Fanaelialae
Legend
For warlocks, I use the same solution as you use. Sorcerer slots cannot be used for warlock spells and warlocks slots can't be used for sorcerer spells. I didn't mention it since our systems handle it the same way.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Proposal: Fighter/mage/thief: quick and dirty concurrent multiclassing/gestalt rules
- Thread starter FormerlyHemlock
- Start date
For warlocks, I use the same solution as you use. Sorcerer slots cannot be used for warlock spells and warlocks slots can't be used for sorcerer spells. I didn't mention it since our systems handle it the same way.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
This is a very similar system to one the ones I was working on. What finally turned me against the simplicity of the XP split and advance, is that I think some things that worked well in AD&D don't work as well in 5e. Specifically, having less HD and being at a lower character level than others at the same XP total just is kind of a mess that I want to avoid. Another issue is that there wasn't a maximum level in AD&D, so although splitting XP would garner the same result at 20th level as in AD&D (the XP needed to make a 20th level wizard would make a 15th/15th fighter/wizard), in AD&D you could eventually go all the way up to 20th level and beyond (demi-human level limits, which would be houseruled for high level games with sane players anyway, aside). I really like the hard level cap of 20 for 5e, and I'd apply that to the "ECL" of a split XP character too, leaving them forever at 15th level, which is sad.
But I really like the style of AD&D multiclassing, and hope to see a new and improved version come out for 5e.
The next system I came up with had you choosing an A and B class (I decided that making it possible to have three classes wasn't really necessary). You were an X-level character that was based on the level anyone else would be with your XP. Each class had base features it always provided, features it provided if it was the A class, features it provided if it was the B, and features it never provided as a multiclass component. Of the features you got, you got them at the same levels as the standard class for your A class, and at one level less for your B class.
This was messy, left you having to pick only one subclass (the B class provided one, the A class didn't), and required a separate write-up for each class.
The one I'm currently working on is a little simpler and is inspired by 4e's hybrid multiclassing. You pick two classes (from available combinations, which I tend to limit). A simple table tells you which proficiencies you get. You get the best HD. That was a hard decision, but I made it based on a couple of points. The first is that it is odd to specifically target HD as a feature to average, when most other features you just get the best of. (Although in this system, armor is more of an average.) The other is to preserve whether you are front rank, second rank, or rear rank combatant. I just don't like that a fighter/mage has less hit points than a fighter/cleric--it rubs me the wrong way. You only get ASI's from whichever class gives you the most. You get all the other class features of both classes, but you gain and advance them all one level slower. The primary balancer, though, shows up in two ways. For each class, you gain either half the effect, or you must wait an additional level (so a total of 2) to get it. Half-effect generally applies to set, numerically quantifiied features, such as +hp for Second Wind. (You'd still roll 1d10 for simplicity, but only gain half the +level value.) They'd also apply to things like Arcane Recovery, number of times you can use Channel Divinity, the weapons an Eldritch Knight can be bonded to (so only 1 instead of 2). And importantly, it applies to spell slots. Everything is rounded up (So so you always get your 1 spell slot when you gain access to a new spell level, for instance). If you are going Fighter/Wizard, Eldritch Knight is the way to go, because you add together the spell slots from each class (then round up the total), which still leaves you with a lot less spell slots than a single classed character. For some features this is manifested by simply not gaining an improved form. A fighter will never get a second use of Action Surge, or a third use of Indomitable. For all the features that don't halve well, you get the normal feature, but it is delayed by an additional level. Note that it isn't actually true that you get all the features, because you will automatically lose your capstone in both classes due to the one level delay. This is intentional.
While this one has more of a system than the other one, it still effectively requires a write-up for each class to decide which features are halved and which are delayed, because it isn't always completely obvious and some decision making is required.
The write-up of an Eldritch Knight/Conjurer with this system looked more like what I want than any of the others (though I haven't yet compared my sample multiclass against a Valor Bard and a Tempest Cleric, which look like good benchmarks for comparison), but I'm hoping for an official system that is simpler and I will like at least almost as well.
And because I don't want to have the same discussion on two concurrent threads, I'll address a point from my Bladesinger thread about why Bladesinger isn't good enough to model the AD&D fighter/mage. In essence, other than the armor and weapon issues I was discussing there, I think 5e's Bladesinger is a great translation of the original kit, and not a horrible translation of the fighter/mage concept. However, while it is true that it isn't really missing much fightery stuff from the AD&D version, this is no longer AD&D. It needs to have more fightery stuff from the 5e version. Bladesinger is a good class for someone who really wants to go with the 2e kit theme, and doesn't mind being a full wizard and dabbling fighter to do it, just like Eldritch Knight is okay for someone who wants to be a fighter who dabbles in wizardry. (I think Bladesinger is much better conceptual fit personally, because Eldritch Knight is too low on the spellcasting to feel like a fighter/mage, while Bladesinger is a bit better at feeling like one.) So we have two extremes of full classes dabbling in the others, but nothing that gives us a good balance between them with similar abilities to the originals. I should point out that AD&D (either edition) XP tables would put your fighter/mage at 15th level of each when a single classed mage was 20th level.
I haven't been able to come up with something that is both elegant and feels right to me (meaning it capture the original feeling but updates it to more modern design sensibilities).
I sure hope they at least give us an UA of them. Ideally they put one of those out, and then use feedback to revise it into a good form for inclusion in the crunch book at the end of the year. I can't think of any good reason for them not to do that, other than perhaps they are scratching their head over how to do it right just as much as everyone else. But there is a reason we pay them for this stuff, so I hope they can come up with a solution.
Yes. While Hybrid multiclassing felt unsatisfying to me (not that I played much 4e anyway), I think with the way post AD&D editions have worked, allowing access to high level abilities from both classes really is something that needs to be included.
How about the BECMI elf class?
As [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] noted, the traditional combinations didn't allow similar classes to multiclass. 2e codified it a bit further by reference to the class groups (Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Magic-User). In essence, there are certain combinations that are traditionally modeled, and others that just aren't. I'd probably impose those restrictions in my own games, as well as make them racially limited traditions. For instance, dwarves would almost never be paladins. The dwarf equivalent is the dwarf fighter/cleric. Different, but fulfilling a similar role in dwarf society.
(Just quoting you because it provides a jumping off point for something I wanted to add)
One of the impetuses of this sort of conversion is to allow character to get higher level spells. While there is some utility in scaling up spells into higher level slots, it doesn't capture the aesthetic of the multiclassing concept. For example, in a party of 20th level characters an Eldritch Knight's is just a fighter who dabbles in magic with his 4th level spells--not a fighter/mage. A character who can cast 8th (or even 7th) level spells, is a respectable mage--not on par with a single-classed mage, but at least someone who would hang up his armor, put on a robe and a pointy hat and go sit down at the table with other wizard to discuss arcana and compare spellbooks. And he has a similar relationship to fighters. Obviously inferior, but obviously a bonafide member of the club, not just a dabbler.
But I really like the style of AD&D multiclassing, and hope to see a new and improved version come out for 5e.
The next system I came up with had you choosing an A and B class (I decided that making it possible to have three classes wasn't really necessary). You were an X-level character that was based on the level anyone else would be with your XP. Each class had base features it always provided, features it provided if it was the A class, features it provided if it was the B, and features it never provided as a multiclass component. Of the features you got, you got them at the same levels as the standard class for your A class, and at one level less for your B class.
This was messy, left you having to pick only one subclass (the B class provided one, the A class didn't), and required a separate write-up for each class.
The one I'm currently working on is a little simpler and is inspired by 4e's hybrid multiclassing. You pick two classes (from available combinations, which I tend to limit). A simple table tells you which proficiencies you get. You get the best HD. That was a hard decision, but I made it based on a couple of points. The first is that it is odd to specifically target HD as a feature to average, when most other features you just get the best of. (Although in this system, armor is more of an average.) The other is to preserve whether you are front rank, second rank, or rear rank combatant. I just don't like that a fighter/mage has less hit points than a fighter/cleric--it rubs me the wrong way. You only get ASI's from whichever class gives you the most. You get all the other class features of both classes, but you gain and advance them all one level slower. The primary balancer, though, shows up in two ways. For each class, you gain either half the effect, or you must wait an additional level (so a total of 2) to get it. Half-effect generally applies to set, numerically quantifiied features, such as +hp for Second Wind. (You'd still roll 1d10 for simplicity, but only gain half the +level value.) They'd also apply to things like Arcane Recovery, number of times you can use Channel Divinity, the weapons an Eldritch Knight can be bonded to (so only 1 instead of 2). And importantly, it applies to spell slots. Everything is rounded up (So so you always get your 1 spell slot when you gain access to a new spell level, for instance). If you are going Fighter/Wizard, Eldritch Knight is the way to go, because you add together the spell slots from each class (then round up the total), which still leaves you with a lot less spell slots than a single classed character. For some features this is manifested by simply not gaining an improved form. A fighter will never get a second use of Action Surge, or a third use of Indomitable. For all the features that don't halve well, you get the normal feature, but it is delayed by an additional level. Note that it isn't actually true that you get all the features, because you will automatically lose your capstone in both classes due to the one level delay. This is intentional.
While this one has more of a system than the other one, it still effectively requires a write-up for each class to decide which features are halved and which are delayed, because it isn't always completely obvious and some decision making is required.
The write-up of an Eldritch Knight/Conjurer with this system looked more like what I want than any of the others (though I haven't yet compared my sample multiclass against a Valor Bard and a Tempest Cleric, which look like good benchmarks for comparison), but I'm hoping for an official system that is simpler and I will like at least almost as well.
And because I don't want to have the same discussion on two concurrent threads, I'll address a point from my Bladesinger thread about why Bladesinger isn't good enough to model the AD&D fighter/mage. In essence, other than the armor and weapon issues I was discussing there, I think 5e's Bladesinger is a great translation of the original kit, and not a horrible translation of the fighter/mage concept. However, while it is true that it isn't really missing much fightery stuff from the AD&D version, this is no longer AD&D. It needs to have more fightery stuff from the 5e version. Bladesinger is a good class for someone who really wants to go with the 2e kit theme, and doesn't mind being a full wizard and dabbling fighter to do it, just like Eldritch Knight is okay for someone who wants to be a fighter who dabbles in wizardry. (I think Bladesinger is much better conceptual fit personally, because Eldritch Knight is too low on the spellcasting to feel like a fighter/mage, while Bladesinger is a bit better at feeling like one.) So we have two extremes of full classes dabbling in the others, but nothing that gives us a good balance between them with similar abilities to the originals. I should point out that AD&D (either edition) XP tables would put your fighter/mage at 15th level of each when a single classed mage was 20th level.
I haven't been able to come up with something that is both elegant and feels right to me (meaning it capture the original feeling but updates it to more modern design sensibilities).
I sure hope they at least give us an UA of them. Ideally they put one of those out, and then use feedback to revise it into a good form for inclusion in the crunch book at the end of the year. I can't think of any good reason for them not to do that, other than perhaps they are scratching their head over how to do it right just as much as everyone else. But there is a reason we pay them for this stuff, so I hope they can come up with a solution.
Yes. While Hybrid multiclassing felt unsatisfying to me (not that I played much 4e anyway), I think with the way post AD&D editions have worked, allowing access to high level abilities from both classes really is something that needs to be included.
How about the BECMI elf class?
As [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] noted, the traditional combinations didn't allow similar classes to multiclass. 2e codified it a bit further by reference to the class groups (Warrior, Priest, Rogue, Magic-User). In essence, there are certain combinations that are traditionally modeled, and others that just aren't. I'd probably impose those restrictions in my own games, as well as make them racially limited traditions. For instance, dwarves would almost never be paladins. The dwarf equivalent is the dwarf fighter/cleric. Different, but fulfilling a similar role in dwarf society.
(Just quoting you because it provides a jumping off point for something I wanted to add)
One of the impetuses of this sort of conversion is to allow character to get higher level spells. While there is some utility in scaling up spells into higher level slots, it doesn't capture the aesthetic of the multiclassing concept. For example, in a party of 20th level characters an Eldritch Knight's is just a fighter who dabbles in magic with his 4th level spells--not a fighter/mage. A character who can cast 8th (or even 7th) level spells, is a respectable mage--not on par with a single-classed mage, but at least someone who would hang up his armor, put on a robe and a pointy hat and go sit down at the table with other wizard to discuss arcana and compare spellbooks. And he has a similar relationship to fighters. Obviously inferior, but obviously a bonafide member of the club, not just a dabbler.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Interesting. The big difference then is that my sorcerer/warlocks are getting only five ASIs by 20th level, whereas your hybrids get ten ASIs by then. That seems significant from a powergaming perspective--I'd probably be eager to play a sorcerer/warlock under those conditions. Invest a couple of ASIs in boosting Charisma (4th and 8th), a couple more in upgrading Light Armor proficiency to Heavy Armor proficiency, maybe throw in some Lucky and Spell Sniper at 12th level.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Sorry to respond to just one part of your post here (I'll consider and respond to the rest later), but since I play with heterogenous PC levels a lot and you say that avoiding it is a critical decision factor for you avoiding something you'd like to do--because something you speak of as infeasible is something that works perfectly well for me, I'm interested to know what kind of a mess you believe it makes. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that I want to understand you more fully.
As far as I can tell, heterogenous PC levels makes very little difference in 5E. You can have 14th level PCs in the same party with 8th level PCs and 3rd level NPCs, and it works, thanks to bounded accuracy. Everyone contributes, no one is useless, and even the 3rd level NPC Sorceress with a Con score of 6 (IIRC) and only 8 HP manages not to get killed.
(Well, okay, she did get killed eventually, but that was due to friendly fire Fireball from an insane Grey Slaad. And somehow she got raised anyway, I forget how.)
You could take your average 13th level party and drop in a 5rd level Moon Druid, and the Moon Druid would have a valuable role to play and a valuable niche. Ditto for a 3rd level Shadow Monk or a 5th level Rogue.
Such is my experience anyway. I'm interested to know in what ways yours differs.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
It's not really a functional thing so much as an aesthetic thing. I like having a unified advancement chart, the same max level correlated with the same total XP gain etc. It's the balance between traditional feel and updated mechanics that I go for.
When I was considering that system, one of the things I thought of was having the character level and gain HD at the same rate as everyone else, but just have a simple chart saying at which level they gain the features of their classes. So the chart would say that at 20th level they gain the 15th level class features from each class. (You could even reduce dead levels by gaining the features of your B class at a different level than those of your A class, but that risks making one class primary and the other secondary, which I like to avoid.) I'm not sure how that interacts with balance issues, since you'll have more HP and occasionally a better proficiency bonus that way. If you aren't stacking ASIs you'll have too few, but if you are stacking them you might have too many. That would be a downside of this system. If you did it old-school and gave them ASIs from both class, they could buy Toughness and Constitution as a feat tax to keep their hp up to par, and still have feats to work with.
One of the other things I didn't mention before that also was a bit of an issue for me is the uneven advancement as you level compared to a single class character, skewing towards getting more at lower levels than at higher. (Maybe getting the high-level abilities of two classes at once evens out the fact that you have dead levels up there; I don't know.) It's the same issue I have with trying to get a decent fighter mage by going Eldritch Knight 7/Wizard 13, just from the other side. With the EK/W, you'll not feel very effective for quite a while unless you focus in on one class (probably fighter) until you get it to 5th (or 7th for War Magic), which means your wizard spellcasting is always going to be a rather unimpressive contribution to the party until your last level few levels. If you split evenly, you'll feel ineffective in both classes for most of your progression. No matter how you advance your poor EK/W, he never feels right. (I've done plenty of spreadsheets on that particular one, because it seemed like my best RAW method of representing the character I wanted, but I just wasn't at all satisfied with it.) With the AD&D style, you start off great, and then sort of slow down compared to the rest of the party. It might not be a problem. If WotC comes out with something along those lines, I'll carefully consider whether to adopt it (hopefully it will be better than the versions I've already went through), but I think it's more satisfying to fit it closer to 5e's patterns. If they can somehow combine the vertical split 4e hybrid with the AD&D top chop, and blend it all together to get a pleasing whole, that's probably the best route (and what my current messy version is attempting).
Last edited:
Fanaelialae
Legend
Fortunately my players aren't powergamers, so that's not a prime concern for me.
I originally considered making it an ASI and an addition +1 (to a different stat) or two +1s for a three class hybrid. If double ASIs proves problematic, I'll change it to that. But I'm more concerned with with making a wide variety of less optimized concepts playable, and that means giving MAD concepts the ASIs they need to be functional.
Slit518
Adventurer
How I would run the gestalt rules:
Example -
Fighter/Wizard
Take d10 HP a level
Choose 2 saves from both the Fighter and Wizard's saves.
Choose 2 skills from both the Fighter and Wizard's skill list.
Fighter's Weapon and Armor proficiency.
Wizard's spell progression.
Features of both classes, similar features do not stack, such as Extra Attack or Stat Increase.
EXP progression is a bit hard, as a character isn't exactly "twice" as powerful.
They are still limited by the "Action Economy".
I would suggest either a 1/3 or 2/3 more experience to level up.
Or, alternatively, if every player is playing a character with these options, don't change a thing.
Example -
Fighter/Wizard
Take d10 HP a level
Choose 2 saves from both the Fighter and Wizard's saves.
Choose 2 skills from both the Fighter and Wizard's skill list.
Fighter's Weapon and Armor proficiency.
Wizard's spell progression.
Features of both classes, similar features do not stack, such as Extra Attack or Stat Increase.
EXP progression is a bit hard, as a character isn't exactly "twice" as powerful.
They are still limited by the "Action Economy".
I would suggest either a 1/3 or 2/3 more experience to level up.
Or, alternatively, if every player is playing a character with these options, don't change a thing.
Fanaelialae
Legend
There was an alternative idea I was toying with when I was first working on the design, but I ultimately abandoned it as too fiddly.
It amounts to Pact Magic slots replacing Long Rest spell slots if the character has both of the same level. A War1/Wiz1 would have one 1st level spell slots that recharges after a short rest and one that recharges on a long rest. They can be used interchangeably to cast spells from any of that character's classes.
If Pact Magic would give you more spell slots than you have Long Rest slots for that level, you get the remaining Pact Magic slots without having to replace anything.
My biggest issue is that, until the very high levels, it grants bonus slots only intermittently. You gain them, then lose them, then gain them again later. It makes the progression of a Warlock / other caster somewhat weird.
Maybe I'll take another stab at it and try to work out a progression table that smoothes the progress. I could use slots one level lower for the overflow, in which case you'd never get bonus Pact Magic slots; multi with warlock would just upgrade your long rest slots to short rest. Half and 1/3rd casters could work on the same principle (if you don't have an equivalent spell slot, you replace your next highest).
Tony Vargas
Legend
BA works that way when it comes to attack rolls, yes. And, maybe even a little too well, when it comes to skill checks (you could play a MM-standard Kobold all campaign long and still contribute skill checks). Then there's hps and damage...
How? Get caught in one save-for-1/2-damage AE that does 32+ points of damage, and you're instantly dead.
Nevermind. Should really read before I type sometime.
Though 'friendly?' Really?
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
The Slaad wasn't fully cognizant of the fact that human beings are fragile: not resistant to fire, don't regenerate, have low HP. After all, he often fireballed himself with no real ill effects (i.e. used Fireball as a close-combat weapon because it's pretty). In this specific case, he was more focused on the opportunity to "slay evil" (he thought he was a paladin, although with not much real conception of what good and evil actually are) by killing the ambushers (phase spiders I think) than on the side-effects it would have on the other (N)PCs trying to fight their way clear.
Hey, chaotic neutral, nonhuman, and insane. [shrug] Later on he got turned into chunks of hamburger by umber hulks.
Similar Threads
