We've been multi-classing in 5th with the following guide. We're not saying its correct or optimal or fair, but its more about the game and the group felt these rules worked:
First Class gets Background and Speciality.
Second Class gets class features only. You do not get the added Stat bonus. Bonues do not stack. Any duplicated skills, etc. are lost, you do not pick another.
You combine things like weapon or armor proficiency. So, Taking the Wizard gave the character no additional weapon or armor options, but had it been in reverse, it would have.
Experience still follows the normal progression, so in our case, our Rogue took Wizard at level 5, becoming Rogue 4/Wizard 1 (CL5). When he earned enough EXP for level 6, he selected either 5 in Rogue or 2 in Wizard. He picked Wizard and was therefore Rogue 4/Wizard 2 (CL6).
You get the associated class bonues of the class level you currently are/took, such as Hit Points, MDD, weapon or spell attack. Your global bonues however are based on your CL, so this character had a level 6 skill bonus.
Any specific class penalties are still in effect, thus if it says you cannot do X in armor Y (regardless of proficiency) that still effect you.
Is it maybe not balanced the best, perhaps, but we have not really seen it too much, and it has worked great for our needs.
That is pretty much just 3e multiclassing. The problem that poeple are rightfully bringing up is: Why wouldn't you take a single level of rogue/fighter/barbarian to get all of those frontloaded abilities? Especially when you start looking at level 17 when combat expertise peaks. Any reason to be a lvl 20 fighter instead of a lvl 18/1/1 Fighter/Barbarian/rogue?
A lot of suggestions have come up, and I still can't figure out what would work with the classes as they are. I think that this speaks to the classes being the root of the problem. Until the classes are fleshed out, I think any discussion on how to implement multiclassing will have to wait.
We've been multi-classing in 5th with the following guide. We're not saying its correct or optimal or fair, but its more about the game and the group felt these rules worked:
First Class gets Background and Speciality.
Second Class gets class features only. You do not get the added Stat bonus. Bonues do not stack. Any duplicated skills, etc. are lost, you do not pick another.
You combine things like weapon or armor proficiency. So, Taking the Wizard gave the character no additional weapon or armor options, but had it been in reverse, it would have.
Experience still follows the normal progression, so in our case, our Rogue took Wizard at level 5, becoming Rogue 4/Wizard 1 (CL5). When he earned enough EXP for level 6, he selected either 5 in Rogue or 2 in Wizard. He picked Wizard and was therefore Rogue 4/Wizard 2 (CL6).
You get the associated class bonues of the class level you currently are/took, such as Hit Points, MDD, weapon or spell attack. Your global bonues however are based on your CL, so this character had a level 6 skill bonus.
Any specific class penalties are still in effect, thus if it says you cannot do X in armor Y (regardless of proficiency) that still effect you.
Is it maybe not balanced the best, perhaps, but we have not really seen it too much, and it has worked great for our needs.
That is pretty much just 3e multiclassing. The problem that poeple are rightfully bringing up is: Why wouldn't you take a single level of rogue/fighter/barbarian to get all of those frontloaded abilities? Especially when you start looking at level 17 when combat expertise peaks. Any reason to be a lvl 20 fighter instead of a lvl 18/1/1 Fighter/Barbarian/rogue?
A lot of suggestions have come up, and I still can't figure out what would work with the classes as they are. I think that this speaks to the classes being the root of the problem. Until the classes are fleshed out, I think any discussion on how to implement multiclassing will have to wait.
they should limit classes taken to 3 and make the player pick when creating the character then he can opt to place xp where he wants. that way you can still have pc storylines about why they took clasees, the dm knows ahead of time so he can control the table and you can then justify front loading abilities because you know what your getting from the begining.
We've been multi-classing in 5th with the following guide. We're not saying its correct or optimal or fair, but its more about the game and the group felt these rules worked:
First Class gets Background and Speciality.
Second Class gets class features only. You do not get the added Stat bonus. Bonues do not stack. Any duplicated skills, etc. are lost, you do not pick another.
You combine things like weapon or armor proficiency. So, Taking the Wizard gave the character no additional weapon or armor options, but had it been in reverse, it would have.
Experience still follows the normal progression, so in our case, our Rogue took Wizard at level 5, becoming Rogue 4/Wizard 1 (CL5). When he earned enough EXP for level 6, he selected either 5 in Rogue or 2 in Wizard. He picked Wizard and was therefore Rogue 4/Wizard 2 (CL6).
You get the associated class bonues of the class level you currently are/took, such as Hit Points, MDD, weapon or spell attack. Your global bonues however are based on your CL, so this character had a level 6 skill bonus.
Any specific class penalties are still in effect, thus if it says you cannot do X in armor Y (regardless of proficiency) that still effect you.
Is it maybe not balanced the best, perhaps, but we have not really seen it too much, and it has worked great for our needs.
That is pretty much just 3e multiclassing. The problem that poeple are rightfully bringing up is: Why wouldn't you take a single level of rogue/fighter/barbarian to get all of those frontloaded abilities? Especially when you start looking at level 17 when combat expertise peaks. Any reason to be a lvl 20 fighter instead of a lvl 18/1/1 Fighter/Barbarian/rogue?
A lot of suggestions have come up, and I still can't figure out what would work with the classes as they are. I think that this speaks to the classes being the root of the problem. Until the classes are fleshed out, I think any discussion on how to implement multiclassing will have to wait.
they should limit classes taken to 3 and make the player pick when creating the character then he can opt to place xp where he wants. that way you can still have pc storylines about why they took clasees, the dm knows ahead of time so he can control the table and you can then justify front loading abilities because you know what your getting from the begining.
Forcing players to choose upon creation defeats the purpose of multi-classing which is to allow characters to grow with their personal story...for example my Paladin didn't know she was going to have to contain a mass amount of dark magic to stop it from obliterating her friends and the city she was in...with 3.5e multi-classing I could take a Level of Warlock or something to reflect that with your suggestion I would have to choose warlock at lvl 1 as on of my possible multi-classes which at creation I had no idea.
I see some people commenting on explaining how someone levels up and "poof" he has a spell book and is a wizard.
Its not just organic feel levelling up... because it is mostly off camera... so rationalizing it up to a point isnt hard ie some training montage works ok. Its actually game wise it creates problem when one part of the system assumes a certain amount of features are involved in being and becoming 1st level on one end (in order to differentiate the characters and make them feel like real members of their archetype) the characters mechanics show there is a huge amount to being that character at level one. NOW in a different part of the system here comes easy multiclassing and boom it flies contrary to those other assumptions in fact it does so and encourages huge amounts of level dipping in order to game the system ... the system isnt being consistant and that inconsistancy has negative kick back .
But isn't this a group playstyle choice? The same system supports both. For those that it doesn't matter, their group allows free reign. For those that it does, they simply decide amongst themselves that all multiclassing has to be accounted for in-game.
The system is only inconsistent if you let it be. Mechanically, multiclassing is just selecting different options at an artificially created point (leveling up). From the right point of view, leveling up can be just as inconsistent.
My argument is that the mechanics should be as open as possible, while keeping character power level balanced. Then let the groups decide what restrictions to impose based on their playstyle. If wide open multiclassing is perfectly ok for one group, why should the mechanics be limited to satisfy another? It's much easier to start with an open, balanced, system and put in restrictions than it is to have a restricted system that can be opened up.
I see some people commenting on explaining how someone levels up and "poof" he has a spell book and is a wizard.
Its not just organic feel levelling up... because it is mostly off camera... so rationalizing it up to a point isnt hard ie some training montage works ok. Its actually game wise it creates problem when one part of the system assumes a certain amount of features are involved in being and becoming 1st level on one end (in order to differentiate the characters and make them feel like real members of their archetype) the characters mechanics show there is a huge amount to being that character at level one. NOW in a different part of the system here comes easy multiclassing and boom it flies contrary to those other assumptions in fact it does so and encourages huge amounts of level dipping in order to game the system ... the system isnt being consistant and that inconsistancy has negative kick back .
But isn't this a group playstyle choice?
Whether to make dipping the optimal thing mechanically? thats a game designer muck up...
Although personally not a fan of Multi-classing ( I prefer using Backgrounds, Specialties, and Internal Build Choices to customize your PC ) I was in fact quite excited by the thought of multi-classing when it was first previewed for 3rd edition. I even wrote in to Dragon and was published about an idea for Prestige Class versions of Paladins, Rangers, and Bards....
Anyway, I did have an idea on how you could make 3e style Multi-classing work a little better though...
1. Create a 0-Level version of each base class. 2. At level 1, you can either be a Lv 1 of a base class, or a Lv 0/0 dual class character 3. At any level you would pick up a new class, that new class is picked up at Lv 0, this is that 'training' level when they learn the basics of the class. 4. Character Level is used for most internal calculations, such as the damage a Fireball would do, or how many darts a Magic Missile casts. 5. Class Level is used for gaining class abilities and access to maneuvers and spell slots and such.
Now, this means that a Lv 0 Fighter/Lv 0 Wizard is weak on both sides of the scale, and has a class level and character level of 0, not 1, while a Level 8 Fighter/Lv 0 Wizard counts as a Lv 8 Character for calculation purposes, a Lv 8 Fighter, and a 0 Level Wizard. In actuality, the 0/0 Character is a 1st level character and uses the 1st level line for experience. the 8/0 character is actually a level 9 character, and uses the level 9 line for experience and for non-class specific choices (new feats/ability modifiers, etc...)
A Lv 0 Wizard may only have a couple cantrips, and Staff Proficiency, and no Magic Attack Bonus yet A Lv 0 Fighter may only have a 1d4 MDD, Simple Weapons and Medium Armor proficiencies, and no Martial Attack Bonus
At 1st level, the Wizard gets their access to their spell slots, daggar proficiency, and their Magic Attack Bonus, plus any Tradition benefits. At 1st level, the Fighter gets the remainder of his Weapon and Armor Proficiencies for class, proper MDD, Fighting Style choice with maneuvers, and his Martial Attack Bonus
These are just examples, but it does modify the 3.x Multiclassing rules to make cherry picking less attractive, but multi-classing not useless, and also makes it a little more real, as now the PC must spend a level training in a class before getting its front-end loaded full benefits. Plus this gives the option of starting as a multiclass at Lv 1
This is an ambitious thing to try to do, but I applaud the effort. If you're trying to take the "best from each edition," multi-classing is certainly among the very best thing 3e did. It's also the only one of them that 4e didn't also do, or continue to improve upon. So it really, really makes sense to try to make 3e 'modular' (that's what I've always called it) multi-classing work.
It's really a matter of opinion/preference.
As a diehard multiclasser who is rarely even willing to play a pure class anything, I think the final state of 4e multiclassing is by far better than 3.5 multiclassing. Hybrid works great for blending two classes into one brand new character. Feat based works well for dipping a little bit (though the swapping feats are a little overly expensive, and PMC should have been beefed up and cheaper). Combining the two, plus Theme and background gives a huge amount of character customizeability that can be anywhere from a classic/standard archetype to a unique snowflake that can barely be recognized as any of its parent classes.
Sure, the end result is pretty nice, but it lacks a certain elegance. In 3e, just take levels in the classes you want to multi-class. In 4e, use special hybrid versions to closely blend two classes, or pay feat taxes to dabble, or go the spectacularly inferior route of Paragon Multi-classing, or take a Theme that resembles a class...? At least 4 different sub-systems vs only 1 system?
The biggest thing is that level X characters need to have level X appropriate attacks, defenses, and utility. 3e style multiclassing has a really hard time delivering that, because when you're a something 10/ something else 10 you only have the capabilities appropriate to a level 10 character
Nod. The old criticism of 3.x multi-classing was that a Cleric X/Wizard X was like a Cleric X and a Wizard X /standing next to eachother/, and taking turns casting. When you're inferior to two separate characters of half your level, you're really inferior. In constrast, a Fighter X/Barbarian X might not have been as good as a Barbarian 2X, but it was at least better than a Warrior 2X. The difference is clear: BAB stacked, Caster level & spells per day didn't. The former worked, the latter failed.
5e actually has an easy way to address this with casters: The Cleric & Wizard in the last packet both get 1+level spell slots in the same pattern. A cleric/wizard could get slots like a Cleric or wizard of the combined levels, but prep spells as a cleric and wizard of their restpective levels. It could still work, because spells can be more powerful when cast in higher level slots. Of course, it only works if all classers use a single slot progression, and it fails for caster/non-caster combos.
Common advancement is the key. 3.5 multiclassing worked as well as it did because all classes had the same experience chart, and all got BAB & saves. It would have worked better if they all got caster levels, too...
