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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

I think you're misunderstanding the OP. The slots stack; but you don't use the PHB multiclassing rules for computing the slots by adding up caster levels. You just add the slots or spell points. Let's take your Wizard 17 vs. F/W 12 for example. The Wizard 17 has 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1/1 slots (107 spell points) and can cast True Polymorph. The 12th level Eldritch Knight/Wizard has 4/3 + 4/3/3/3/2/1 = 8/6/3/3/2/1 slots (90 spell points), and can't cast anything stronger than Globe of Invulnerability.

The fighter/mage is still a good character, but he'll do more of his fighting with swords and arrows instead of by turning into an adult red dragon.

Likewise, Wizard 19 would have 123 spell points and 9th level spells vs. F/W/R 12's 107 spell points and 6th level spells.

Edit: BTW, I don't think it would cause a mechanical problem if you did silo off wizards and Eldritch Knights/Arcane Tricksters from each other. In practice, those spell points/slots are probably just going to go toward Shield spells anyway. My reason for unifying them is aesthetic--it just makes sense to me that all wizard spell points should be fungible. But if you disliked that extra complexity you could eliminate the exception.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Most of that was simply having fewer decisions to make in the first place. Yes, you can make a 'wrong' decision about your elven fighter/wizard in 5e (or, arguably, the DM has made a 'wrong' decision in allowing MCing), vs having no decision to make at all for your elven fighter/magic-user in AD&D.

Edit: Having thought about it a bit, the EK is prettymuch the 1e fighter/magic-user, and the Bladesinger prettymuch the 2e fighter/wizard.

This is not true for 5E PHB multiclassing.

No argument with that bit.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

Well, it's tough to say. Wizard is going to look good combined with a LOT of classes, because it has lots of spells and the lowest baseline pretty much everywhere else. So any other class (other than Sorcerer and Warlock) is going to give it a big leg up on base capabilities like spells and hit points and proficiencies. Classes that are more versatile baseline like Paladins and Rangers aren't going to look as improved in comparison, especially combined with a class with which it shares a mechanical chassis.

But I don't think everyone would automatically go "martial/caster". Like I stated a few posts before, double caster would provide a LOT of firepower which I think a lot of players who enjoy spellcasting would favor, and double martial has a lot of synergies to offset paying for an Extra Attack that isn't strictly needed.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Just to clarify:

If you have a 9th level Wizard/Cleric, are you saying he has only exactly the same spell slots as a 9th level Wizard, 4/3/3/3/1, but can freely spend them on either wizard or cleric spells?

That is correct.

If so, this would seem to make warrior/wizards (or any kind of spellcaster/noncaster) the strongest kind of hybrid class because you're not losing any features, unlike e.g. bard/wizard. This is especially so because you're granting double ASIs, so warrior/wizards don't wind up MAD. Is that consequence intentional?

I'd call it a positive result, but not the driving influence.

A 20th level C10/W10 can only cast 5th level spells but has 9th level spell slots. At equivalent xp to a 20th level character, a C15/W15 2e-multi can cast 8th level spells and has an 8th level spell slot. To me, that's at least somewhat equivalent. If I were to give the 2e-multi double the number of spell slots, he would be flat out better than the C10/W10, and arguably superior to any 20th level single-classed caster as well.

I didn't want to make the 2e-multi's more powerful than single-classed characters, hence I felt that giving them the same number of spell slots as a single classed character was the right call. The fact that it makes the F/W (or similar) the best option is simply a bonus, since I feel that currently (assuming an even split of levels rather than cherry picking) combining a non-caster with a caster using PHB-multiclassing falls on the very low end of the power spectrum. Certainly not useless, but at that point where you need to play cleverly to remain competitive with single-classed PCs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But I don't think everyone would automatically go "martial/caster". Like I stated a few posts before, double caster would provide a LOT of firepower which I think a lot of players who enjoy spellcasting would favor, and double martial has a lot of synergies to offset paying for an Extra Attack that isn't strictly needed.

Barbarian/Druid could be fun. Not necessarily more fun than PHB-multiclassed Barbarian 1/Moon Druid X, but IMO more aesthetic.

I think I'm starting to realize that one of my motivations for writing up these rules could be so that I can ban PHB multiclassing without feeling like a meanie. Not sure about that though, just a suspicion. In some ways PHB multiclassing is really cool (I love the Sith Lord: Death Monk 12/Paladin 6/Warlock 2) at least as an intellectual toy, but it leads to lots of gamey, inorganic builds, like the aforementioned Fighter 11/Wizard 9 "trap."

 

[Blue]

Well, it's tough to say. Wizard is going to look good combined with a LOT of classes, because it has lots of spells and the lowest baseline pretty much everywhere else. So any other class (other than Sorcerer and Warlock) is going to give it a big leg up on base capabilities like spells and hit points and proficiencies. Classes that are more versatile baseline like Paladins and Rangers aren't going to look as improved in comparison, especially combined with a class with which it shares a mechanical chassis.

I think you just agreed with me, but your tone is "don't worry about this". Do you see anyone taking a martial/martial and being levels behind a straight martial?

But I don't think everyone would automatically go "martial/caster". Like I stated a few posts before, double caster would provide a LOT of firepower which I think a lot of players who enjoy spellcasting would favor, and double martial has a lot of synergies to offset paying for an Extra Attack that isn't strictly needed.

Caster/Caster have the same output they can just sustain it longer. But you still have the same number of actions to cast and the same number of concentration slots, so they aren't doing any more.

But yes, I can see caster/caster, especially with Hemlock using spell points because that does compress higher level spells into the same amount of actions over time. But that's predicated on other changes for his campaign which he doesn't seem to require for this gestalt-classing. (Sorry, multiclassing is a term already in 5e, I tried using it but I think it harms clarity to redefine and reuse.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A 20th level C10/W10 can only cast 5th level spells but has 9th level spell slots. At equivalent xp to a 20th level character, a C15/W15 2e-multi can cast 8th level spells and has an 8th level spell slot. To me, that's at least somewhat equivalent. If I were to give the 2e-multi double the number of spell slots, he would be flat out better than the C10/W10, and arguably superior to any 20th level single-classed caster as well.

I didn't want to make the 2e-multi's more powerful than single-classed characters, hence I felt that giving them the same number of spell slots as a single classed character was the right call. The fact that it makes the F/W (or similar) the best option is simply a bonus, since I feel that currently (assuming an even split of levels rather than cherry picking) combining a non-caster with a caster using PHB-multiclassing falls on the very low end of the power spectrum. Certainly not useless, but at that point where you need to play cleverly to remain competitive with single-classed PCs.

How do you deal with sorcerer/warlocks? They're already a popular combination under PHB rules, but under your hybrid rules you get twice as many ASIs. Since warlocks don't use the regular spellcasting rules, PHB multiclassing doesn't lump them in with other spellcaster classes, but if you get full spellcasting from sorcerer and Pact Magic + Invocations + Mystic Arcana from warlock, sorlocks seem like a near-dominant option over regular sorcerers and warlocks. So I assume you must be limiting them somehow, but it must be a different mechanism than for other spellcasters. If so, what is it?

Incidentally, under PHB rules, I feel that caster/caster even splits are even weaker than noncaster/caster splits. E.g. you might be able to persuade me to play a Swashbuckler 5/Illusionist 5 over a Rogue 2/Illusionist 8, but you'd never persuade me to play a Bard 5/Warlock 5 over a Bard 2/Warlock 8.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think I'm starting to realize that one of my motivations for writing up these rules could be so that I can ban PHB multiclassing without feeling like a meanie.

Embrace the meanie.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think you just agreed with me, but your tone is "don't worry about this". Do you see anyone taking a martial/martial and being levels behind a straight martial?

I do. If we see real people actually advocating Champion 3/Barbarian X in real life (and we do) despite the cost, just for the sake of getting Reckless Attack and Improved Critical on the same chassis (w/ GWM bonus attacks on a crit), I think those same people would be equally attracted to a Champion/Barbarian multiclass (or "gestalt" as you would call it).

Not to mention the fighter/thief potential of e.g. Battlemaster/Assassin. That would be quite fun.

 

[TwoSix]

I think you just agreed with me, but your tone is "don't worry about this".

Pretty much.

Do you see anyone taking a martial/martial and being levels behind a straight martial?

Sure. I don't think a lot of martial combinations have the obvious "cover one class' weaknesses with the other class" combinations that the martial/caster combinations do, but I don't think they're BAD. They're just not as obviously good. Martial/Barbarian is pretty legit, I think, as is Martial/Rogue. If the game is going to higher levels, Fighter/Martial is pretty strong at 11+ with 3 attacks.

Caster/Caster have the same output they can just sustain it longer. But you still have the same number of actions to cast and the same number of concentration slots, so they aren't doing any more.

Agreed. Like I mentioned before, C/C have a lot of dungeon endurance without really increasing nova capability, which is good.

But yes, I can see caster/caster, especially with Hemlock using spell points because that does compress higher level spells into the same amount of actions over time. But that's predicated on other changes for his campaign which he doesn't seem to require for this gestalt-classing. (Sorry, multiclassing is a term already in 5e, I tried using it but I think it harms clarity to redefine and reuse.)

I don't use spell slots, but I like the idea of having lots of low level spell slots for combat actions over cantrip spam, so I find C/C pretty intriguing.