I cant speak for 1e. Played it but dont remember the rules. Multiclassing in 2e was a horrible. Dual classing was far more OP than anything in 3e and the other form of multiclassing was underpowered, lacked individuality, and restricted to non-humans. I would take 2e's unequal xp tables.
Multiclassing from 3E was one of the worse features of the game from my perspective, even if you do not consider prestige classes. Too many classes were front loaded with abilities. At least with 1E multiclassing or even dual classing the progresson was slower. In 5E everyone will take rogue for skill mastery, caster levels for spells with HP thresholds, auto damage, rituals, etc.
I admit it will offer a wide variety of choices in 5E, but I thought the core rules were supposed to be as simple as possible.
Multiclassing from 3E was one of the worse features of the game from my perspective, even if you do not consider prestige classes. Too many classes were front loaded with abilities. At least with 1E multiclassing or even dual classing the progresson was slower. In 5E everyone will take rogue for skill mastery, caster levels for spells with HP thresholds, auto damage, rituals, etc.
I admit it will offer a wide variety of choices in 5E, but I thought the core rules were supposed to be as simple as possible.
Do you know how the favorite class and xp penalties worked in 3e? If you tried to dabble in more than one class that wasnt your race's favorite your progression would be slower than 2e's multiclassing. Dual classing was nothing more than an exploit. Take 8 lvls in fighter then switch to mage with an 8th lvl party your mage lvls are going to develop at rapid pace while you sit back and throw darts. Pick Cleric and its even faster. Those types of combinations were far more powerful than any type of build. Its the most unblanced rule D&D has ever produced.
Do you know how the favorite class and xp penalties worked in 3e? If you tried to dabble in more than one class that wasnt your race's favorite your progression would be slower than 2e's multiclassing. Dual classing was nothing more than an exploit. Take 8 lvls in fighter then switch to mage with an 8th lvl party your mage lvls are going to develop at rapid pace while you sit back and throw darts. Pick Cleric and its even faster. Those types of combinations were far more powerful than any type of build. Its the most unblanced rule D&D has ever produced.
This is all well and good on paper but it has come to our attention that a whole lot of DM's house ruled experience points out of their games. A goodly number of them ignore class, level, prerequisite, and/or favored class in their games.
Many of these people are no doubt the same people complaining that 3e multiclassing is broken. I wonder why.
I personally don't like it since it doesn't produce the same type of character AD&D multiclassing does.
The need for multiclass should be lessened as we get more and more specialties that emulate other classes. You don't necessarily need to be a Fighter/Wizard if all you want is a touch of magic. Be a Fighter with a magic-themed specialty.
I would prefer it if the PHB presented 0 options for multiclassing. Put the basic rules in the DMG and allow DM's to decide if they want it in their game.
This is all well and good on paper but it has come to our attention that a whole lot of DM's house ruled experience points out of their games. A goodly number of them ignore class, level, prerequisite, and/or favored class in their games.
Many of these people are no doubt the same people complaining that 3e multiclassing is broken. I wonder why.
Its like 4e's rituals. Its one of those things that some people just missed, or didnt try before freaking out. Its understandable when many of the NPCs in the books had wild class combos with gods freeing them of xp penalties. As a DM I knew that the vast majority of players would not take xp penalties so the combinations would be easy to justify. As a player I knew that unbalanced combinations with high lvls in one class and low in others would make for more realistic combinations. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I personally don't like it since it doesn't produce the same type of character AD&D multiclassing does.
What?? Compare the two
2e multiclassing restricted to nonhumans racial restrictions racial lvl limits advancement at half or one third speed underpowered at high lvls All classes have to be within one lvl of eachother
3e multiclassing Too complex to bullet point. A common multiclass build is a lot like 2e multiclassing except that its not as underpowered at high lvls or restricted. Im talking about when you have two classes that arent your favorite. To avoid penalties you have to multiclass like a 2e character with the lvls within one of themselves until maybe you earn a Prestigue class. How is that not 2e's multiclassing without the eventual suck?
The other common build was the favorite class dabble. Your multiclass lvls didnt have to be within one lvl of the other if one was your favorite class. If you tried to dabble in a third class it pretty much shut down your advancement. The further away you were the greater the xp penalty. I dont understand why the 1st lvl benefits are a concern since it only happened with one class and that was already in 2e. So now for the first time in D&D history we had Elves. Real elves. Elves typically dont split their classes evenly neither do halflings, dwarvs, humans etc.
The need for multiclass should be lessened as we get more and more specialties that emulate other classes. You don't necessarily need to be a Fighter/Wizard if all you want is a touch of magic. Be a Fighter with a magic-themed specialty.
I would prefer it if the PHB presented 0 options for multiclassing. Put the basic rules in the DMG and allow DM's to decide if they want it in their game.
Too restricitve. I picture Link from Zelda when someone mentions a fighters with a magic theme.
Back in the olden days of 1e and 2e, I multi-classed like a freak. I also allowed (and even encouraged) my players to do the same in my own campaigns.
But that was before class-dabbling mechanics were introduced in later editions, with feats, skills, etc., that allowed characters to cross-pollinate mechanically.
At this point, I see multi-classing pretty much as the same thing as saying, "how can we introduce an awkward, game-breaking mechanic without actually breaking the game just so people can have more than one class?"
I think 5e should be above this tactic. Especially since it is on on the right track with backgrounds, specialties, schemes, themes, feats/skills, etc.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
Its like 4e's rituals. Its one of those things that some people just missed, or didnt try before freaking out. Its understandable when many of the NPCs in the books had wild class combos with gods freeing them of xp penalties. As a DM I knew that the vast majority of players would not take xp penalties so the combinations would be easy to justify. As a player I knew that unbalanced combinations with high lvls in one class and low in others would make for more realistic combinations.
What?? Compare the two
2e multiclassing restricted to nonhumans racial restrictions racial lvl limits advancement at half or one third speed underpowered at high lvls All classes have to be within one lvl of eachother
3e multiclassing Too complex to bullet point. A common multiclass build is a lot like 2e multiclassing except that its not as underpowered at high lvls or restricted. Im talking about when you have two classes that arent your favorite. To avoid penalties you have to multiclass like a 2e character with the lvls within one of themselves until maybe you earn a Prestigue class. How is that not 2e's multiclassing without the eventual suck?
The other common build was the favorite class dabble. Your multiclass lvls didnt have to be within one lvl of the other if one was your favorite class. If you tried to dabble in a third class it pretty much shut down your advancement. The further away you were the greater the xp penalty. I dont understand why the 1st lvl benefits are a concern since it only happened with one class and that was already in 2e. So now for the first time in D&D history we had Elves. Real elves. Elves typically dont split their classes evenly neither do halflings, dwarvs, humans etc.
Look, the point of multiclassing was to allow people who wanted to play a non human character for more than six or eight levels. A three classed character was exactly two levels behind his single classed counterpart. Believe me the extra power you got with the extra classes helped but in the long run your elf was still going to be an 11th level wizard and a 9 th level fighter and what ever level thief you got to before you were forced to retire the character.
Humans didn't have to worry about level limits everyone else did. Two classing a character seemed onerous because you had to start at 1st level when you switched, but you earned experience so fast that after three or four adventures you were almost ready to start using your old class abilities.
Multiclassing the 3e way was merely card blanc for players to build obscene monstrocities. There really isn't any reason to multiclass in 3e or 4e since the reason it existed went away when they stopped treating non humans like second class citizens.
I actually liked having the full spectrum of class abilities from all of my classes when I multiclassed. This idea that you have one level of this and two levels of that and a couple of levels from some overpowered prestige class, but you actually used the combined total of levels as your actual level which made for some pretty weak and ineffective characters unless you combined classes that complemented each other, and then you were as God.
I'll take the slower progression and have all of the spells a mage has and be as effetive as the fighter of my level and maybe have all the skills of a rogue (although right now the rogue is a wasted opportunity since everyone else can do pretty much what they do as well for the price of a background).
Level dipping is one of the worst things 3e brought to the game and 3e brought a whole lot of garbage to D&D. It is supposed to take years of training to learn the skills of an adventurer. The starting ages fro the wizard and cleric in AD&D put them near middle age, how can anyone just gain a level's worth of xp and suddenly without the slightest bit of training become an entirely nother class and still continue on with their first one. It gets even more insane when they add even more classes to the ones they have. The only place it makes sense is in game terms as a set of rules. I want to play a role playing game that thinks it's real life with some fanasy stuff and some science stuff and a whole lot of make believe in it.
I don't want to have to justify how my 1st level wizard spent six or ten years learning to be a mage while the party fighter just made second level and took a level of wizard without having to go to the wizard academy for the better part of a decade.
Right now next has found a way to shrug off the cumbersome combat rules associated with WotC's version of D&D, but what it's replacing much of the other stuff with isn't working as planned.
Each version of the spells I've seen use mechanics that severly limit the caster's abiblity to function, or come with so much damage that it's over kill.
The rogue can sleep walk through any skill check he's trained in.
1st level characters that need to roll a 10 to hit ac 17 my god who's idea is that? Defensive maneuvers that totally negate monster damage, that's if the poor saps can even hit you, the list goes on and is constantly growing.
There's a lot of things that need to be rethought before this one is ready for prime time.
Its like 4e's rituals. Its one of those things that some people just missed, or didnt try before freaking out. Its understandable when many of the NPCs in the books had wild class combos with gods freeing them of xp penalties. As a DM I knew that the vast majority of players would not take xp penalties so the combinations would be easy to justify. As a player I knew that unbalanced combinations with high lvls in one class and low in others would make for more realistic combinations.
What?? Compare the two
2e multiclassing restricted to nonhumans racial restrictions racial lvl limits advancement at half or one third speed underpowered at high lvls All classes have to be within one lvl of eachother
3e multiclassing Too complex to bullet point. A common multiclass build is a lot like 2e multiclassing except that its not as underpowered at high lvls or restricted. Im talking about when you have two classes that arent your favorite. To avoid penalties you have to multiclass like a 2e character with the lvls within one of themselves until maybe you earn a Prestigue class. How is that not 2e's multiclassing without the eventual suck?
The other common build was the favorite class dabble. Your multiclass lvls didnt have to be within one lvl of the other if one was your favorite class. If you tried to dabble in a third class it pretty much shut down your advancement. The further away you were the greater the xp penalty. I dont understand why the 1st lvl benefits are a concern since it only happened with one class and that was already in 2e. So now for the first time in D&D history we had Elves. Real elves. Elves typically dont split their classes evenly neither do halflings, dwarvs, humans etc.
Look, the point of multiclassing was to allow people who wanted to play a non human character for more than six or eight levels. A three classed character was exactly two levels behind his single classed counterpart. Believe me the extra power you got with the extra classes helped but in the long run your elf was still going to be an 11th level wizard and a 9 th level fighter and what ever level thief you got to before you were forced to retire the character.
Humans didn't have to worry about level limits everyone else did. Two classing a character seemed onerous because you had to start at 1st level when you switched, but you earned experience so fast that after three or four adventures you were almost ready to start using your old class abilities.
Multiclassing the 3e way was merely card blanc for players to build obscene monstrocities. There really isn't any reason to multiclass in 3e or 4e since the reason it existed went away when they stopped treating non humans like second class citizens.
I actually liked having the full spectrum of class abilities from all of my classes when I multiclassed. This idea that you have one level of this and two levels of that and a couple of levels from some overpowered prestige class, but you actually used the combined total of levels as your actual level which made for some pretty weak and ineffective characters unless you combined classes that complemented each other, and then you were as God.
I'll take the slower progression and have all of the spells a mage has and be as effetive as the fighter of my level and maybe have all the skills of a rogue (although right now the rogue is a wasted opportunity since everyone else can do pretty much what they do as well for the price of a background).
Level dipping is one of the worst things 3e brought to the game and 3e brought a whole lot of garbage to D&D. It is supposed to take years of training to learn the skills of an adventurer. The starting ages fro the wizard and cleric in AD&D put them near middle age, how can anyone just gain a level's worth of xp and suddenly without the slightest bit of training become an entirely nother class and still continue on with their first one. It gets even more insane when they add even more classes to the ones they have. The only place it makes sense is in game terms as a set of rules. I want to play a role playing game that thinks it's real life with some fanasy stuff and some science stuff and a whole lot of make believe in it.
I don't want to have to justify how my 1st level wizard spent six or ten years learning to be a mage while the party fighter just made second level and took a level of wizard without having to go to the wizard academy for the better part of a decade.
Right now next has found a way to shrug off the cumbersome combat rules associated with WotC's version of D&D, but what it's replacing much of the other stuff with isn't working as planned.
Each version of the spells I've seen use mechanics that severly limit the caster's abiblity to function, or come with so much damage that it's over kill.
The rogue can sleep walk through any skill check he's trained in.
1st level characters that need to roll a 10 to hit ac 17 my god who's idea is that? Defensive maneuvers that totally negate monster damage, that's if the poor saps can even hit you, the list goes on and is constantly growing.
There's a lot of things that need to be rethought before this one is ready for prime time.
This is why I suggested a system based on 4E's hybrid system.
You level at the same pace as everyone else, but you get some features from each class which you choose. You can pick a couple Wizard spell slots and grab the fighters weapons, or you can grab 1 spell slot and the fighters weapons and armor or you can pick one spell slot and the fighters weapons and CS mechanic, or .... you get the idea you build the character you want, but you can't get more than two classes going and you can't just grab a class at any time you have to do it from the start...
