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

[Tony Vargas]

I don't buy that a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is not inferior to a Wizard 20.

Setting that aside, can we agree that he's not inferior to the Champion 20?

I'm also really skeptical that it's not inferrior to an Eldritch Knight 20, but that's harder to demonstrate conclusively.

5th level spells and Tradition bennies vs 4th and Extra Attacks. Depends on what you're after, really. A fighter 11/Wiz 9 gets you that coveted 2nd extra attack while keeping 5th level spells. A fighter9/Wiz11 get's you 6th level spells...

My exposure to 1E is via CRPGs (Gold Box games), and I remember Silvanesti and Qualinesti elves getting high-level spells.

Not familiar. In the 1e PH, PC elves could get as high as 11th in magic-user, with an 18 INT, IIRC. Grey elves with a 19 might have been able to hit 12th, and thus create all those Elven _______ magic items, but I'm not 100% on that one...

And that was one of the higher level limits. Most were single digits except for U in Thief.

BTW, 5E doesn't support dual-classing at all.

It works quite a bit differently, but you can change professions. You even retain full use of the old class from the start. But, you have that level 20 cap. It was the 3e version of MCing - though it was decidedly worse for caster/caster combos back then.

In 2nd edition, elves could advance up to level 14 or 15 as wizards IIRC, or higher if they had a high Int and the DM was using the optional DMG rules on exceeding level limits. I think it was even possible for an Int 19 elf (via aging) to become an archmage (level 18).

But, was he really that great a fighter, or would Bladesinger cover it?

So yes, capping at level 10 is against tradition, which is why a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is not an acceptable way of modeling a high-level fighter/mage.

IDK if I can accept an optional rule in 2e as establishing "tradition." 1e & 0D&D should have something to say about it, too. Then there was 3e, from which 5e lifted in MCing system.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Setting that aside, can we agree that he's not inferior to the Champion 20?

In a narrow sense that there isn't a total ordering between them, yes. But a 3rd level Shadow Monk is also not inferior to a Champion 20 in that sense. It's not a very strong criterion.

5th level spells and Tradition bennies vs 4th and Extra Attacks. Depends on what you're after, really. A fighter 11/Wiz 9 gets you that coveted 2nd extra attack while keeping 5th level spells. A fighter9/Wiz11 get's you 6th level spells...

Fighter 11/Wizard 9 is much better than Fighter 10/Wizard 10, which kind of illustrates the point: the 5E system is deliberately set up to discourage advancing in two classes simultaneously. Many of the best and most iconic abilities are acquired at 11th level, apparently to encourage you to be deliberately asymmetrical in your advancement, just as you've done here with your Fighter 11/Wizard 9. 5E's "multiclassing" system is really a custom class construction system, not a multiclassing system in the spirit of fighter/mages.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighter 11/Wizard 9 is much better than Fighter 10/Wizard 10, which kind of illustrates the point: the 5E system is deliberately set up to discourage advancing in two classes simultaneously.

11/9 is damn-near evenly advancing. We're just talking some accidents of break-points, not a fundamental design intent.

5E's "multiclassing" system is really a custom class construction system, not a multiclassing system in the spirit of fighter/mages.

The EK, Bladesinger, and Fighter X/Wizard(20-X) are /all/ in the spirit of the classic fighter/magic-user, IMHO.

'Custom class construction' isn't unfair, either, though. In 3e, it was even clearer. The classes were in essence character building blocks. Take a block from class A, stack it on your blocks from class B, get a more customized character. It's a /very/ good mechanic, IMHO, if they could've ever gotten ever class & level balanced to match the 'cost' of your next level. Which probably wasn't possible, but still, points for elegance...

Anyway, the bottom line, I suppose, is that D&D has always rewarded specialization, and MCing is the opposite, so there's a price to pay. Whether that price is entirely fair is debatable, but paying no price probably shouldn't be on the table.

 

[Blue]

Some of the combinations seem to get more out of being paired. For example a wizard/fighter gets fighter hps & HD, full armor & weapon proficiencies, can have CON saves which are a big boost, and full casting including spells like Shiedl which synergize well with heavy armor. Oh, and more ASIs, which could be used to boost wizard ability scores or take feats that benefit the wizard side.

On the other hand, a paladin/ranger doesn't get a great deal. HPs are about the same, proficiencies are about the same, both get extra attack, etc. They do have two different casting progressions but both at half speed,and the speed is delayed due to the XP split.

This isn't bad - not all combinations are created even. But it seems to push for characters to take two very different classes and leaving similar classes. Like everyone will be a "full caster/martial type".

Am I needlessly worrying?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

11/9 is ----near evenly advancing. We're just talking some accidents of break-points, not a fundamental design intent.

Well, that's an opinion. I don't know how you'd go about falsifying it, but the effect in any case is the same: a player who doesn't plan his "build" properly is going to wind up in a hurting place, permanently. 5E's default multiclassing system actively punishes you for not thinking about your eventual "build" as you play, which is pretty much the opposite of old-school multiclassing.

Anyway, the bottom line, I suppose, is that D&D has always rewarded specialization, and MCing is the opposite, so there's a price to pay. Whether that price is entirely fair is debatable, but paying no price probably shouldn't be on the table.

I agree with that sentiment. The problem with the gestalt system I saw playtested was that multiclassing was giving too many of the benefits of both classes.

Not giving you ASIs and other features that you've "paid for" seems like a reasonable price to me. We see in practice that that's a powerful constraint, and it's one of the reasons you rarely see combinations using 5E multiclass rules that give you Extra Attack from two different sources (e.g. Barbearian 5/Champion 5 doesn't really happen): people hate not getting stuff they paid for.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, that's an opinion. I don't know how you'd go about falsifying it, but the effect in any case is the same: a player who doesn't plan his "build" properly is going to wind up in a hurting place, permanently.

Possibly one reason it's an optional rule. Some system-mastery required.

5E's default multiclassing system actively punishes you for not thinking about your eventual "build" as you play, which is pretty much the opposite of old-school multiclassing.

Old-school multi-classing did essentially punish you as you hit the level limits.

 

[Blue]

Rule 6.) Spellcasting is tracked separately for each class. You cannot mix and match spell slots or spell points between classes unless they are the same type of spellcasting, i.e. come from the same class spell list. (So basically, Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights are cumulative with wizards.)

I would strike the rule about adding for EK and AT - they equal or surpass single class casting plus still give you everything else.

Wizard 4 vs. F/W 3 (cast 1+3=4) - even
Wizard 5 vs. F/W 4 (cast 1+4=5) - even
Wizard 6 vs. F/W 5 (cast 1+5=6) - even
Wizard 7 vs. F/W 5 (cast 1+6=6) - 1 level below
Wizard 8 vs. F/W 6 (cast 2+6=8) - even
Wizard 9 vs. F/W 7 (cast 2+7=9) - even
Wizard 10 vs. F/W 7 (cast 2+7=9) - 1 level below
Wizard 11 vs. F/W 8 (cast 2+8=10) - 1 level below
Wizard 12 vs. F/W 9 (cast 3+9=12) - even
Wizard 13 vs. F/W 9 (cast 3+9=12) - 1 level below
Wizard 14 vs. F/W 10 (cast 3+10=13) - 1 level below
Wizard 15 vs. F/W 11 (cast 3+11=14) - 1 level below (+500xp)
Wizard 16 vs. F/W 11 (cast 3+11=14) - 2 levels below
Wizard 17 vs. F/W 12 (cast 4+12=16) -1 level below
Wizard 18 vs. F/W 13 (cast 4+13=17) - 1 level below
Wizard 19 vs. F/W 14 (cast 4+14=18) - 1 level below
Wizard 20 vs. F/W 15 (cast 5+15=20) - even

In other words, a Fighter(EK)/Wizard or Rogue(AT)/Wizard is almost always within one caster level or on-par with a single classed wizard in terms of casting, which doesn't balance out for those who want to play a single-classed caster vs. getting all the rest of the cool toys for very limited or no limitation in your casting.

A fighter/magic-user/thief, going Fighter(EK)/Wizard/Rogue(AT) would blow a poor single classed Wizard out of the water by often casting better than them. plus giving everything from 2 other classes.

A few cherry-picked level that show it at it's worst:
Wizard 4 vs. F/W/R 3 (cast 1+3+1=5)
Wizard 9 vs. F/W/R 6 (cast 2+6+2=10)
Wizard 15 vs. F/W/R 9 (cast 3+9+3=15)
Wizard 19 vs. F/W/R 12 (cast 4+12+4=20)

The other casting progressions work, just where you are stacking.

 

[flametitan]

This doesn't account for an area of old school multiclassing that occurred (though it'd be difficult to implement without redoing character progression entirely). Classes didn't have a unified XP rate. This would cause individuals of different classes to be at different levels (though in OD&D this was only about a level difference until well after name level) and by extension, you'd have a bit of "level drift" with a multiclassed character. Again, it wasn't huge until you hit level limits (which were even harsher in OD&D than AD&D it seems), but it was of non zero impact.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Some of the combinations seem to get more out of being paired. For example a wizard/fighter gets fighter hps & HD, full armor & weapon proficiencies, can have CON saves which are a big boost, and full casting including spells like Shiedl which synergize well with heavy armor. Oh, and more ASIs, which could be used to boost wizard ability scores or take feats that benefit the wizard side.

But he will have the same AC and fewer spell slots than a Fighter 1/Wizard X using melee cantrips to do his fighting. And if he's spending his ASIs to boost wizard ability scores, he's not boosting his fighter scores, so his fighter levels wind up being mostly irrelevant.

Say I go to BrockJones.com and roll up
12 14 17 11 15 6

(Those are pretty nice rolls BTW and I'm not sure how that will affect the below analysis.) Let's say that's a human Heavy Armor Master with Str (15) 16 Dex 12 Con 14 Int (17) 18 Wis 11 Cha 6, and I'm trying to decide whether to concurrently multi-class or use a PHB buffet-style multiclass.

At 100,000 XP (nice round number), I would be either:

Fighter 1/Abjuror 11, Str 16 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 20 Wis 11 Cha 6 HP 78 with one feat/ASI left over and slots 4/3/3/3/2/1 (73 spell points), relying on melee cantrips like Booming Blade for 3d8+3 (16.5) damage plus 13.5 as a rider.

OR

9th level BattlemasterAbjuror, Str 16 Dex 12 Con 14 Int 20 Wis 11 Cha 6 HP 76 with two feats/ASIs left over, superiority dice every short rest, and slots 4/3/3/3/1 (57 spell points), relying on melee attacks for 2x d8+3 (15) or melee cantrips like Booming Blade for 2d8+3 (12) plus 9 as a rider.

Neither one is inferior to the other, and it's not obvious which one I should pick--but if I don't like planning "builds" in detail, the Battlemaster/Abjuror is less finicky and, depending on what you think a class is, perhaps more aesthetic. (Hence this thread. I wouldn't have bothered writing something up if there weren't at least aesthetic advantages to old-school multiclassing.)

On the other hand, a paladin/ranger doesn't get a great deal. HPs are about the same, proficiencies are about the same, both get extra attack, etc. They do have two different casting progressions but both at half speed,and the speed is delayed due to the XP split.

Hmmm. Compare a 12th level Paladin to a 9th level Paladin/Ranger (assuming the DM offers Paladin/Ranger as a valid multiclass combination). 4/3/3 slots on the single-classed guy vs. 4/3/2 and 4/3/2 on the multiclassed guy. 3 ASIs for the single-classed guy, vs. 2 ASIs for the multi-classed guy, and the single-classed guy has Improved Divine Smite for +d8 radiant damage on melee hits while the multiclassed guy has +d8 via Colossus Slayer or a third attack via Break the Horde, plus random stuff like advantage on saves vs. being frightened and ability to ignore nonmagical difficult terrain. The single-classed guy has significantly more HP (about 30% more depending on Con).

It's not at all obvious to me which one to take, so you might as well just take the one that fits your character concept better.

This isn't bad - not all combinations are created even. But it seems to push for characters to take two very different classes and leaving similar classes. Like everyone will be a "full caster/martial type".

Am I needlessly worrying?

If warrior/warrior multiclassing like Champion/Barbarian turned out to be a thing under old-school multiclassing, I would be interested and pleasantly surprised, but encouraging it isn't a design goal. The classical multiclass combinations are fighter/mage, fighter/thief, fighter/cleric, mage/thief, fighter/mage/cleric, fighter/mage/thief, and maybe a couple of others I'm overlooking--those are the ones that have to work for me to consider multiclassing rules a success.

But I think combinations like Paladin/Barbarian (if allowed by the DM) would be perfectly viable and quite interesting, while also not crowding out regular single-classed Paladins or PHB-multiclassed Paladin/Sorcerers. There are pros and cons to each of them. The only combination that my powergamer instincts tell me not to pick is the single-classed Paladin; it's always better to PHB-multiclass away at some point (e.g. Warlock 2 dip, and probably some Sorcerer levels) instead of sticking around for the lame Paladin capstones. But a Paladin/Barbarian doesn't have that option--he's a Paladin/Barbarian for life, and as a designer I like that tradeoff.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Old-school multi-classing did essentially punish you as you hit the level limits.

In AD&D, if you're an elven fighter/mage, you're an elven fighter/mage. There's no way to make a "wrong" decision about your level advancement. No matter what you do, you'll hit the same ceiling eventually whether you think about it or not.

This is not true for 5E PHB multiclassing.