So I have a few questions....
1. Is it true you can single dip?
2. Is it true there are no limits at all? Not even something like 2e? Or no more then 2 levels between classes?
3. Is it true you only need ONE 15+ ability score?
Assuming it is the same as the playtest,
1. yes
2. new class every level if your DM can stomach it
3. depends on the class. some just need two 13s
Interesting. I'm going to if I use it, require more than "level up switch class" as in actual game actions to learn stuff.
Hmm...
I assume if they have a brain cell still working that was a stress test more then the actual rules. If not I have 2 houserules ready to go.
1. No stat bumps and no feats allowed
2. No more than +1 between your classes unless it's a favored one, then it can be +3 higher (or +2 if you get stupid and get me angry).
What I don't get is why even have the Eldritch Knight subclass if they're no limits on multiclassing? Just be a Mountain Dwarve 1/19 F/M and basically be a full wizard in heavy plate and good weapons among other things with no cost.
I'm thinking there must be other things in play because as it's set up it's too tempting not to at least go 10 levels in any class if your other class is wizard especially cleric or druid to upgrade 1-5 level spells out the whazoo. Or a fighter or ranger.
Quote from: Silverlion;754989Interesting. I'm going to if I use it, require more than "level up switch class" as in actual game actions to learn stuff.
Yeah, that's all part and parcel with how the DM prefers to present their milieu. Best not to have rules hard coded into the game on those types of things, to me. Probably be good for one of the optional modules they are touting.
I'm guessing that multiclassing won't be in Basic, which is something.
Quote from: Old One Eye;754986Assuming it is the same as the playtest,
1. yes
2. new class every level if your DM can stomach it
3. depends on the class. some just need two 13s
Ugh. Consider my interest at least partially waned.
I'm not sure the ability prerquisites will stay. They produce some vey strange effects, because you can play a Wizard with Intelligence 8. No problem. But you are not allowed to become a Wizard later, unless your Intelligence is 15+.
Hard restrictions on how many classes you can start, would be simpler and more effective.
Not a fan of multi classing as that way lies Charop.
However easy to fix - no multiclassing in this game sorry.
It must be siad that it was one of the most popular parts of 3e so if this is going to be the one game to bring them all and in the darkness bind them I guess it has to be included.
Quote from: robiswrong;755019Ugh. Consider my interest at least partially waned.
Me too. Never been a fan. I like the way the last play test pack described "taking a level" in rogue for the fighter. However, it does seem a little bit "under-graduate modular degree course" when I would expect that a highly trained professional is more likely to be post-grad and above in their chosen field.
I use those words to illustrate, not to define how I think a level 1 or level 9 fighter or magic user should be considered within a contemporary framework. 3.PF was very pick and mix. Ugh.
At least multiclassing is easy to strip out. They had some pseudo-multiclassing feats that gave you a couple cantrips and a spell, I'd like to see those for noncaster classes too instead, feat multiclassing was something 4e did that I dug.
If someone were to demand 3.X style multiclassing... I would plotz
That's one of the things I liked the least. I can stand a dip or commitment to to two classes, but the crazy builds in 3.X make the game less fun for me.
The only real issue I had wit multi classing was the front loaded first level of the class.
I think saga star wars did it best if you multi classed you picked one thing the class gave at first level and not all the proficiency, skills, feats, etc.
As far as Char op goes that is, to me, mostly a player issue which rules shouldn't try to fix. I know some games make it easier or more tempting but most of the time it seemed to be a player issue not a system issue.
Just my thoughts.
Quote from: LibraryLass;755047At least multiclassing is easy to strip out. They had some pseudo-multiclassing feats that gave you a couple cantrips and a spell, I'd like to see those for noncaster classes too instead, feat multiclassing was something 4e did that I dug.
Same here. My preferences is that I wouldn't spend a level in a mage class just to get a spell when I could use that feat to do it instead and still maintain my fighter (or whatever) career path. Better fits the "I'm a fighter, but I've been dabbling with the mage during the adventure" scenario IMO anyway.
Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;755052The only real issue I had wit multi classing was the front loaded first level of the class.
Yep. Me too. I think 5e tries to address this by delaying a lot of class "unique" features until you get to level 3 in that class.
QuoteAs far as Char op goes that is, to me, mostly a player issue which rules shouldn't try to fix. I know some games make it easier or more tempting but most of the time it seemed to be a player issue not a system issue.
Again, I agree. 5e is going to need to have multiclassing elements that are similar to 3e because they're pulling things from every edition and there are a lot of people who like it. I know they're trying to mitigate the whole F4/B3/Brd6/Mk8 type builds, but it's hard.
It's just much easier to let individual groups deal with it at the table. If I'm DMing, I have a rule that you can't multi-class into another class unless you have a pretty good in game reason for it. Much easier to handle it that way instead of trying to force the rules into something that another group finds too restrictive when it's super easy for me to make that houserule.
Well truthfully it is just an option and there are several easy ways to houserule it especially if the playtest version is the full and final version if really needed.
Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;755052The only real issue I had wit multi classing was the front loaded first level of the class.
I think saga star wars did it best if you multi classed you picked one thing the class gave at first level and not all the proficiency, skills, feats, etc.
As far as Char op goes that is, to me, mostly a player issue which rules shouldn't try to fix. I know some games make it easier or more tempting but most of the time it seemed to be a player issue not a system issue.
Just my thoughts.
I like the Saga approach as well. That said, I think prestige classes were where the worst issues of 3E multi-classing came out. The idea of a whole ream of specialized classes led to pretty extreme power shifts.
As a contrast, something like the Saga approach means that a Fighter 10, Barbarian 10, and Fighter 5/Barbarian 5 will all be relatively comparable.
Whenever this subject comes up I wish there were a well fleshed out classless D&D. A lot of the grognard set can tell you how upset they were when the Thief showed up, and you could argue Clerics are just magicians with a different spell set and one or two other powers that could have easily been described as spells. In both cases, you take a set of powers or abilities and use them to define a certain sub set of characters. The last 40 years of enjoyable gaming prove that this is basically fine, but it creates a kind of arms race mentality that leads inevitably to dragon-born-paladin-barbarian-assassin-illusionists. Wouldn't it be better if there was one class, called 'character', and those that wanted to learn how to fight with a sword could focus on that ability, and those that want to learn illusions could focus on that, and those that want to do a bit of both could sort of crappily pursue both?
Quote from: Larsdangly;755097Whenever this subject comes up I wish there were a well fleshed out classless D&D.
You mean like every skill based system to ever come out?
Skill-based games are great. But there's something about classic D&D and its approachability due to classes.
That's another reason I hate 3.x multiclassing. It removes the simplicity of the class system in favor of a character creation system that, if anything, is even *more* convoluted and prone to abuse than most skill systems.
If I want complex character creation, I'll go play GURPS or HERO. If I'm playing D&D, I want *simpler* character creation and more focus on what's going on in the game - not *more complex* character creation.
So not interested in "empowered" cross-classing. Hope they give us optional stat requirements for each class, for those of us who want to reinstate them.
I'm personally torn between the multi-class penalty of "your class' HD divided by # of classes" and dual-class penalty of "you start at the bottom and get nothing until you are higher than all your other classes, oh and you can't go back." I want something that discourages anything remotely like 3e cross-classing ever again, and the time constraint of dual classing just might be what I want.
Decisions, decisions.
Quote from: robiswrong;755099You mean like every skill based system to ever come out?
Skill-based games are great. But there's something about classic D&D and its approachability due to classes.
That's another reason I hate 3.x multiclassing. It removes the simplicity of the class system in favor of a character creation system that, if anything, is even *more* convoluted and prone to abuse than most skill systems.
If I want complex character creation, I'll go play GURPS or HERO. If I'm playing D&D, I want *simpler* character creation and more focus on what's going on in the game - not *more complex* character creation.
No, not like that. GURPS is not classless D&D. 'Skill-based' doesn't = 'not class'.
Quote from: Larsdangly;755119No, not like that. GURPS is not classless D&D. 'Skill-based' doesn't = 'not class'.
GURPS isn't D&D for lots of reasons (handling damage differently, different combat model, etc.)
If you're not class-based, but have individual abilities that you can learn independently, how is that not skill-based?
Quote from: Marleycat;754990Hmm...
I assume if they have a brain cell still working that was a stress test more then the actual rules. If not I have 2 houserules ready to go.
1. No stat bumps and no feats allowed
Aw, see, then you're covered.
The problem is you asked good questions, but not all the good ones :)
The way they built 5e, you can in theory multiclass a lot, but there is a significant drawback built into the classes that discourages this. And that is that the key abilities of these classes often don't kick in until level 3 or so, and the ability bumbs/feats don'e generally kick in until level 4.
And it's not cumulative. In other words, if you never make level 4 in a particular class, you NEVER get the stat bump/feat. If you just keep bouncing around the classes, you may never get any key class abilities and stat increases / feats.
Quote from: Mistwell;755128Aw, see, then you're covered.
The problem is you asked good questions, but not all the good ones :)
The way they built 5e, you can in theory multiclass a lot, but there is a significant drawback built into the classes that discourages this. And that is that the key abilities of these classes often don't kick in until level 3 or so, and the ability bumbs/feats don'e generally kick in until level 4.
And it's not cumulative. In other words, if you never make level 4 in a particular class, you NEVER get the stat bump/feat. If you just keep bouncing around the classes, you may never get any key class abilities and stat increases / feats.
I see that makes me feel a bit more receptive to the system then because it's likely that single dipping is just not a good idea. Or the most unbalanced double class would likely be something like 16/4 or similar?
One of the biggest problems I see with multiclassing is the way proficiencies work with the prof bonus.
You could take one level of fighter and the rest magic user, and you end up having an attack bonus with all martial weapons as the same as the fighter, and you can cast all your spells in armor.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;755134One of the biggest problems I see with multiclassing is the way proficiencies work with the prof bonus.
You could take one level of fighter and the rest magic user, and you end up having an attack bonus with all martial weapons as the same as the fighter, and you can cast all your spells in armor.
That is what I saw discussed on other boards hence my questions. What I really am tempted to do is just say no more than 1 or 2 levels between your choices similar to 2e and stop the craziness right at the gate but still let you do whatever combination you like. I don't mind armour wearing magic users and expect subclasses for that option at some point anyway. What irks me is that armoured mage using every weapon and throwing 9th level spells.
Another question is: given fighters get 2 attacks could you multiclassed into a spell using class and make 1 physical attack and 1 spell attack a round?
Quote from: Marleycat;755136Another question is: given fighters get 2 attacks could you multiclassed into a spell using class and make 1 physical attack and 1 spell attack a round?
As far as I can tell you could not do this in the playtest as casting most spells took up 1 action.
Although obvious, some spells, (such as Magic Missile) do have multiple attacks built in as part of their casting, and other spells (such as Searing Smite) as Swift actions you cast in response to hitting with a mundane attack.
Of course, this all may have changed.
Quote from: Marleycat;754990Hmm...
I assume if they have a brain cell still working that was a stress test more then the actual rules. If not I have 2 houserules ready to go.
1. No stat bumps and no feats allowed
2. No more than +1 between your classes unless it's a favored one, then it can be +3 higher (or +2 if you get stupid and get me angry).
Assuming it doesnt change... You get fairly limited stat bumps and those are the ONLY way to get a feat. You either get a +1 to s stat, max 20, OR you can buy a feat. Which act more like skill options.
Quick rundown from the playtest.
Bard, Druid and Ranger = 4
Barbarian, Cleric, Mage, Monk and Paladin = 5
Rogue = 6
Fighter = 7
That is not much overall.
Now how that ties into multiclassing will remain to be seen. I suspect the rules are going to see some hammering down when they are released. Right now we dont know so the playtest is not the best of gauges.
One of the ways things get really stupid really fast is by devising a "playing piece" (these are almost never "characters") that break the action economy.
Can followers have followers? Can familiars cast their own set of spells? Any time walks? Any infinite-immediate-action builds?
Quote from: Mistwell;755128The way they built 5e, you can in theory multiclass a lot, but there is a significant drawback built into the classes that discourages this. And that is that the key abilities of these classes often don't kick in until level 3 or so, and the ability bumbs/feats don'e generally kick in until level 4.
I'll still check it out, but I'm skeptical.
I really, really don't like 3.x multiclassing.
Quote from: robiswrong;755123GURPS isn't D&D for lots of reasons (handling damage differently, different combat model, etc.)
If you're not class-based, but have individual abilities that you can learn independently, how is that not skill-based?
I'm sure there are several ways in which this can be handled. One thing I've done in a fantasy heart breaker version of basic D&D I wrote was to base chances of all actions directly on stats, and tie increases in level to increases in stats. You want to be a fighter? Better make sure your ST and DX are good. Wizard? I hope you thought to put your best stat on INT. And so forth. It actually requires very few rules beyond a list of which action is tied to which stat.
Back in the day, we mostly used multi-classing to cover the four corners of a typical party (F, MU, T, C) when we only had three players, or when we had too many people wanting to play the same class. That hasn't been a problem with my group for awhile now, so I'll probably just ditch the rule unless or until I find a better way to balance it.
This might be something the DMG will touch on.
Not all 3.X multiclassing was bad. A lot of it was bad. But some character concepts needed multiclass.
Looking at it as someone who will likely be only a player, I hope there is multi-classing. But, like others, I hope the classes aren't as front-loaded as they were in 3e.
I'd actually like to see unrestricted multi-classing, with no major penalties AND no rewards. That said, I think that a character who has two classes probably should be slightly less able than one with one class. Breadth instead of depth.
Sometimes multiclassing is appropriate, and other times it is not.
I personally think if the gm controls when it is allowed, there is no problem.
If a player explained why they wanted to be multiclassed, and in game events made it plausible, I would likely allow it.
But if I see a powergamed build lurking in the shadows, hell no.
Quote from: Bill;755319Sometimes multiclassing is appropriate, and other times it is not.
I personally think if the gm controls when it is allowed, there is no problem.
If a player explained why they wanted to be multiclassed, and in game events made it plausible, I would likely allow it.
But if I see a powergamed build lurking in the shadows, hell no.
This is how it's usually handled. By reasonable people ;)
Given that Mearls has said that he decided what to include in Basic D&D based on what was included in 1981 Basic (and I assume Expert too, since Basic is intended to run from 1-20 rather than just the levels in the original Moldvay Basic book), I think it's almost certain that multiclassing won't be in Basic - which effectively means it will be optional rather than core content. Which is how I like it.
Quote from: Warthur;755328Given that Mearls has said that he decided what to include in Basic D&D based on what was included in 1981 Basic (and I assume Expert too, since Basic is intended to run from 1-20 rather than just the levels in the original Moldvay Basic book), I think it's almost certain that multiclassing won't be in Basic - which effectively means it will be optional rather than core content. Which is how I like it.
You are correct. It's not intended to be in BASIC it's one of those options that will be in the PHB. It wouldn't make any sense to put in there as a core conceit because it's not something that's absolutely required to run bog standard fantasy Dnd.