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.