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

[Fanaelialae]

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.

There's a reason that optimizers don't do it. But I've played with guys who have a lot of different play styles, including those who value concept over efficacy. That kind of player would go 10/10 on a C/D without hesitation, assuming it's how they envision the character.

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

A single classed character should generally be more powerful than a multiclassed character IMO. (Obviously if level dipping is involved, the multiclass might be significantly more potent, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.) A multiclass character has more breadth whereas the single classed character has greater depth. If you give the multiclass both breadth and depth, then you're unlikely to see many single-classed characters (outside of concept characters) because at that point multiclassed characters are flat out better.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There's a reason that optimizers don't do it. But I've played with guys who have a lot of different play styles, including those who value concept over efficacy. That kind of player would go 10/10 on a C/D without hesitation, assuming it's how they envision the character.

Sure. I have players who will do something like Shadow Monk/Druid (for the fun of teleporting 60' overhead someone in Earth Elemental form and falling on them--although he never actually got far enough to do it because they lost the campaign first) or Eldritch Knight 5/Arcane Trickster 5 or Death Cleric/Elemental Monk.

But when you're talking about capability, competency and effectiveness, as you were in the post I responded to, the fact that somebody, somewhere might someday do it despite it being mechanically horrible is not an argument in favor of its effectiveness. Rather the reverse. At this point you've basically admitted that nobody except one of those players would do it, which is true.

A single classed character should generally be more powerful than a multiclassed character IMO. (Obviously if level dipping is involved, the multiclass might be significantly more potent, but that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.) A multiclass character has more breadth whereas the single classed character has greater depth. If you give the multiclass both breadth and depth, then you're unlikely to see many single-classed characters (outside of concept characters) because at that point multiclassed characters are flat out better.

This is an interesting design philosophy, but it's not one that 5E has embraced. 5E tries as hard as it can to make all multiclass combinations as viable as each other (e.g. no dead levels; arrangement of ASIs in strategic ways to offset level dipping, etc.) but it doesn't really succeed. In particular, the 5E multiclassing system makes MAD multiclass combinations worse than SAD combinations; and it makes warrior/spellcaster, warrior/rogue, and rogue/spellcaster multiclassing more attractive than spellcaster/spellcaster or warrior/warrior due to the various interactions between concentration, spells known, Extra Attack, and bonus actions. 5E definitely doesn't make pure classes "generally more powerful" than multiclasses the way you would prefer it to.

That doesn't mean you can't design your own multiclassing system which does behave the way you want it to. I'm just making the narrow argument that you can't cite the "competency" of a Cleric 11/Druid 9 multiclass in the 5E system as evidence (apparently) in favor of not needing to provide an alternative Cleric/Druid, because:

my hybrid system (slightly) favors classes that the multiclass system doesn't.

Cleric/Druid is bad in both systems, and if that's by design for your system, you might as well just say so.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure. I have players who will do something like Shadow Monk/Druid (for the fun of teleporting 60' overhead someone in Earth Elemental form and falling on them--although he never actually got far enough to do it because they lost the campaign first) or Eldritch Knight 5/Arcane Trickster 5 or Death Cleric/Elemental Monk.

But when you're talking about capability, competency and effectiveness, as you were in the post I responded to, the fact that somebody, somewhere might someday do it despite it being mechanically horrible is not an argument in favor of its effectiveness. Rather the reverse. At this point you've basically admitted that nobody except one of those players would do it, which is true.

Clearly I disagree. Including about it being mechanically horrible. Not optimized, certainly. However, such a character could leverage their versatility to nonetheless be a useful member of the party.

The point is completely that somebody, somewhere (at my table) might someday want to play such a concept.

Reread my post. I wasn't arguing in favor of the C/D's effectiveness compared to an optimized character, merely its relative effectiveness compared to a Barbarian/Wizard.

This is an interesting design philosophy, but it's not one that 5E has embraced. 5E tries as hard as it can to make all multiclass combinations as viable as each other (e.g. no dead levels; arrangement of ASIs in strategic ways to offset level dipping, etc.) but it doesn't really succeed. In particular, the 5E multiclassing system makes MAD multiclass combinations worse than SAD combinations; and it makes warrior/spellcaster, warrior/rogue, and rogue/spellcaster multiclassing more attractive than spellcaster/spellcaster or warrior/warrior due to the various interactions between concentration, spells known, Extra Attack, and bonus actions. 5E definitely doesn't make pure classes "generally more powerful" than multiclasses the way you would prefer it to.

Again, I disagree. I don't believe that 5e tries to make all combinations equal. Even in single class design that wasn't a goal (perfect parity in all things) so it would be a rather incongruous for the multiclass system to attempt it.

That doesn't mean you can't design your own multiclassing system which does behave the way you want it to. I'm just making the narrow argument that you can't cite the "competency" of a Cleric 11/Druid 9 multiclass in the 5E system as evidence (apparently) in favor of not needing to provide an alternative Cleric/Druid, because:

Cleric/Druid is bad in both systems, and if that's by design for your system, you might as well just say so.

Sure Hemlock, from the point of view of an optimizer like yourself, both systems are bad and neither option would ever be worth playing. From the point of view of my player who is actually playing and enjoying his hybrid Cleric/Wizard, likely not so much. From my point of view as the DM, where he seems on par with the single classed characters once his versatility is factored in, also not so much.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sure Hemlock, from the point of view of an optimizer like yourself, both systems are bad and neither option would ever be worth playing. From the point of view of my player who is actually playing and enjoying his hybrid Cleric/Wizard, likely not so much. From my point of view as the DM, where he seems on par with the single classed characters once his versatility is factored in, also not so much.

Sigh. That's not what I'm saying.

(Also, "optimizer" is a pejorative that rhymes with "munchkin". Just because I, as DM, can examine a design with my powergamer hat on doesn't mean I have to play the game as a player with my powergamer hat on; and most so-called "optimizers" are just bad powergamers who optimize stupid things like DPR.)

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sigh. That's not what I'm saying.

Okay what are you saying in the following quote then? Even after rereading it several times I can't seem to suss out your alternate meaning.

Cleric/Druid is bad in both systems, and if that's by design for your system, you might as well just say so.

Based on our previous discussions in this thread, I can even see why you would think that, but it's still just your opinion. As we've discussed, one of my design goals for my hybrid system is not to utterly invalidate existing potential builds. You should be able to run a hybrid Barbarian/Wizard at the same table as a multiclassing Barbarian/Wizard without one of them feeling like they made a terrible choice (they should both be in the same ballpark). Based on my (admittedly limited) test data, I nailed it. You disagreed with that design goal when we discussed it earlier, and that's your prerogative, but I haven't changed my mind with regard to it.

As I understand it, you feel that it is okay to provide an option that would turn existing non-optimized options into trap options. I don't. It makes sense that you might feel that way, since from reading about your table I've gotten the impression that your players are character-creation-efficiency-experts, and therefore exceedingly unlikely to fall prey to a trap option. However, as I've mentioned, I play with a wide array of play styles, including casual players. As a result, it makes very good sense from where I'm standing to eliminate all the trap options I can and avoid introducing more.

(Also, "optimizer" is a pejorative that rhymes with "munchkin". Just because I, as DM, can examine a design with my powergamer hat on doesn't mean I have to play the game as a player with my powergamer hat on; and most so-called "optimizers" are just bad powergamers who optimize stupid things like DPR.)

I've used the term multiple times in this thread, and this is the first time I'm hearing an objection from you. If you find a different routinely used synonym (such as powergamer) non-pejorative, let me know and I will happily use that term. I actually chose optimizer rather than powergamer because I associate the latter with occasional pejorative use, but not the former.

 

[Barolo]

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.

(...)

Thanks for the answer. As for the oversights, while I did forgot the extra cantrips from EK, the extra spells known are not an issue for me, as we have always had our wizards learning spells from adventuring loot and researching, and adding to their grimoires in our game table. Actually, instead of reading that as soon as a wizard reaches a new level two spells just pop in their heads, when I DM, I read something more to the lines of "please Mr. DM, don't be a **** and ease up on spell research and collection for the wizard at the level-ups.

 

[Barolo]

(...) and most so-called "optimizers" are just bad powergamers who optimize stupid things like DPR.)

I wanted to award moar xp just for this.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thanks for the answer. As for the oversights, while I did forgot the extra cantrips from EK, the extra spells known are not an issue for me, as we have always had our wizards learning spells from adventuring loot and researching, and adding to their grimoires in our game table. Actually, instead of reading that as soon as a wizard reaches a new level two spells just pop in their heads, when I DM, I read something more to the lines of "please Mr. DM, don't be a **** and ease up on spell research and collection for the wizard at the level-ups.

I think there's been a slight misunderstanding. By spells known I wasn't referring to the equivalent of a wizard's spellbook but rather 'prepared' spells. I used the term known spells because EKs don't actually prepare their spells. Perhaps I ought to have used spells memorized or spells on hand instead. It doesn't matter if you have every spell in the PHB in your spell book if you haven't prepared the right spell but you need it right now.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Okay what are you saying in the following quote then? Even after rereading it several times I can't seem to suss out your alternate meaning.

I meant exactly what I wrote, that both options are bad. You invented the "you're an optimizer and neither option would be ever be worth playing" part yourself. To me that seems like a gratuitous insult, moving from discussion of game design to an incorrect claim about playstyle.

Sometimes even people who know better play bad combinations for the challenge, because they want to not overshadow other players, or just because they like the novelty of the theme.

Based on our previous discussions in this thread, I can even see why you would think that, but it's still just your opinion. As we've discussed, one of my design goals for my hybrid system is not to utterly invalidate existing potential builds. You should be able to run a hybrid Barbarian/Wizard at the same table as a multiclassing Barbarian/Wizard without one of them feeling like they made a terrible choice (they should both be in the same ballpark).

This isn't the case in your system. Your system makes the hybrid Barbarian/Wizard far better than the multiclassed Barbarian X/Wizard X. Unlike the Cleric/Druid, he's really not sacrificing anything from either class. He's not even very MAD.

Based on my (admittedly limited) test data, I nailed it. You disagreed with that design goal when we discussed it earlier, and that's your prerogative, but I haven't changed my mind with regard to it.

That's fine. I'm not trying to make you change your mind about your design goal.

As I understand it, you feel that it is okay to provide an option that would turn existing non-optimized options into trap options. I don't. It makes sense that you might feel that way, since from reading about your table I've gotten the impression that your players are character-creation-efficiency-experts, and therefore exceedingly unlikely to fall prey to a trap option. However, as I've mentioned, I play with a wide array of play styles, including casual players. As a result, it makes very good sense from where I'm standing to eliminate all the trap options I can and avoid introducing more.

And yet, that is exactly what you have done with the Barbarian/Wizard, and arguably with the Paladin/Sorcerer as well (double ASIs without more MADness on a stat-heavy class = pure win).

The most accurate way to phrase my position is that there will always be trap options, and I'm resigned to that fact--I'd rather spend my energy ensuring that multiclassing (1) doesn't create any dominant options (doesn't invalidate any existing viable pure class or combination), but still (2) is not dominated by existing options (has its own niche of things that it's good at).

If a trap combination like Cleric 11/Druid 9 which is already dominated by other PHB combinations like Druid 15, also gets dominated by 11th level Cleric/Druid, that matters less to me than ensuring that all Barbarians don't turn into Barbarian/Wizards and Barbarian/Rogues. (I mean that from a game-design standpoint. From a roleplaying-at-the-table perspective, it's a given that not all Barbarians will want to be Barbarian/Wizards or Barbarian/Rogues.)

 

[Fanaelialae]

I meant exactly what I wrote, that both options are bad. You invented the "you're an optimizer and neither option would be ever be worth playing" part yourself. To me that seems like a gratuitous insult, moving from discussion of game design to an incorrect claim about playstyle.

Sometimes even people who know better play bad combinations for the challenge, because they want to not overshadow other players, or just because they like the novelty of the theme.

Actually, I said "...from the point of view...". Didn't we just have a discussion in this very thread about how you look at things like an optimizer (this coming from you, not me)? I was pointing out both options being bad was merely your subjective opinion. The optimizer part wasn't intended in a pejorative sense, and it seems perfectly reasonable to me that an optimizer wouldn't play a bad option, though I suppose they might in individual instances. It would, however, be an atypical characterization of that play style.

This isn't the case in your system. Your system makes the hybrid Barbarian/Wizard far better than the multiclassed Barbarian X/Wizard X. Unlike the Cleric/Druid, he's really not sacrificing anything from either class. He's not even very MAD.

I disagree.

He's pretty darn mad in my book. He needs a good Str and Int, and wants a good Con and at least a 14 Dex.

The hybrid sacrifices flexibility in leveling. He's locked in to his progression. The multiclassed character can grow in whatever lopsided progression he desires. Additionally, the hybrid will have 25% less hit dice and a lower proficiency bonus. That's hardly nothing.

That's fine. I'm not trying to make you change your mind about your design goal.



And yet, that is exactly what you have done with the Barbarian/Wizard, and arguably with the Paladin/Sorcerer as well (double ASIs without more MADness on a stat-heavy class = pure win).

As I've shown before in this thread, it is not double ASIs. A two class hybrid gets one more ASI over 20 levels. Which is no different than playing variant human.

The most accurate way to phrase my position is that there will always be trap options, and I'm resigned to that fact--I'd rather spend my energy ensuring that multiclassing (1) doesn't create any dominant options (doesn't invalidate any existing viable pure class or combination), but still (2) is not dominated by existing options (has its own niche of things that it's good at).

If a trap combination like Cleric 11/Druid 9 which is already dominated by other PHB combinations like Druid 15, also gets dominated by 11th level Cleric/Druid, that matters less to me than ensuring that all Barbarians don't turn into Barbarian/Wizards and Barbarian/Rogues. (I mean that from a game-design standpoint. From a roleplaying-at-the-table perspective, it's a given that not all Barbarians will want to be Barbarian/Wizards or Barbarian/Rogues.)

I don't consider Cleric11/Druid9 to be a trap option, you do. What I don't want to do is turn it into a trap option by giving the hybrid a ton more spell slots than the multiclassed, at which point the multiclass really would be a trap. It might work in your system due to the lack of synergy, but remember that one of my goals is to preserve synergy. As such, my hybrids need alternative limitations.