3E, that tinkering was via feats and the simple multiclassing system.

I've got two comments about that. First, it's inaccurate for you to say I didn't care for 3E's multiclass system (excessive or not). I played more 3E than any other edition, and I don't think a single character was single-classed. I've got much love for 3E, and 3.5. But it did get crazy at the end, what with the aforementioned unbounded madness.

Second comment is a repeat: as great as 3e was (or wasn't), it was 3e--and 5e is an opportunity for a fresh take. That's what inspired my initial post: a desire for the designers to look at the past, sure, but to let that past inform the new edition. Rather than dictate the new edition. In short: I'd prefer that 5e not be a 3.999e.

However, I will say that I disagree that 3e's system was inherently bad. With improved implementation, it could work great. For instance, if all classes gain attack bonus at the same rate and some (e.g. fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc) get additional attack bonuses as class features at certain levels, then the attack bonus problem more or less solves itself. The proficiencies issue is pretty easy to address just by adding a line differentiating between "Starting in this class" and "multiclassing into this class". And so on.

I hope my comments above clarify that I don't think 3e's system was inherently bad--for 3e. With proper oversight a similar system might be able to work, and not collapse under its own weight. That said, I'd prefer to get a look at a fresh take first, that started with "why would a player want to multiclass?" and grew from there.

I'm with you on having multiclassing be optional. However, I don't like being forced to include feats to use multiclassing options. A 1e-style game might have multiclassing with no feats, for instance.

Fair enough. How about new classes that are a thoughtful interpretation of classic multiclass combinations? Ah yes, bloat. I think you dislike bloat as much as I dislike 3e-style multiclassing in 5e.

Sure, but I'd rather avoid race and class bloat. I'm all for a book of spells, a book of feats, even a whole book of backgrounds. I'm all for monster book after monster book, a 5e Frostfell and Sandstorm and Stormwrack, books on the planes, setting books, etc. Extra base classes and races, though? My least favorite stuff.

Me, too. But you acknowledge base classes are coming. So since they are coming, wouldn't you prefer a Wizard/Cleric to a, I don't know, one of the fringe classes from 3e's list of 175 base classes? That's not a knock on 3e; it's a recognition that class bloat will happen, so might as well be make-sense classes like common multiclass archetypes.

While a fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is "not D&D" to you, it certainly is to the guy whose favorite character is that fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1. And what if he's not built that way as a power build (frankly, it doesn't look like one to me), but rather just through the natural evolution of his character (fighter first; wilderness time to gain ranger; urban adventures teach rogue; retreat to the wilderness and learn monk skills; then travel and tell your tales, bard)?

I like 3e multiclassing precisely because it allows finer tuning that previous versions of the game's class systems have.

Again: me too. I loved 3e's multiclassing when I played 3e, up until it got too crazy. My initial post linked to the forbidden fruit I discovered at the end of that dark trail. And that sort of character that skips around to five entirely new professions every 1-2 months of in-game time, and gains instant mastery over a suite of base-level abilities in those new professions? The wizard who, literally one day, wakes up suddenly knowing how to wield every weapon with the skill of a career soldier? 3E's multiclass system serves that character well.

So well, that I don't think it needs to be done again. That system exists; 5e is an opportunity to try something different. To meet the needs of that player in a new way. In 3e, if you wanted your fighter to pick up a little magic you had to devote an entire character level to the endeavor, with the associated crappy attack bonus and low hp. In 5e, the Disciple feat gives you cantrips--you can do a little magic, while still remaining a fighter. In previous incarnations of the 5e playtest, that minor ability met the pre-req for gaining a familiar (prereq: ability to cast a spell). Now you're a fighter who can light his own cook fire, amuse his pals and confound his foes with illusions, kill pests with a pointed finger and whispered word, and command a magical companion. All while remaining as puissant a fighter as ever. How cool is that?

That example hits at what I was talking about originally: identifying the player's desires. In your example, see if this satisfies the hypothetical player: fighter class. Takes a background of "warden" to give tracking ability and wilderness lore. Spends a feat (hiss! feats! but bear with me) to gain sneak attack and a 1d6 expertise die to one specific type of thievery (pick pocket, or locks, or traps, or flim-flam). Spends another feat to learn unarmed attack. Spends another to gain one use of bard song. You've dabbled, but you're still a fully-effective fighter. And each of those dabblings gives less than a full level's worth of benefits of the dabbled-in class.

Perhaps a hobby/interest system that rides shotgun to the level system, representing what your character pursues when they're not pursuing their main profession. For true seismic shifts, where the character puts down the sword in favor of devoting themselves fully to magic? I suppose 3e is pretty good at representing that specific case.

Or something entirely new? If the player is that uncommitted to a particular character, I as dm would suggest having that player roll several characters and play them all, at once.

Point being: even the player of the fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 must be aware that he's building a custom class, that D&D does not offer custom classes (that's why he's forced to build it himself by taking multiclassing to a crazy extreme), and therefore his fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is "not D&D."

Firstly, I think it's silly to ignore powergamers when designing a given major subsystem of the game, just as it would be silly to ignore the heavy-roleplay crowd when designing that same subsystem (though, probably, certain of the game's systems- combat, interaction, etc- have to veer one way or the other). Why arbitrarily exclude them from the fun here? Multiclassing is a big enough part of a ton of campaigns; it should serve everyone.

It's not arbitrary. It's deliberate. But more importantly: I'm not suggesting to exclude powergamers from fun, or to have a system that doesn't not serve everyone. I believe I advocated ignoring powergamers when coming up with a new solution to the player motivation behind what has, in the past, been serviced by multiclassing. To take a step back and think about why other players would want to multiclass. We already know why powergamers like to level-dip. So ignore that, for now, and think about the motivations of the other player types.

I keep linking that because it's useful shorthand for D&D's customer base. Everyone's a mix, sure, but I think it's a useful exercise to consider the other player types. It might lead to an innovation.

As far as new ways of doing multiclassing, while I'm open to the idea- I like the idea of "dip" feats, for instance- if we're going to use a new system for it, it should be an improvement over the 3e system. We tried multiclassing via feats in 4e; frankly, while it's not quite underpowered, it more or less sucks. Something new, different and better? Sure. I just haven't been sold on anything else yet. I think 3e had D&D's best multiclassing, though, so I'm obviously prejudiced.

I'm excited about the possibility of something new. 4e feat-based multiclassing did suck, but it was necessarily tied into a lot of 4e's other systems. Totally agree that 3e had D&D's best multiclassing so far. So you can see why I'm enthused to see 5e, which is most-like 3e in terms of base mechanics (think about it--it's not 1e or 2e's soup of systems, and it's not 4e's cacophony of powers), try 4e's feat-based system. Yuck, what an awful sentence. Anyway, I'm hoping for a best-of-both-worlds scenario. Or something wholly new.

Fair enough, I guess I did get carried away there, didn't I!
I think the solution is better implementation. The main problems with 3e multiclassing can all be fixed pretty easily IMHO. They just need a little attention and- dare I say it?- playtesting!

No worries. I certainly think it's possible to fix 3e multiclassing (though with more than a little work). And yes: more playtesting needed.