D&D 5E Proposal: Fighter/mage/thief: quick and dirty concurrent multiclassing/gestalt rules

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ah, of course! Shouldn't it be 23/45 skeletons then, due to the extra one you get from Undead Thralls?

Without Undead Thralls, you lose out on 3 skeletons. Undead Thralls brings the loss down to 2. (E.g. Animate Dead V can maintain 8 or raise 6 with Undead Thralls; otherwise it can maintain 8 or raise 5.)

That's fair. I'd allow it IMC but I have a random summoning table for the various Conjure spells (player picks the CR, then I roll on the appropriate table). So they have 1 in 3 odds to get pixies, but it's up to chance.

I'm actually thinking more of the DM side of things. 3 Blue Slaads and 3 goblins have a completely different threat profile than 3 Blue Slaads and 3 evil Pixies due to Polymorph/Confusion/Entangle/Phantasmal Force + high stealth. The least I can do is hand out 200 XP per Pixie instead of a measly 50 XP. Arguably, even CR 1 is lowballing it and I should be treating them as CR 3 and handing out 700+ XP.

The summoning exploit is a side-effect of the wrong CR, not the root problem.

It is RAW however, and would work as stated at some tables. I have a friend who lets the players pick their conjured creatures simply because he doesn't want to do it himself.

Sure, but my multiclassing rules are not RAW. You will never have "100% RAW" and "Hemlock-designed multiclassing" at the same table, so why should I worry about what the RAW is on Pixies if I think the RAW here is unreasonable?

In fairness, the ability to upgrade your minions with gear is up to the DM. The DM would be within his rights to say that skeletons and zombies are only capable of using the gear listed in their MM entries, or only simple weapons and light armor, or whatever. He could even give them the same proficiencies they had in life, meaning that soldier skeletons would be far more useful than commoner skeletons.

Even without armor proficiency, zombies still make good meat shields. It gives them disadvantage on attacks and ability checks, but you can cancel that out with Stinking Cloud, Help actions (e.g. from every other zombie), or Nets. Besides, you're using them to Dodge and buy time for your skeletons to shoot, so disadvantage is only hampering their opportunity attacks, which are strictly a bonus.

Proficiency is nice, especially for PCs, but it's not strictly necessary. Ghouls aren't even proficient in their own (iconic!) claw attacks!

But, if the DM rules that skeletons aren't proficient in heavy crossbows/longbows/nets, it's probably better to stick to shortbows for that case because the to-hit there is more important than the extra point (longbows) or two (heavy crossbows) of damage. Doesn't make much difference to the analysis but would be something to bear in mind at the table.

I was referring to the advantage the wolves get from pack tactics. Obviously, if you have archers, you command the wolves not to trip (unless the wolves are occupying a creature that the archers won't be targeting).

If you don't have archers, then your minions don't really scale in the first place. 50 zombies with greatswords are not noticeably better than 20 zombies in a fight against six mummies. There's not enough room to bring them all into play.

Those net throwing skeletons might be non-proficient depending on the DM. Additionally, they have disadvantage with the net (short range is point blank), so your ability to hit will be questionable. Finally, it won't work against anything bigger than Large.

All true. All reasons why discussing skeleton tactics is complicated, and why I said it was a "crude" assumption that only six skeletons get detailed to net throwing. If they are ruled nonproficient, you might want to detail more skeletons. (And if the target is high-AC, you might have fewer skeletons throw nets and more skeletons Help. Naturally you have to make these divisions of labor in advance because you only have one bonus action for commanding them on the fly during combat.)

Eh, I wouldn't want to play a Necro/Druid or even a Necro at your table. I used to be a power gamer back in 3e, but I left that behind along with the edition. It turned into a meaningless arms race of mutually assured destruction (of the campaign). If you've ever seen me post that I would never want to play 3e again, that's why. Oddly enough I still enjoy thinking about ways to "break" systems. I simply have absolutely no desire to actually implement those ideas.

In a friend's campaigns from a while back, my character gained a second class due to exposure to a magical lake of quicksilver (all class features, only half the hp, no extra xp needed, and it was something like 5 levels behind my "main" class). Because it was natural magic based, I was allowed to choose between barbarian, ranger, and druid for my "second" class. Both barbarian and ranger would have been a massive boost in power, but I chose druid despite having only a 10 wisdom. I did so because I didn't want to overshadow the other PCs (who for various story reasons weren't allowed access to the lake). The levels in druid came in very handy, but primarily only for utility and therefore didn't overshadow anyone. I did prepare Conjure Animals for emergencies, but I only cast it twice in the campaign (when I was more or less certain that without it we would TPK).

I can relate to that. My instincts are very much powergamer-oriented, but that only comes out in play in CRPGs when there are no other people around. As a player in TTRPG play, I like support roles, like playing an un-cleric: a pure Bard who's a confirmed atheist/secularist but likes to Bless and heal the PCs anyway. (And the fact that he can do so just as well as a priest can just confirms his atheist beliefs.) This despite the fact, or perhaps because of the fact, that I am not an atheist in real life.

EDIT
Point of fact, 24 wolves can shred a group of mind flayers in very little time. Admittedly, the party helped too.

I have likewise found that giving the party a Horn of Valhalla (made completely from twine; must be soaked in the blood of a humanoid prior to blowing it) gives them a terrific panic button, which in turn frees you from worrying about unintentional TPKs. Blowing the Horn of Valhalla often means essentially admitting defeat and abandoning the mission, because it can only be used once per week, but it doesn't actually TPK the party. I would recommend considering handing out a 1/month Horn of Valhalla or similar to any low-level party in a story-driven campaign where you want failure to be possible but not necessarily lethal.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Without Undead Thralls, you lose out on 3 skeletons. Undead Thralls brings the loss down to 2. (E.g. Animate Dead V can maintain 8 or raise 6 with Undead Thralls; otherwise it can maintain 8 or raise 5.)

I see why I thought this. For some reason I thought Animate Dead III could create 2 undead without Undead Thralls. Turns out it's only one.

I'm actually thinking more of the DM side of things. 3 Blue Slaads and 3 goblins have a completely different threat profile than 3 Blue Slaads and 3 evil Pixies due to Polymorph/Confusion/Entangle/Phantasmal Force + high stealth. The least I can do is hand out 200 XP per Pixie instead of a measly 50 XP. Arguably, even CR 1 is lowballing it and I should be treating them as CR 3 and handing out 700+ XP.

The summoning exploit is a side-effect of the wrong CR, not the root problem.

Fair enough.

Sure, but my multiclassing rules are not RAW. You will never have "100% RAW" and "Hemlock-designed multiclassing" at the same table, so why should I worry about what the RAW is on Pixies if I think the RAW here is unreasonable?

Well, I guess there's no need to concern yourself per se, but someone reading this thread might decide to use your system but otherwise run things using RAW.

Even without armor proficiency, zombies still make good meat shields. It gives them disadvantage on attacks and ability checks, but you can cancel that out with Stinking Cloud, Help actions (e.g. from every other zombie), or Nets. Besides, you're using them to Dodge and buy time for your skeletons to shoot, so disadvantage is only hampering their opportunity attacks, which are strictly a bonus.

True enough.

Proficiency is nice, especially for PCs, but it's not strictly necessary. Ghouls aren't even proficient in their own (iconic!) claw attacks!

I'm nitpicking but it's actually their bites that are non-proficient. They use their claws to paralyze you, and then can use their higher damage bite thanks to advantage (which is also an auto-crit if it hits). It's actually an elegant bit of game design IMO. A humanoid leaning in to bite the guy holding the sharp-pointy-thing is kind of begging to get brain poked, so non-proficiency is a reasonable way to simulate that if you don't want the system to bog down with free OAs.

But, if the DM rules that skeletons aren't proficient in heavy crossbows/longbows/nets, it's probably better to stick to shortbows for that case. Doesn't make much difference to the analysis but would be something to bear in mind at the table.

Agreed.

If you don't have archers, then your minions don't really scale in the first place. 50 zombies with greatswords are not noticeably better than 20 zombies in a fight against six mummies. There's not enough room to bring them all into play.

I think you misread what I was saying. I meant that when using wolves in concert with archers, command the wolves not to trip any targets that the archers are shooting at.

All true. All reasons why discussing skeleton tactics is complicated, and why I said it was a "crude" assumption that only six skeletons get detailed to net throwing. If they are ruled nonproficient, you might want to detail more skeletons. (And if the target is high-AC, you might have fewer skeletons throw nets and more skeletons Help. Naturally you have to make these divisions of labor in advance because you only have one bonus action for commanding them on the fly during combat.)

True.

I can relate to that. My instincts are very much powergamer-oriented, but that only comes out in play in CRPGs when there are no other people around. As a player in TTRPG play, I like support roles, like playing an un-cleric: a pure Bard who's a confirmed atheist/secularist but likes to Bless and heal the PCs anyway. (And the fact that he can do so just as well as a priest can just confirms his atheist beliefs.) This despite the fact, or perhaps because of the fact, that I am not an atheist in real life.

I can relate as well.

I have likewise found that giving the party a Horn of Valhalla (made completely from twine; must be soaked in the blood of a humanoid prior to blowing it) gives them a terrific panic button, which in turn frees you from worrying about unintentional TPKs. Blowing the Horn of Valhalla often means essentially admitting defeat and abandoning the mission, because it can only be used once per week, but it doesn't actually TPK the party. I would recommend considering handing out a 1/month Horn of Valhalla or similar to any low-level party in a story-driven campaign where you want failure to be possible but not necessarily lethal.

That's a really good safety net. Thank for the idea!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm nitpicking but it's actually their bites that are non-proficient. They use their claws to paralyze you, and then can use their higher damage bite thanks to advantage (which is also an auto-crit if it hits). It's actually an elegant bit of game design IMO. A humanoid leaning in to bite the guy holding the sharp-pointy-thing is kind of begging to get brain poked, so non-proficiency is a reasonable way to simulate that if you don't want the system to bog down with free OAs.

You're right, I misremembered.

I think you misread what I was saying. I meant that when using wolves in concert with archers, command the wolves not to trip any targets that the archers are shooting at.

Ah, yes. Makes sense.

I suppose that would still be useful if you have front-line skeletons dual-wielding shortswords, if the DM permits that. Doesn't scale as well as bows, especially with wolves taking up space on the front line, but has a higher base damage.

 

[guachi]

I've decided to implement variations of this rule in my campaign.

I'm running a campaign in Mystara and I wanted a bit of the BECMI feel with race as class for the elves so I mandated that any elf had to be a spell caster of some kind. That's not particularly restricting given the large numbers of casters. So, for example, an elf fighter had to choose Eldritch Knight.

The PCs are third level and after reading this thread I gave the option to the elf fighter to be a fighter/magic-user multi class like described in this thread.

I altered the XP to 2.5x normal to advance and I think it works well. For example, when the single class hits level 11 the multi class hits level 8 (exactly) and the same for 9/13.

When the multi class dings level 1 and 2, the single class is level 1 & 2 (though obviously hit level 2 earlier). The rest of the progression is 2 multi class levels for every 3 single class levels.

The multi class PC maintains some competitiveness until he hits level 5 at which point the single class PC is level 6.25 (80%) and then falls further and further behind until he bottoms out at (2/3) the single class PC at, like, level 11 for the multi class and then claws back to 70% by the time the single class is at level 20 at the multi class is level 14.

I don't think this is bad because even as the multi class falls behind (at one point the single class is level 8 and the multi class is still level 5, though about to hit 6) at least he is level five with all the important level five features. And a level 5 PC can be pretty happy with two attacks and fire ball to fall back on and not feel like he's missing out on anything.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I hate the idea of multiple XP tables. Milestone XP streamlines the game too much. Frankly, I want Proficiency Bonus and Hit Dice to remain consistent across my players. Similarly, I don't want any irritating rules where you can't combine abilities or have to track things separately. I like the combined spellcasting chart in the 5e multiclassing chapter.

Here's how I'd imagine Gestalt/hybrid/AD&D multiclassing. The drawback to this method, as always, is complexity.

Select two or three classes. Then:

1. Remove all path options from the classes. Mutliclassing sacrifices the benefits of specialization, so multiclass characters never select a class path for any of their classes.

2. Skill proficiencies: Select two of your classes. Select two skills from either of the skill lists for the selected classes. If one or more of the selected classes is Bard, Ranger, or Rogue, instead select three skills from either of the skill lists for the selected classes.

3. Save proficiencies: Select one of your classes. Gain the save proficiencies for that class.

4. Weapon, armor, tool proficiencies: Combine the weapon, armor, and tool proficiencies of all your classes.

You gain levels normally, and your level is used to determine your proficiency bonus and hit dice. However, your class ability level is reduced, so you will not gain new abilities each level.

5. Proficiency bonus: Your character level determines your proficiency bonus. A level 11 Fighter/Wizard has the proficiency bonus of a level 11 character.

6. Hit dice: Alternate hit dice each level, so a Fighter/Wizard would use d10, then d6, then d10, then d6, etc. A Fighter/Rogue/Wizard would use d10 -> d8 -> d6 -> d10 -> d8 -> d6, etc. You must always keep your hit dice within 1 of each other. A level 13 Fighter/Rogue/Wizard would have 5d10 + 4d8 + 4d6 Hit Dice. You would not be able to gain a sixth d10 hit die until you had both five d8 and five d6 hit dice.

7. Use the chart below to determine your character's class ability levels. Your character has the abilities of the class ability level. Thus, a level 5 Fighter/Wizard has a class ability level of 3, and has the class abilities of a 3rd level Fighter, and the class abilities of a 3rd level Wizard. However, such a character would have a +3 proficiency bonus that a 5th level character has, and would have 3d10 + 2d6 Hit Dice from levels. Again, you never select any class paths, so you never gain any abilities tied to class paths.

+-----------------+--------------------------+----------------------------+
| Character Level | Dual Class Ability Level | Triple Class Ability Level |
+-----------------+--------------------------+----------------------------+
|               1 |                       1  |                         1  |
|               2 |                       1  |                         1  |
|               3 |                       2  |                         1  |
|               4 |                       3  |                         2  |
|               5 |                       3  |                         3  |
|               6 |                       4* |                         3  |
|               7 |                       5  |                         4* |
|               8 |                       6  |                         4  |
|               9 |                       6  |                         4  |
|              10 |                       7  |                         5  |
|              11 |                       8* |                         6  |
|              12 |                       9  |                         6  |
|              13 |                       9  |                         7  |
|              14 |                      10  |                         7  |
|              15 |                      11  |                         8* |
|              16 |                      12* |                         9  |
|              17 |                      12  |                        10  |
|              18 |                      13  |                        10  |
|              19 |                      14  |                        11  |
|              20 |                      15  |                        12* |
+-----------------+--------------------------+----------------------------+

* Indicates a level at which the character gains an ASI.

For the curious, the formula for class ability level for 2 classes is character level * 0.75 rounded down. For 3 classes, it's class ability level = character level * 0.60 rounded down. Minimum level is 1, obviously.

8. When a character gains an ASI at class levels 4, 8 and 12, the character gains only one ASI, not an ASI from each class. Similarly, abilities described in the multiclass section as overlapping, such as Extra Attack, still overlap.

9. For spellcasting slots, use your character level and the combined spellcasting chart in the multiclassing chapter to determine your slots. If one of your classes is Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard, then your character slots are determined by your character level. If none of your classes is Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard and one of your classes is Paladin or Ranger, you have spell slots equal to half your character level. For example, a level 10 Ranger/Rogue has class abilities as a 7th level Ranger and as a 7th level Rogue, and has spell slots as a 5th level character on the combined chart. For another example, a level 11 Fighter/Wizard has a class ability level of 8. You would use the level 11 on the spellcasting chart to determine the number of spell slots per day, but would prepare spells as an 8th level Wizard.

10. Cantrips, which normally key to your character level for scaling, instead use the class ability level. So a level 20 Fighter/Wizard casts fire bolt as though her total character level were 15, not 20. Other abilities may also use the class ability level instead of the character level.




At this point, I would do some playtesting. Where things are at above is what I think would be slightly overpowered. My guess is that there's some discrepancy in balance between the two class and three class level charts. I'd step down the factor 0.05 each time. The balanced factor might be closer to 0.15 lower than it is above, so two class might need to be down to 0.60 (level 20 = 12), and three class might need to go down as far as 0.45 (level 20 = 9).

You'd have to make some special rules, I'm sure. Warlocks and clerics are a bit strange without their paths. Certain ability combinations are really good, like Fighter/Paladin character level 15, or Fighter/Rogue/Paladin at character level 19. My guess is that there are some combinations that are simply too good, so you might need to limit the classes or class combinations in some way.

The skill, save, and proficiency rules could be made a whole lot more complex to add flexibility, but I don't really feel like that's worthwhile.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think I would change sonething in the lower levels. Maybe start with inly the abilities in the multiclass table at level 1. Otherwise a first level character is maybe a bit strong. I then would allow to add the remaining abilities and the hp of the other classes be added at 300 xp and then use your calculation. I would maybe add some exra hp whenever you gain a redundand feature like ability scote increase or extra attack. I have to calculate but I think having lvl 10 hp at level 17 is too much if a liability.

 

[Barolo]

I've actually been using something similar IMC for a few months now. (...)

Similarly, their prepared/known spells are gained per class, but their spell slots are as a single classed character. I think that allowing a hybrid to double (or triple) up on spell slots might be a bit much. 5e tries to rein in spellcasters by limiting their number of spells per day, so allowing them to ignore that limitation seems like it might be overkill.

My design principle was breadth, not depth. A hybrid character is much more versatile but significantly less powerful than a single classed character with the same xp. (The less powerful aspect is mainly due to the fact that they're usually a level or more behind the rest of the party).

Sorry if it was already addressed somewhere else, but I cannot seem to find. Your system seems to discourage eldritch knight/wizard over, for instance, battlemaster/wizard, as a big chunk of the eldritch knight package is lost (spell slots, specifically). Was it intentional? Or do you believe the 7th and 15th level eldritch knight features sufficiently make up for it?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

7. Use the chart below to determine your character's class ability levels....

I haven't put much thought into the three class combos (simply because they require more in-depth examination), but I think taking out the subclasses would likely make your two class combo too weak with that advancement, at least at higher levels.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sorry if it was already addressed somewhere else, but I cannot seem to find. Your system seems to discourage eldritch knight/wizard over, for instance, battlemaster/wizard, as a big chunk of the eldritch knight package is lost (spell slots, specifically). Was it intentional? Or do you believe the 7th and 15th level eldritch knight features sufficiently make up for it?

It was touched upon, but no worries. You are correct, and while it's more a side effect of the design than direct intent, it's something I am both aware of and satisfied with.

To begin with, you are overlooking a significant feature. Cantrips and spells known from EK. Sure you don't get more slots than a single-classed wizard, but you do get spells from both classes and can use them interchangeably with you full progression slots. Based on my experience playing spellcasters, you can never have enough spell options. I've played a few casters with a 20 spellcasting score and even so there were always tough choices to make when selecting spells; always a few more spells I wished I could have taken. So it's something that shouldn't be discounted because it adds significant synergy to the combination in my estimation. That, along with the 7th and 10th level EK features, provide a level of synergy that the BM/W will never have.

Frankly, I don't think casters not getting slots from both classes is much different from a Barbarian/Fighter not getting three attacks at 5th level (because Extra Attack does not stack). One of the limits placed upon spellcasters in 5e is a limited number of spell slots, and I don't believe there is good reason to remove that restriction for hybrids.

That said, it can be argued that the system does favor a combination like Barbarian/Wizard over a Cleric/Druid, since the B/W gets all features while the C/D doesn't get slots from both classes. I'm fine with that. The 5e multiclass system already allows you to make a fairly competent C/D, since by going 11/9 you get both full slot progression and 6th level spells (from one class). By comparison, IMO, an 11/9 B/W will not be as capable. Therefore my hybrid system (slightly) favors classes that the multiclass system doesn't.

That's ideal from my standpoint since my goal for the hybrid system is to give players another avenue to express their character concepts (not from an optimization standpoint but rather in the sense of effective portrayal). If a player would rather play a multiclass EK/W than a hybrid so that they don't "lose out" on slots, that's fine by me. Whatever works best for them. The point is to maintain parity between the various systems for character development (single-class, multiclass, hybrid) while preserving synergy. Based on my experience, if you have multiple classes it is more fun for the classes to be able to function synergistically than not. Without synergy, it feels more like you're playing two characters awkwardly trapped in one body. If I were to give double the slots and maintain synergy hybrids would easily overshadow multiclassed characters and potentially even single classed characters. Given the choice between the two, I'd rather have synergy which is why I went the way I did.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That said, it can be argued that the system does favor a combination like Barbarian/Wizard over a Cleric/Druid, since the B/W gets all features while the C/D doesn't get slots from both classes. I'm fine with that. The 5e multiclass system already allows you to make a fairly competent C/D, since by going 11/9 you get both full slot progression and 6th level spells (from one class). By comparison, IMO, an 11/9 B/W will not be as capable. Therefore my hybrid system (slightly) favors classes that the multiclass system doesn't.

Eh. There's a reason why nobody does this in practice. Cleric 11/Druid 9 and Druid 11/Cleric 9 are almost entirely rubbish compared to the opportunity cost. You likely can't even take advantage of your clerical medium/heavy armor proficiency, because druids don't wear metal armor. The only saving graces are Planar Binding and Conjure Animals/Fey, which at least give you something useful to do with that 9th level spell slot.

Moon Druid 20 >>> Cleric 11/Druid 9. Frankly, Moon Druid 15 probably >> Cleric 11/Druid 9.