The ole... multiclassing details you all been waiting for

[CyberThread]

Multiclassing is an optional rule set, need dm approval.

Stat scores are required , some needing two states not just one, all of them at level 13.

There is no multiclass exp penalty.

There is a table of when you mutliclass into something, on what you gain , as far as class skills, and weapons/armor.

Spellcasting is a bit detailed, this section will clearly need to be read through so you understand what is what, as far as casting goes.

Extra Attacks don't stack the highest number of attacks reign , you don't get multiple unarmored defense , channel divinity stacks, but does not provide extra uses.

[Envyus]

Does it mention if action surge allows a caster to cast twice.

Also you have to be level 13 before you can Multiclass is that what you mean.

[CyberThread]

No stats not class level.

Monk, paladin , ranger, require two 13 stats instead of one.



No such mention of action surges are made.

[Squirrel_Dude]

No stats not class level.

Monk, paladin , ranger, require two 13 stats instead of one.

No such mention of action surges are made.So I said it in the other thread about ability score requirements, and I'll say it again now. Requiring a 13s in an ability score to multiclass (in what will more than likely be a characters second or third most important stats) is a pointless, useless, restriction that only serves to make the system more byzantine.

[Sartharina]

So I said it in the other thread about ability score requirements, and I'll say it again now. Requiring a 13s in an ability score to multiclass (in what will more than likely be a characters second or third most important stats) is a pointless, useless, restriction that only serves to make the system more byzantine.

Pointless/not an issue to those who actually want to multiclass. However, those who try multiclassing to poach attribute-indifferent class features will be hampered.

[CyberThread]

Again it is an optional rule.

[akaddk]

I gotta agree that 13 is pointless. I'll houserule that to 15 and be eagerly awaiting the feedback survey to say the same thing.

[Dienekes]

I gotta agree that 13 is pointless. I'll houserule that to 15 and be eagerly awaiting the feedback survey to say the same thing.

Making any stat requirements seems weird to me. Unless you need a 13 Dex to become a first level rogue or whatever I don't see how that works logically. And as for attempting to balance why is the ranger harder to multi class into than the wizard. Are there some insanely powerful ranger/paladin tricks I don't know about? The whole thing seems ass backwards attempt to shoehorn player choices.

[Tvtyrant]

Seems weird. I would just include dual-class rules.

Edit: I forgot you cannot just paste out of an excel sheet. Fine, be that way >:/

Basically level 1 you would level once in class A, level 2 you would gestalt with class B, they are both advanced to level 2 at normal level 3, repeat once more and then full advancement with 18 levels gestalted by level 20.

Something like that. You end up two levels behind everyone else, but better saves.

[akaddk]

Making any stat requirements seems weird to me. Unless you need a 13 Dex to become a first level rogue or whatever I don't see how that works logically. And as for attempting to balance why is the ranger harder to multi class into than the wizard. Are there some insanely powerful ranger/paladin tricks I don't know about? The whole thing seems ass backwards attempt to shoehorn player choices.

Because a single class required years of training. When you go into another class, you're picking it up as you go, don't have a mentor, splitting your concentration and ongoing training between two different disciplines. That requires natural aptitude to not only begin to learn it, but to advance in it.

How many MMA fighters do you see doing contemporary ballet? Both are athletic, require physical and mental discipline, balance/coordination, strength, fitness, etc. On a superficial level, they're actually quite similar. So why don't all contemporary ballet masters become MMA champions or vice versa? Should be pretty simple, shouldn't it?

[Sartharina]

Making any stat requirements seems weird to me. Unless you need a 13 Dex to become a first level rogue or whatever I don't see how that works logically. And as for attempting to balance why is the ranger harder to multi class into than the wizard. Are there some insanely powerful ranger/paladin tricks I don't know about? The whole thing seems ass backwards attempt to shoehorn player choices.The Ranger/Paladin isn't any harder to multiclass into than any other class except maybe Barbarian or Fighter - they share the Strength requirement.


Because a single class required years of training. When you go into another class, you're picking it up as you go, don't have a mentor, splitting your concentration and ongoing training between two different disciplines. That requires natural aptitude to not only begin to learn it, but to advance in it.

How many MMA fighters do you see doing contemporary ballet? Both are athletic, require physical and mental discipline, balance/coordination, strength, fitness, etc. On a superficial level, they're actually quite similar. So why don't all contemporary ballet masters become MMA champions or vice versa? Should be pretty simple, shouldn't it?

I also noticed Paladins and Strippers have similar stat synergies, and one of my current characters is running with that.

[Tholomyes]

Because a single class required years of training. When you go into another class, you're picking it up as you go, don't have a mentor, splitting your concentration and ongoing training between two different disciplines. That requires natural aptitude to not only begin to learn it, but to advance in it.

How many MMA fighters do you see doing contemporary ballet? Both are athletic, require physical and mental discipline, balance/coordination, strength, fitness, etc. On a superficial level, they're actually quite similar. So why don't all contemporary ballet masters become MMA champions or vice versa? Should be pretty simple, shouldn't it?Except that argument means nothing in the context of ability score requirements. A MMA fighter would probably have the ability scores to multiclass freely with a ballet master, and vis versa. What that line of logic would more likely require would be a trainer rather than ability score requirements. So if you wanted to multiclass Rogue, you'd need to find a skilled thief or spy to train you. I wouldn't mind this way of going about it that much, but I'd personally just prefer to rid any sort of multiclassing requirement, and instead have an adult conversation about the how multiclassing should work in our games, and what the group concensus is on potentially min-max multiclass combinations.

[Beleriphon]

As an aside, isn't it possible these rules are here for the Adventure League requirements where point buy/array are the standard method of assigning initial stats. At home nobody really cares, but in Adventure League there might be a rule stating that the standard PHB multiclassing rules will apply for all legal characters.

[Chaosvii7]

I gotta agree that 13 is pointless. I'll houserule that to 15 and be eagerly awaiting the feedback survey to say the same thing.

THANK YOU.

There is virtually no circumstance where you wouldn't take a multiclass to excel at the majority of aspects about that class. Even somebody who only wants one feature is most likely going to want, need, or at the very least end up using most of all of the features they gain access to, and thus have a reliance on their second ability score. You're not gonna take on a class that you have little to no capabilities in, because then it's just a dead-level slog up to the feature you want.

Having an ability score requirement makes taking the class meaningful in that you're guaranteeing that you're going to be using your other stat that you've gotten so high. Especially so considering that most characters have two high stats, if not a clear primary and secondary that they can fall back on. You're guaranteed to have three stats above a 13 with point buy and standard array, so why concern yourself with something that you'll have an excess of anyways?

I really don't get how and why people argue that giving racial stat bonuses and putting this sort of soft cap on multiclassing is optimization bait. Optimization isn't even all that bad, the problem WoTC had was that they eventually suffered rules bloat which let people tear massive holes in a world governed by general vs. specific.

[Totema]

Any word on how proficiency bonus is handled? Is it dependent on your highest class level, or your total class level? The latter seems alright to me, while the former would shaft a lot of otherwise viable builds.

[TheOOB]

Any word on how proficiency bonus is handled? Is it dependent on your highest class level, or your total class level? The latter seems alright to me, while the former would shaft a lot of otherwise viable builds.

The basic rules already said it would be based on your character level. All characters of the same level will have the same bonus.

[Totema]

The basic rules already said it would be based on your character level. All characters of the same level will have the same bonus.

Ahh, from reading the class descriptions it looked like they were independent of each other. I didn't catch that bit. Cool!

[Coidzor]

How many MMA fighters do you see doing contemporary ballet? Both are athletic, require physical and mental discipline, balance/coordination, strength, fitness, etc. On a superficial level, they're actually quite similar. So why don't all contemporary ballet masters become MMA champions or vice versa? Should be pretty simple, shouldn't it?

That's probably more to do with the hyper-masculine culture of MMA and the interests of individuals in the real world than anything else.

Developing a sense of body and movement through dance or gymnastics or similar activities is a boon to developing martial skills due to already having a deeper understanding of one's body's capabilities and place and movement in space. There is a reason, for instance, that spending time on a skill the practices and emphasizes agility, gracefulness, and control to someone, like, say, Fooseball Players, who focus on strength and endurance, is kind of a trope and not exactly an unheard of practice, besides.


I also noticed Paladins and Strippers have similar stat synergies, and one of my current characters is running with that.

What, Paladins need Dex now? Mein Gott...

[Dienekes]

Because a single class required years of training. When you go into another class, you're picking it up as you go, don't have a mentor, splitting your concentration and ongoing training between two different disciplines. That requires natural aptitude to not only begin to learn it, but to advance in it.

How many MMA fighters do you see doing contemporary ballet? Both are athletic, require physical and mental discipline, balance/coordination, strength, fitness, etc. On a superficial level, they're actually quite similar. So why don't all contemporary ballet masters become MMA champions or vice versa? Should be pretty simple, shouldn't it?

No idea, I don't follow sports at all. However, I do know plenty of athletes go into acting or politics which have completely different set of skills, because they want to I assume and there aren't any arbitrary barriers preventing them to.

For my own part of playing sports in my youth, the best linebacker we had was an exceptional dancer. I was a lineman who also sang, because I enjoyed it and signed up for the class. My point, arbitrary limitations on players just lowers the number of characters you can make and hampers player decisions. If someone on your team is going to optimize to the point of being a jerk, he'll find a way to get the requirements for what he needs. This mechanic promotes munchkins and folks who rigorously plan their builds around obtaining power, knowing exactly what they will need at what level to get what they want, to be the only ones who will successfully be able to multiclass.

Also my why is paladin/ranger more difficult to get into was more referring to how the monk, paladin, and ranger require 2 stats at level 13. Why?

[TripleD]

For my own part of playing sports in my youth, the best linebacker we had was an exceptional dancer. I was a lineman who also sang, because I enjoyed it and signed up for the class.


In 5e terms that would mean the first player had STR as his primary stat and DEX as his second or third highest. For you, STR followed by CHA.

I think the idea behind multi-classing in 5e is that you're pretty good at one thing, and also pretty good at another thing. But nobody is allowed to be good at everything. e.g. Football captain, chess team leader, drama club president, and head of the debate team. Yes there are wunderkinds that can pull this off in real life, but in the game I think it's better for PC's to adopt a versatile, but still focused, role.



My point, arbitrary limitations on players just lowers the number of characters you can make and hampers player decisions.


I don't think it hampers so much as streamlines. Now your class choices have to be at least somewhat in line with the character you've created.



If someone on your team is going to optimize to the point of being a jerk, he'll find a way to get the requirements for what he needs. This mechanic promotes munchkins and folks who rigorously plan their builds around obtaining power, knowing exactly what they will need at what level to get what they want, to be the only ones who will successfully be able to multiclass.


I had the exact opposite reaction. I see this as a was to hamper munchkins from grabbing five thematically opposing/unrelated classes and fusing them together in a single character.

I really don't think it's that difficult to pull off multiclassing. Even a complete newbie would realize that, for making a fighter/wizard as an example, you'd need a decent INT score. Tell them to make STR and CON their primary, with INT as their third. One ability score increase should be enough to bump it up for a wizard multi-class, if it isn't already high enough.



Also my why is paladin/ranger more difficult to get into was more referring to how the monk, paladin, and ranger require 2 stats at level 13. Why?

That I can't say. Seems like one stat should be enough for each multi-class.

[HorridElemental]

Funny enough, a lot of athletes do in fact learn ballet, especially baseball players, to help them with their respective sports. Many of them could actually be in a production.

Rarely do they actually let this info leak out because men are insecure about their masculinity.

Sports translates pretty well across all physical activities. Sure a basketball player in the NBA may not be able to play MLB (Jordan) but he won't be Joe smoe about it either.

[Person_Man]

@CyberThread

Do the multiclass rules duplicate the metagame problems that existed in 2E/3E multiclassing?

More specifically, non-casters tend to get most of their best/signature stuff at levels 1-4. So its generally a good idea to multiclass heavily at low levels. But doing so denies/slows your access to superior high level class abilities, and so multiclass combinations are almost never viable at high levels.

For example, in 3.5 a Rogue 2/Wizard 3 is perfectly playable and versatile. But a Rogue 10/Wizard 10 is garbage.

[Jenckes]

Does it mention if action surge allows a caster to cast twice.


That is a legit question. I thought for sure basic rules would cover that, since there is already a bit about spells that take a bonus action to cast not allowing casters to cast anything but cantrips for the rest of their round. I think that's probably the first house rule I'd enact. Only one spell may be cast on a players turn, any other magic must be a cantrip. I'm fairly sure that'd be broken.

[Demonic Spoon]

More specifically, non-casters tend to get most of their best/signature stuff at levels 1-4. So its generally a good idea to multiclass heavily at low levels. But doing so denies/slows your access to superior high level class abilities, and so multiclass combinations are almost never viable at high levels.

For example, in 3.5 a Rogue 2/Wizard 3 is perfectly playable and versatile. But a Rogue 10/Wizard 10 is garbage.


From my knowledge of it (not a whole lot), there's a few things that make caster multiclass better than 3.x:

-High level spell slots are straight up more limited, so not having access to them isn't as much of a hit
-when multiclassing to another caster, you stack your levels for the purposes of determining which slots you have. You still won't be able to cast spells of that slot level for either class, but you can scale lower level spells up to that spell level
-Don't cantrips scale with character level?

[Dienekes]

In 5e terms that would mean the first player had STR as his primary stat and DEX as his second or third highest. For you, STR followed by CHA.

As somewhat of an authority on myself. Heh, no I do not. Charisma is my dump stat. I can still sing though, because I practice at it. Which is what the class system was supposed to represent, I thought. The more practice and skill acquired through training and doing and so forth allows for advancement. So, if I say wanted to make a charming thug by multiclassing Rogue/Fighter, why should he pump up Dex when it has nothing to do with his character?


I think the idea behind multi-classing in 5e is that you're pretty good at one thing, and also pretty good at another thing. But nobody is allowed to be good at everything. e.g. Football captain, chess team leader, drama club president, and head of the debate team. Yes there are wunderkinds that can pull this off in real life, but in the game I think it's better for PC's to adopt a versatile, but still focused, role.

I don't disagree, but I think the method used to implement it is not conducive to good game design. Setting a hard and fast limit like that simply makes folks try to work around it. Instead, design classes so that the most powerful options are gained through leveling a single class, but you can pull off certain tricks with dips that may not be a singularly powerful, but gives you some additions in your repertoire. Star Wars Saga Edition was fantastic at this, you could choose to focus being a noble class which lets you after 10 levels be able to tell the enemy mooks to stop firing, and they will listen, or be a Noble/Soldier, which adds some firepower, but is not quite as skilled at manipulation as he would have been otherwise.

Character creation is a game, and should attempt to be fun. Jumping through hoops to get what you want, especially pretty arbitrary ones I don't think has been fun for anyone except a very small subset of people. Instead the classes should be designed with the goals of the system in mind. If you're trying to say it's better to be a single class and that's it, then design the class itself so that sticking to the class is rewarding. Or take the Fighter's Action Surge ability, the potential problem there is that it can be abused by casters to double their spells in a round. That's a problem, so instead write the ability to deal with that problem. Instead one of those actions needs to be an attack or a skill check. Or make the ability an actual investment into the class. As far as I can tell, this is the fighter's best ability. Why is it at level two? And that's not to say that low level abilities can't be powerful, but they should be worse than higher level abilities that focus on a specific ability. Designing a truly great game is a balancing act, and it is difficult, but I think worth it. Have your mechanics hint toward what you want your players to do without putting arbitrary limits that don't really work as intended, or presenting them an option that is going to only shoot themselves in the foot.

As to builds that take multiple different classes. Well yeah, that's what happens when all the classes are heavily front-loaded with no real benefit to progression. But even this is kind of misleading. In 3.5, going fighter/barbarian/ranger/rogue or something can make a pretty consistent and versatile character. Actually, it's possibly the only build in the game that makes an effective Conan the barbarian. But it isn't overpowered, and can easily be a consistent character. But once you get to the truly powerful classes, they tend to stick with one class until prestige classes anyway, because spells advance in power per level is more evenly distributed throughout the whole class. There's a reason why the Mystic Theurge is largely considered weaker than sticking to just being a wizard or cleric.

But that does leave potential gishes, now again, I like the way Saga handled this. But, in D&D terms, why shouldn't a character be a fighter 10/wizard 10? The classes are both there, the potential for multiclassing them both is fine. I've seen systems were splitting a class like this can be fairly effective (again Saga and to a lesser extent Fantasy Craft) without overpowering or falling behind. And honestly, with bounded accuracy it should be even easier to get to that point as the struggle to keep your attack rolls or skill checks should not be nearly as hard as it was in 3.5 potentially furthering desire to multi-class when you've gotten what you can from a single class.

I'm not saying designing a game that keeps all this in mind would be easy, but, this is D&D they're the titans of the gaming community, if anyone should be able to pull off a fun character design system that promotes both single and multi-class play in a fun engaging way, it should be them.

[Marius]

Caster/noncaster multiclass is as useless as it was on past editions. You have to use archetypes or wait until they realease books with some gishes.

@Demonic Spoon: Cantrips do scale with "level" (not caster level or class level) but it may be an error in the basic rules. In any case it still doesn't make a rogue/wizard more viable.

[pwykersotz]

I don't see why people keep asking about Action Surge. It's a bonus action to use. If you cast with the bonus action, you can only cast a cantrip with your regular action. It's in the general rules, and Action Surge doesn't call it out, so there's no specific to override the general. Unless I missed something? :smallconfused:

[Human Paragon 3]

I don't see why people keep asking about Action Surge. It's a bonus action to use. If you cast with the bonus action, you can only cast a cantrip with your regular action. It's in the general rules, and Action Surge doesn't call it out, so there's no specific to override the general. Unless I missed something? :smallconfused:

Action Surge isn't a bonus action, it's literally another action. That's what's so great about it.

But honestly I think trading your highest two spell slots and two spells prepared for one round a day where you can cast two spells is a fair trade.

[Sartharina]

Action Surge isn't a bonus action, it's literally another action. That's what's so great about it.

But honestly I think trading your highest two spell slots and two spells prepared for one round a day where you can cast two spells is a fair trade.

One round per encounter, not day. But still, I don't see it as broken. That two spell slots and spells prepared is throughout your career, not just the highest levels. In fact, at lower levels, it's even harsher on the caster.

[Human Paragon 3]

One round per encounter, not day. But still, I don't see it as broken. That two spell slots and spells prepared is throughout your career, not just the highest levels. In fact, at lower levels, it's even harsher on the caster.

Ah, I stand corrected - but technically we're both wrong. Per short rest doesn't strictly mean per encounter. PCs will often tackle multiple encounters per short rest. I never short rested once during the Starter Set adventure because the missing people seemed urgent to us.

[eastmabl]

Caster/noncaster multiclass is as useless as it was on past editions. You have to use archetypes or wait until they realease books with some gishes.

@Demonic Spoon: Cantrips do scale with "level" (not caster level or class level) but it may be an error in the basic rules. In any case it still doesn't make a rogue/wizard more viable.

From what I recall, Mike Mearls said on Twitter that the cantrip which the high elf gets scales with his character level as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the cantrips are supposed to scale with character level.

[Sartharina]

Ah, I stand corrected - but technically we're both wrong. Per short rest doesn't strictly mean per encounter. PCs will often tackle multiple encounters per short rest. I never short rested once during the Starter Set adventure because the missing people seemed urgent to us.It's not multiple encounters if it's between short rests. It's just one drawn-out encounter.

[Human Paragon 3]

That's just semantics. By that logic if I played an entire module without short resting, it'd all be one encounter. If you can find me a quote from the rules that says the definition of "encounter" is "every second of combat that takes place in between two short rests," then you'd be undisputedly correct, but I don't think that text exists, and you're substituting your philosophy for the game rules.

This is a tangent though, and totally unrelated to how multiclassing works, so that's the last I'll say about it.

[Sartharina]

That's just semantics. By that logic if I played an entire module without short resting, it'd all be one encounter. If you can find me a quote from the rules that says the definition of "encounter" is "every second of combat that takes place in between two short rests," then you'd be undisputedly correct, but I don't think that text exists, and you're substituting your philosophy for the game rules.
Encounters are not strictly combat.

[Tholomyes]

It's not multiple encounters if it's between short rests. It's just one drawn-out encounter.

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means" -- Inigo Montoya

[Cibulan]

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means" -- Indigo MontoyaINIGO. Inigo Montoya. Pet peeve of mine.

[Tholomyes]

INIGO. Inigo Montoya. Pet peeve of mine.Fine; fixed it.

[Cibulan]

Fine; fixed it.
And there was much rejoicing :smallbiggrin: