D&D Next Q&A: Standard/Basic Characters, Ease of DMing & Multi-classing

In this week's D&D Next Q&A, Rodney tackles playing a standard and basic character at the same table, adjustable complexity on the DM side of things and dealing with the "dipping" issue of multiclassing.

Trevor Kidd Community Manager

I disagree with "frontloading" the first class.

A fighter 5 / wizard 5 should be indistinguishable from a wizard 5 / fighter 5.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I know it's just used as an example in the article, but the way Parry is being treated as the defining feature of the Fighter just makes me... ugh.  Disappointed, I guess?

Beyond that, I guess my response would be... sure?  Why not?
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
we’re looking at a version of Parry that is based on your fighter level, not your damage dice


Not sure about this is practical. Since all in the game scales with levels getting a LV5 equivalent manouver when in a level 10 campaign may make it irrelevant.   

For the rest, and  look like sensible directions.
Q&A Haiku time!

Standard with Basic?
Yes! Standard chooses options
That Basic bakes in.

How's Next 4-E'asy? 
Elegant mechanics and
Monster design guides

Multi-class dipping?
Instead of front-loading traits
We're half-assing them
@Mand12

I actually like front loading in the sense that your first class has more training.

For example, my favorite fighter goes from noble1 to fighter1 in 5 years but levels up to fighter 4 in 2 years. As long as there are multiple ways to buy misses features, I'd be okay.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Honestly, their multi-classing sounds a lot like "hybrids" from 4e that can be entered like 3e multiclassing.

Or like Star Wars: Saga Edition's multiclassing, which was 3e-style, but gave more features (typically just bonus feats, if I recall correctly) to you in your starting class.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1. I'm disappointed by this. Many of our 1st and 2nd ed-based character concepts just won't work right with the "tack on another class later" method, frontloading or not. That will make it MUCH harder to migrate our current campaigns to 5e.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Frito's description of mcing sounds right. And I like it. Hybrids were pretty sweet. I can dig this.
Shouldn't Fighters' defining thing be the maneuvers and parry? Maybe it's just the example w/out context sounds off.
Standard and Basic side-by-side? Groovy.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Could level 1 mcs be a hybrid of the two level 1 partial classes? I hope the R&D team addresses this playstyle in a satisfactory manner, even though it won't affect me.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1.


I'm not so sure.  Perhaps you could take two MC classes at first level, getting the half-benefits of either.  Then you alternate between the classes you improve from level to level.  We'll have to see the system before we can say it with any definition.
From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1.


I'm not so sure.  Perhaps you could take two MC classes at first level, getting the half-benefits of either.  Then you alternate between the classes you improve from level to level.  We'll have to see the system before we can say it with any definition.


Absolutely need to see it, but, that sounds really probable to me.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Could level 1 mcs be a hybrid of the two level 1 partial classes? I hope the R&D team addresses this playstyle in a satisfactory manner.

I'm with you on that, even if it's not Standard. I'd take it as Advanced as long as it's in there somehow.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1.

I'm not so sure.  Perhaps you could take two MC classes at first level, getting the half-benefits of either.  Then you alternate between the classes you improve from level to level.  We'll have to see the system before we can say it with any definition.

I've been in "wait and see" mode for some time, so I'm really eager to see what they come up with. I'm sure they know many of us do want MC at Level 1. I just hope they address it in a workable way.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I like the idea that my wizard 5/Fighter 5 is more wizard then your Fighter5/Wizard 5 but less fighter

Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say?

From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1. I'm disappointed by this. Many of our 1st and 2nd ed-based character concepts just won't work right with the "tack on another class later" method, frontloading or not. That will make it MUCH harder to migrate our current campaigns to 5e.



I hope they get hit hard for this in the next playtest survey.    I know I'll be making that message clear.  

 


I like the idea that my wizard 5/Fighter 5 is more wizard then your Fighter5/Wizard 5 but less fighter

Exactly. When I made my first Ftr/Wiz, the DM asked me if I was making a fighter with arcane abilities, or wizard who could take care of herself in a fight, or a blend like a Bladesinger. So yes, I can see that differences in how you build the PC are important.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I disagree with "frontloading" the first class.

A fighter 5 / wizard 5 should be indistinguishable from a wizard 5 / fighter 5.



I rather like it. A character who spent his whole life studying to be a Fighter and then picked up a level of Wizard after a few weeks of dungeon crawling should be a lot better at the fighting than the wizarding, and vice versa.

But I do like Wrecan's suggestion of allowing a level 1 character to MC by taking the multiclass features of two classes at 1st level, representing the greater breadth but reduced depth of such a path. 
I disagree with "frontloading" the first class.

A fighter 5 / wizard 5 should be indistinguishable from a wizard 5 / fighter 5.

I disagree.  If fighter 5/wizard 5 and wizard 5/fighter 5 are different, then we have more total options.


I like options.  

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1.


I'm not so sure.  Perhaps you could take two MC classes at first level, getting the half-benefits of either.  Then you alternate between the classes you improve from level to level.  We'll have to see the system before we can say it with any definition.



Sounds plenty resonable, as well as given even more options.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1. I'm disappointed by this. Many of our 1st and 2nd ed-based character concepts just won't work right with the "tack on another class later" method, frontloading or not. That will make it MUCH harder to migrate our current campaigns to 5e.



I hope they get hit hard for this in the next playtest survey.    I know I'll be making that message clear.  

 



I will as well.
From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1.


I'm not so sure.  Perhaps you could take two MC classes at first level, getting the half-benefits of either.  Then you alternate between the classes you improve from level to level.  We'll have to see the system before we can say it with any definition.




I've been secretly hoping and guessing this is how it would work since they mentioned the alternate advancement table for multiclassing into a class.
I disagree with "frontloading" the first class.

A fighter 5 / wizard 5 should be indistinguishable from a wizard 5 / fighter 5.

I disagree.  If fighter 5/wizard 5 and wizard 5/fighter 5 are different, then we have more total options.


I like options.  


But this "option" removes the option for a true 50-50 split.  Which is one of the simplest multiclass structures to conceive of and should be available.

I like options too, but I don't like options that exclude other options.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I disagree with "frontloading" the first class.

A fighter 5 / wizard 5 should be indistinguishable from a wizard 5 / fighter 5.

I disagree.  If fighter 5/wizard 5 and wizard 5/fighter 5 are different, then we have more total options.


I like options.  

But this "option" removes the option for a true 50-50 split.  Which is one of the simplest multiclass structures to conceive of and should be available.

I like options too, but I don't like options that exclude other options.

It doesn't have to.

No reason there couldn't ALSO be a hybrid option (like wrecan suggested).

So you'd have...
FIGHTER 5/wizard 5 (primary fighter)
fighter 5/WIZARD 5  (primary wizard)
fighter 5/wizard 5 (hybrid).

But if you only had hybrid, then you loose the other options. 

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Question 1: Yep, that is what I thought they where aiming for. Hopefully they can actually make it work.

Question 2: I think they are aiming for the right area here, but I'm not sure if they quite grasp one of the issues here. There is a fundamental difference between tinkering with a monster in 3e and in 4e. In 4e the stats and powers are so arbitary that tell the characters that a monster is a vertern goblin wizard doesn't tell them anything except that it is probably tougher then a normal goblin. In 3e, a character would be able to make some educated guess about what powers, abilities and stat/HP range just from that.

This doesn't seem like a huge difference, but it actually does effect game play because it effects the way I have to describe monsters to the players and the way players react to and describe monsters. In 3e they describe the ogre leader as a tough ogre warrior with some sort of stunning blow, in 4e they say elite brute with a quick recharging stun attack. That the creature is an ogre probably doesn't even merit notice.

Question 3: I don't like the idea that a fighter 5/wizard 5 is different from a wizard 5/fighter 5 but it could work and it is a viable route for fixing the dipping problem. That will leave out hybrid characters, but if there are enough classes and they are flexible enough, it won't be a big issue.

@Mand12 I actually like front loading in the sense that your first class has more training. For example, my favorite fighter goes from noble1 to fighter1 in 5 years but levels up to fighter 4 in 2 years. As long as there are multiple ways to buy misses features, I'd be okay.



I like it because I like choices to have real meaning.  What class you pick first will mean something.
I disagree with "frontloading" the first class.

A fighter 5 / wizard 5 should be indistinguishable from a wizard 5 / fighter 5.

I disagree.  If fighter 5/wizard 5 and wizard 5/fighter 5 are different, then we have more total options.


I like options.  

But this "option" removes the option for a true 50-50 split.  Which is one of the simplest multiclass structures to conceive of and should be available.

I like options too, but I don't like options that exclude other options.

It doesn't have to.

No reason there couldn't ALSO be a hybrid option (like wrecan suggested).

So you'd have...
FIGHTER 5/wizard 5 (primary fighter)
fighter 5/WIZARD 5  (primary wizard)
fighter 5/wizard 5 (hybrid).

But if you only had hybrid, then you loose the other options. 

I'm not clear on why if you want a character level 10 that's more fighter than wizard, why FTR5/wiz5 is better at doing that than ftr7/wiz3.

Let's agree on the primary goal of multiclassing, first.  To me, it is to reproduce with as much fidelity as is practical the wide range of character concepts. 

We're then left with the task of creating mechanics to represent that fidelity.  And I'm not clear at all what we gain by having a 'dominant' first class that we don't also get by expecting people who want that dominance to put more of their levels in the class that they want dominant.  It's the whole point of the level-by-level multiclass structure, after all.  So two questions:

Why shouldn't we be satisfied with expecting people to have uneven multiclass levels if they want an uneven character?
Why should we accept an uneven character as the result of even multiclass levels?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Was thinking.

Perhaps you can get the missing features of a second class by taking enough levels of it.

For example, a wizard3 takes 4 levels of fighter. He doesn't get a proficiency in every weapon and armor and his parry counts as a 4th level fighter. Then after taking the 5th level of fighter, he gets all the proficiencies and his Parry counts at his character level of 8.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

So things like if you multi-class into Wizard, you might not get a Tradition and Cantrips, that sort of thing.
So, upon further review, I'd be accepting of an official hybrid structure in addition to what describes.  So that the "class" you take for your first class is in fact a hybrid of two.  The 4e hybrid system showed how it's possible to combine class features, I'm sure they could work something out.

Then, further multiclassing would have the sort of things that they're talking about - some benefits, but not the full class benefit.  So I could do any of the following:

FTR/wiz
WIZ/ftr
FTR|WIZ/rog

Examples with numbers, of level 10 characters:

FTR10
WIZ10
FTR5/wiz5
WIZ5/ftr5
FTR|WIZ 10
FTR|WIZ 5/rog5

Nomenclature notes:  For those not in the 4e know, the vertical|bar indicates hybrid, while the slash indicates multi/class.  Capitals indicate first class, but the rest of the multiclass level ordering is irrelevant. 

FTR/wiz/wiz/ftr/ftr 
FTR/ftr/ftr/wiz/wiz

are still both FTR3/wiz2, and indistinguishable.

Anyone have any reasons why this wouldn't work?  Seems we both can be happy this way.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So, upon further review, I'd be accepting of an official hybrid structure in addition to what describes.  So that the "class" you take for your first class is in fact a hybrid of two.  The 4e hybrid system showed how it's possible to combine class features, I'm sure they could work something out.

Then, further multiclassing would have the sort of things that they're talking about - some benefits, but not the full class benefit.  So I could do any of the following:

FTR/wiz
WIZ/ftr
FTR|WIZ/rog

Examples with numbers, of level 10 characters:

FTR10
WIZ10
FTR5/wiz5
WIZ5/ftr5
FTR|WIZ 10
FTR|WIZ 5/rog5

Nomenclature note:  capitals indicate first class, but the rest of the multiclass level ordering is irrelevant. 

FTR/wiz/wiz/ftr/ftr 
FTR/ftr/ftr/wiz/wiz

are still both FTR3/wiz2, and indistinguishable.

Anyone have any reasons why this wouldn't work?  Seems we both can be happy this way.



Only reason for it not to work is that it's alot of crap to work out.  But that's what we pay WoTC for. Innocent

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

They're doing a lot of things that are a lot of crap to work out (like replacing daily resource with encounter resources, boy that's a lot of work), why not throw another nugget on the pile?

All multiclassing is firmly in the Advanced category of rules, and as they said they don't have to go with half-measures.

Unless they're doing hybrids.  
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I understand why they feel the need to say that ftr1/wiz1 might be different than wiz1/ftr1, since frontloading is a genuine issue.  Personally, I'd rather they change the baseline assumed level to higher than 1 and spread the expected starting abilities across the first few levels, but I doubt that approach will be adopted.  Rules that allow you to create a true hybrid at 1st level may be an ideal compromise to ensure a wider range of concepts can be expressed mechanically without upsetting the balance too much.

One of the things that concerns me is the idea that their current approach seems to make MC characters strictly inferior to the 3.5 approach, even though underpowered MC combinations was as much a problem in that edition as overpowered ones.  I think there needs to be a distinction between features that tend to function as purely additive as opposed to alternatives.  For example, parry tends to just give you something that makes you strictly better than what you had before; you can continue on your merry way while enjoying the benefits of reduced incoming damage.  On the other hand, if you were to split levels between fighter and wizard, for example, you might be in a position to use your action to make an attack or cast a spell, but because you are choosing between them it is quite possible that neither option is effective compared to what a pure fighter or pure wizard would be doing.

I think it likely that the devs are attempting to address this issue however, so we'll just have to wait and see.  The MC rules are something I am quite eager to look at.
I've never been a fan of "dual-classing" - being two classes equally. I've always felt those character concepts are better addressed by an independant class with its own perks, weaknesses, and points of interest.

I've never been a fan of "level dipping". If you want to dabble in a class, there should be a better way (like feats or something similar).

I like "3/4" type multiclassing where you are three-quarters Class A and one-quarter Class B. A rogue that knows just a little bit of spellcasting; a fighter that knows just a few prayers to his god, etc.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

They're doing a lot of things that are a lot of crap to work out (like replacing daily resource with encounter resources, boy that's a lot of work), why not throw another nugget on the pile?

Yes, exactly. If we can have multiple casting methods, we can have multiple multiclassing methods. Everyone's character concept is different, and will be achieved in different ways. I like both the 1/2 Ed and 3 Ed versions (never played enough 4 Ed to make a hybrid) of multiclassing, and I can see how different character concepts might want one or the other method.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I think some of the feat options will allow the approximation of level 1 multiclassing. 

What I found in 4e was that if you convert your higher level PCs it doesn't really matter if you couldn't have built them in accordance with their canon history (my 1e PC was a level 3 human thief who changed to a  level 0 wizard.  In 4e I had to start as a warlock/assassin hybrid with rogue multiclass.  The character history didn't change and the end result was fun to play.
I've never been a fan of "dual-classing" - being two classes equally. I've always felt those character concepts are better addressed by an independant class with its own perks, weaknesses, and points of interest.


See, that's the thing, though.  A paladin is not the same thing as a fighter|cleric.  The concept of something that is a mix of two things should be allowed to exist, not forced into a class that may not have enough legs on its own. 

Furthermore, creating a new class that mixes each pair of classes results in a literally infinite class list.  As soon as you show me a paladin and tell me it's the better way of addressing a fighter|cleric, what happens when I want to have a fighter|paladin?  If you also tell me a swordmage is the better way of addressing a fighter|wizard, what happens when I want to have a swordmage|paladin?

Some form of an even 50-50 combination of two existing classes has to be part of the multiclass discussion.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Some form of an even 50-50 combination of two existing classes has to be part of the multiclass discussion.

I'd specifically like to call attention to where I said "I've never been a fan of". It is a personal preference, and I don't expect everybody to agree with me. However

Could you please point me to a character concept (without mechanics) that is covered (mechanically) by a fighter|cleric build, and not by a paladin build, assuming a system with some flex in character creation and class power selection?

Personally I think a fighter|paladin is, thematically, a paladin that focuses more on the smashy, less on the casty. I'd like to have classes that can support that sort of flexibility within a class, myself.

That being said, I'm perfectly okay with the idea of "I want this mechanical bit -and- this mechanical bit, and here is the explanation why i think my character should have that". I just prefer "my character is this and this, what best allows me to be that within the game?".

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

A fighter who has had a broad adventuring career, but later has a religious epiphany and becomes a cleric. 

This is mechanically possible by a fighter/fighter/fighter/cleric, but not mechanically possible by a paladin/paladin/paladin/paladin.

One of the strengths of the 3e multiclass system is that it allows for organic progression among classes, not just a snapshot approach.  You stand a paladin next to a fighter/cleric, and the snapshot of the concept very well could be remarkably similar, but the concept of the character's adventuring career could be very different.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
A fighter who has had a broad adventuring career, but later has a religious epiphany and becomes a cleric.

I think that is a big reason why I have never had a fondness. I've never been keen on that kind of character progression while the campaign is taking place.

It's like somebody that takes years to become an expert chef, and then a few months later, is also an expert carpenter, and a few months after that, is also an expert airline pilot.

I understand that some campaigns can last literally years, decades - I mean, it's entirely possible to play a campaign and then midway switch to playing your character's child to continue the several-decades-long storyline.

I've never felt I needed mechanical rules to support that kind of thing, myself - I've always figured if you're skipping through years, totally rebuilding your character mechanically isn't a bad thing to do.

I can't say this is the best or worst way to handle it, but it's what I have found works best for me and my group - thus the personal dislike for dual-classing.

Supporting an edition you like does not make you an edition warrior. Demanding that everybody else support your edition makes you an edition warrior.

Why do I like 13th Age? Because I like D&D: http://magbonch.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/first-impressions-13th-age/

AzoriusGuildmage- "I think that you simply spent so long playing it, especially in your formative years with the hobby, that you've long since rationalized or houseruled away its oddities, and set it in your mind as the standard for what is and isn't reasonable in an rpg."

A fighter who has had a broad adventuring career, but later has a religious epiphany and becomes a cleric.

I think that is a big reason why I have never had a fondness. I've never been keen on that kind of character progression while the campaign is taking place.

It's like somebody that takes years to become an expert chef, and then a few months later, is also an expert carpenter, and a few months after that, is also an expert airline pilot.

I understand that some campaigns can last literally years, decades - I mean, it's entirely possible to play a campaign and then midway switch to playing your character's child to continue the several-decades-long storyline.

I've never felt I needed mechanical rules to support that kind of thing, myself - I've always figured if you're skipping through years, totally rebuilding your character mechanically isn't a bad thing to do.

I can't say this is the best or worst way to handle it, but it's what I have found works best for me and my group - thus the personal dislike for dual-classing.



This is why I thought 4e multiclassing kicked the pants off every MC system in D&D to date.

Sure the multiclass feats didn't do a whole lot, but after spending 10+ years training in class X, you shouldn't be able to jump into class Y with a weeks worth of training. The MC Feats did a great job represeting the whole "this isn't my main schtick but I dabble in it" kind of thing that happens in fantasy literature, media, and RP.

For those  who want two separate classes each roughly equal in scope the 4e Hybrid system works pretty well too, but you have to start your training as a brand new hybrid class from day 1. 4e just made more sense overall.

4e multiclassing could have benefitted from the 3 power swap feats being consolidated into a single feat, and paragon multiclassing granting a hybrid talent though.