D&D 2E Room in 5e for 2e-style multiclassing?

[Li Shenron]

Do you think there is room in 5e for 2e-style multiclassing, either as an alternative to the current default 3e-style multiclassing, or even as an option on an player's individual basis? (I am not asking whether they should put this idea in the core books, just asking if it is feasible)

The concept of 2e-style multiclassing is:

- you choose all your classes (let's focus on 2 for now) at character creation
- you belong to both classes since the start, i.e. you start as e.g. Fighter 1/Wizard 1
- you spread your XP evenly to both classes, and advance separately using the normal XP chart
- if class features overlap, you get the best of the two

Note that in 5e every class follows the same XP chart, so compared to 2e we don't even have to say Fighter N1/Wizard N2 because you would level up in both classes at the same time. Thus it's enough to say you are a Fighter/Wizard of level N.

I would suppose that by building on current rules, the easiest design would mean:

- proficiency bonus based on your level N
- weapon and armor proficiencies overlap
- hit points and hit dice overlap
- class features stack (there are a very few overlap to be decided e.g. Fighting Style, multiattacks) including spells

Other proficiencies should be discussed: when they overlap, it should be decided whether it is allowed to pick an alternative (this is already the rule for skills, but not for saving throws). But overall these are very simple rules.

Eventually the net result of multiclassing with these rules, is to have more features (including spellcasting) than a single-classed PC, in exchange for less HP and lower proficiency bonus.


(Another option, more complicated but can fix balance for spellcaster classes, is to treat spells with an approach similar to the current 3e-style multiclassing rules.)

It then all depends on the XP chart itself... I actually think the current chart is not the final version. Those XP values for levelling up is what would determine how much a multiclass PC's HP and proficiency bonus would lag behind compared to sincle-class PCs. So changing the XP chart (for everyone or only the multiclassed PCs) would be the dial to make this work.

But the main question lies IMHO in spellcasting. That "dial" may work for a Fighter/Wizard but not for a Wizard/Cleric or a Fighter/Paladin, depending on how spells are treated.

 

[1of3]

The problem with explicitely using XP is that - well - you have to use XP. With the current rules you can drop the XP chart and level up whenever. Apparently that is what many groups do.

Personally, I'm not sure that it's a problem to alternate your progression between two classes. Maybe there could be a small bonus if, a player chooses to do so.

 

[Zireael]

You can drop the XP chart in 5e?

I like the idea. Why alternate the progression at all?

Also, is it only me or does the 2e style multiclassing sound similar to gestalt?

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem with explicitely using XP is that - well - you have to use XP. With the current rules you can drop the XP chart and level up whenever. Apparently that is what many groups do.

We've also used the same in fact. In that case, there could be a rule of thumb for 2e-style multiclassed PCs about when to have them level up, or how many levels less they should have at any time (which might not be a constant).

I like the idea. Why alternate the progression at all?

Also, is it only me or does the 2e style multiclassing sound similar to gestalt?

Gestalt is the same concept, it just means to overlap classes, instead of stacking levels.

The specific 3e gestalt rules however were not meant to be used at the same table where other PCs use normal single or multiclass rules, therefore there was no need to alter the XP advancement for them.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It's a viable approach, but I don't think it can be presented as a simple alternative. Let's imagine a character with 100k XP: it's a level 12 character or a level 9/9 character (with your proposed 2e multiclassing). The existing multiclass rules would only allow a level 9/3 (or, if you prefer, 6/6) for the same experience level.

at 50k xp, it's a level 9 (almost 10) or (2e)8/8.

The imbalance there is just too great: to implement 2e multiclassing at the same time as the proposed system would require a second character advancement table -- it's much better for there just to be one system, and to have the advancement table tuned to that.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Back in 2E, multiclass was far from balanced, but at least we can say it worked as intended, which is more than we can say about the rules that followed both in 3E and 4E. To me, that's a good enough reason to take it as the model we should try to balance, instead of working with a base-3E version that, like I said in the other thread, was either bad or broken in the majority of situations (it was rarely just fair). Some considerations:

- Multiclass and Dual class: they're not the same thing. A character that walks two paths since the beginning is not the same thing as a character that changes his path during the course of his career. Different perspectives, different needs.

- Core classes won't fix it: Players want the opportunity to be both fighter and wizard at the same time, not some weird hybrid concoction with a generic name like spellsword, warmage or duskblade.

- Subclasses won't fix either: Much like those prestige classes from 3.5, which were also thought as a way to make multiclass casters viable. We should have good multiclass rules, not character options to make broken rules work as intended.

Cheers,

 

[am181d]

Double post.

 

[am181d]

It's a viable approach, but I don't think it can be presented as a simple alternative. Let's imagine a character with 100k XP: it's a level 12 character or a level 9/9 character (with your proposed 2e multiclassing). The existing multiclass rules would only allow a level 9/3 (or, if you prefer, 6/6) for the same experience level.

at 50k xp, it's a level 9 (almost 10) or (2e)8/8.

The imbalance there is just too great: to implement 2e multiclassing at the same time as the proposed system would require a second character advancement table -- it's much better for there just to be one system, and to have the advancement table tuned to that.

Keep in mind that the 9/9 character only has HD and proficiency bonus of a 9th level character, while the 6/6 character has HD and prof bonus of a 12th level character.

I wouldn't want both systems to be official, but this looks like it could be a viable module/hack.

 

[Kobold Stew]

That is a good point -- thanks.

 

[Li Shenron]

The imbalance there is just too great: to implement 2e multiclassing at the same time as the proposed system would require a second character advancement table -- it's much better for there just to be one system, and to have the advancement table tuned to that.

That was my concern as well...

But OTOH in 2e you had each class own XP table, and multiclassed worked exactly by splitting XP to two classes. (Those classes had different advancement rate, although probably some of them might have had very close rates.)

Therefore I was thinking, if it worked back then without a separate XP table for multiclassed, it should also work now.

Q: What is the REAL difference between a 2e PC with 2 classes and a 5e PC with 2 classes treated in 2e-style?
A: The real difference is that the 5e PC gets definitely MORE stuff from each single class, basically at least 1 new feature per level.

There is probably need to compare a single-class vs a double-class (2e style) at all levels from 1 to 20 to get a better picture...