2E-style Multiclassing?

[Firechanter]

Multiclassing is generally a nice thing as it opens more options and potentially more diversity, but on the other hand it can also be argued that it cuts out certain single-classed concepts as they lose feasibility in a MC environment. In other words, particularly frontloaded classes are mainly interesting as "dips".

So I'm wondering if that might be prevented by handling multiclassing similar to how AD&D did it. In short, that would mean you can't "dip", but have to advance all of your classes evenly. Of course some fiddling with the details would be required. So first, to recap how it worked in 2E:

- You picked your combination of 2 classes at level 1. (Non-humans only; humans had a different method, but we'll ignore that for now.)
- You gained the benefits of both classes, with certain exceptions: most notably, Fighter multis generally did not have access to Weapon Specialization (unless you used Player's Options rules).
- all XP gained was split evenly between all your classes. (Since 2E also had really wonky advancement tables, that could mean you leveled up one class twice before gaining a level in the other.)
- You gained half Hitpoints from both classes.
- just for completeness' sake, I'll note that the available MC options varied by race, so for example (if memory serves) there could be no Elven Cleric-multiclasses.

However, advancement works a lot different in 2E: for the first 10 levels or so, the required XP roughly double every level; after that point it becomes linear. So for instance, 32000XP take a single-classed Fighter to Level 6 with 6D10 HP. But a Fighter-Mage with 32000XP is not a Fighter3/Mage3, but in fact a Fighter5/Mage5 with (5D10)/2+(5D4)/2 HP. In short, with a couple of exceptions, you can say that a multiclassed character has each of its classes 1 level behind a single-classed specimen with the same XP.

So long story short, if we wanted to emulate something like 2E-style MCing in 5E, simply enforcing to split the levels evenly between all chosen classes would shortchange the player significantly. Fighter 8 is nice, Wizard 8 is nice, but Fighter 4 / Wizard 4 is rubbish.

Any idea how to make it work? Preferrably without fiddling too much with the system.

[Lombra]

Sounds intreasting, never played AD&D but I don't think that this mechanism will mesh well with the design of the classes for 5e: it's kinda well balanced as it is, and splitting the levels might be useful for both gameplay and role-play

[Giant2005]

If they have 2 classes, just have both classes advance simultaneously with normal progression, but give the character 2/3 the experience of normal. The same thing applies with 3 classes but the character receives half of the normal xp.
Cap the 2 class guy at a max of 225k xp and the 3 class guy at 165k xp.

[Zman]

Couple of issues, determining Saving throw Proficiencies, Spell slots, ASIs.

The XP table for 5e is not really built for this. Even splitting at low levels word and keeps the Multiclass only a level behind i.e. Lvl 6 vs Lvl 5/5. Now, it gets tougher at higher levels Lvl 10 vs Lvl 7/7, Lvl 16 vs Lvl 11/11, Lvl 20 vs Lvl 15/15. Balance wise, 5e is better and this could work, though at the upper levels I'd be concerned about keeping up.

What if the Multiclass had a primary and second army class. Both level as a Multiclass with XP split until tenth level when the secondary class stops gaining XP and the primary class gets it all. So a Fighter/Wizard ends up Fighter10/Wizard 10 then at end game ends up Fighhter18/Wizard10 or Wizard18/Fighter10. Could follow the same method for a Teippleclass that caps at 17/15/7.

Also, could determine Saving throws off of the Primary Class and since all classes level at the same time ASIs is just once per level.

Obvioisly, if a character Multiclasses in this manner they can't be eligible for standard multi classing.

[Gwendol]

Those worked pretty much as separate classes. Looking at 3e we have the dual advancement feats (daring outlaw, and others), and theurg prc's.
Something of that sort perhaps?

[DanyBallon]

The best way I came up to simulate 2e multiclassing, is to limit the level difference between your classes to 1. You follow the exact same rules for MC as presented in the PHB, but there's an hardcoded limit that prevent level dipping.

i.e. F4/C3 is ok
F5/C3 isn't

It's not a perfect system as it is arbritary and makes no sense in game, but at least it work well within 5e frame.

[Firechanter]

Well as I said, forcing a 1:1 split so a level 20 character will end up as, say, Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 would not do.

I kinda like Grod's idea with the 2/3 XP and Gestalt leveling. Of course, it should go without saying that the character gets each ASI only once - so leveling to Ftr4/Wiz4 would not score you two ASIs.
Such a MC character would be 1 level behind at first, then over time hang back a bit further, and finish the game at level 17/17. A triple-class would end up at 15/15/15 but I'm not sure if that's healthy.

Another idea reminiscent of 2E multiclassing: you gain all the benefits of both base classes, but no Archetype features, or only the Archetype features of one base class.

[DanyBallon]

Well as I said, forcing a 1:1 split so a level 20 character will end up as, say, Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 would not do.

I kinda like Grod's idea with the 2/3 XP and Gestalt leveling. Of course, it should go without saying that the character gets each ASI only once - so leveling to Ftr4/Wiz4 would not score you two ASIs.
Such a MC character would be 1 level behind at first, then over time hang back a bit further, and finish the game at level 17/17. A triple-class would end up at 15/15/15 but I'm not sure if that's healthy.

Another idea reminiscent of 2E multiclassing: you gain all the benefits of both base classes, but no Archetype features, or only the Archetype features of one base class.

The problem I see is that a 11/17 character will be much more powerfull than a 20th single class character. You have to tweak too much parameters to make it work. The 5e Framework is built about a 10/10 is relatively as powerful as a 20th level single class. For more diversity, you could allow a level difference of 2, so for the same multiclass you can end up with 11/9, 10/10, or 9/11, all would be relatively the same of a 20th level character.

[Giant2005]

The problem I see is that a 11/17 character will be much more powerfull than a 20th single class character. You have to tweak too much parameters to make it work. The 5e Framework is built about a 10/10 is relatively as powerful as a 20th level single class. For more diversity, you could allow a level difference of 2, so for the same multiclass you can end up with 11/9, 10/10, or 9/11, all would be relatively the same of a 20th level character.

Multiclass characters were more powerful in 2e too and probably by the same margin.
That might sound like a massive flaw from a 5e perspective, but if the goal is to capture the 2e feel, then it would do it.

[Thrudd]

5e doesn't need this. They've already accounted for that type of blended class with things like eldritch knight and arcane trickster. Ranger and paladin, for that matter, get spells right from the beginning, too. You would need to make too many changes for it to really be like AD&D.

I think 5e works best without multiclassing at all. The individual classes are varied enough in their sub-class options. The rules on weapon and armor use are flexible to the point that they are no longer a defining feature of any particular class, as they were in AD&D.

[Firechanter]

Right. I'm not looking to start a power creep. I'd just prefer if there was a way to have MC in the game in general, but discourage/disable Dipping.

Another way to look at it through 2E glasses is to ask: what can a 2E MC character do? And then check how that can be replicated in 5E.
Of course, 2E and 5E are similar in some, but extremely different in some respects. For instance, in 2E:
- only Warriors (i.e. Fighters, Rangers, Paladins) can get more than 1 main attack per round (although Rogues [Thief/Bard] can also train Two-Weapon Fighting)
- _only_ Warriors get a strong "Attack Bonus" progression (+1 per level). Priests are okay (but get only one attack per round and no TWF); Rogues mitigate their weak progression by increased leveling speed, and Mages are complete rubbish in terms of At-Will attacks
- Warriors get the best saves all around
- only single-classed Mages can be Specialists

[Stan]

They've already accounted for that type of blended class with things like eldritch knight and arcane trickster. Ranger and paladin, for that matter, get spells right from the beginning, too. You would need to make too many changes for it to really be like AD&D.


I think this is the simplest path. If you don't want multiclassing the 3e/5e way, how about expanding archetypes for common crossovers. Eldritch knight is basically a wizard archetype for fighters. You could build a rogue archetype for fighters and/or a fighter archetype for rogue. Rangers are already fighter/druid and paladin are fighter/cleric (sort, close enough) so you don't need anything fro them. Trying to think back to common multiclasses.

fighter/mu covered
mu/cleric - UA has an arcane domain. make a holy specialization for wizards.

This isn't going to exactly cover it but it won't require rewriting the rules, just adding a few archetypes. You don't get the 2nd class right at first level but by level 3 which comes very fast.

[Thrudd]

Right. I'm not looking to start a power creep. I'd just prefer if there was a way to have MC in the game in general, but discourage/disable Dipping.

Another way to look at it through 2E glasses is to ask: what can a 2E MC character do? And then check how that can be replicated in 5E.
Of course, 2E and 5E are similar in some, but extremely different in some respects. For instance, in 2E:
- only Warriors (i.e. Fighters, Rangers, Paladins) can get more than 1 main attack per round (although Rogues [Thief/Bard] can also train Two-Weapon Fighting)
- _only_ Warriors get a strong "Attack Bonus" progression (+1 per level). Priests are okay (but get only one attack per round and no TWF); Rogues mitigate their weak progression by increased leveling speed, and Mages are complete rubbish in terms of At-Will attacks
- Warriors get the best saves all around
- only single-classed Mages can be Specialists

I'd say like others - just don't allow dipping. Rule that multiple classes must always be within 1 level of each other, and there's a maximum of three classes.

Maybe take it one more step towards AD&D, if you want, and only allow specific combinations, possibly associated with specific races. But the rules for doing it otherwise remain the same. Yes, a 10/10 is not as good as a single class 20, but that's what you sacrifice for the versatility you enjoy throughout the lower levels.

[WhiteEagle88]

I've been toying around with the idea of requiring each class(by end game) to be level 5. That way if someone wants to 'dip' into another class, they MUST dedicate at least 5 levels to it. Would make players have to consider whether or not they really wanted to be locked out of the last five levels of their main class just to get that certain skill from another. Haven't actully put it into practice yet, but seems like a good way to cut down on one or two level 'dips'.

[Toofey]

So first the DM in me needs to point out that in AD&D you averaged your hit points (so depending on how your DM played it you either changed your HP for a level once your multiclass level caught up for it, or rolled for HP and divided it by the number of levels you got)

I was actually thinking about this yesterday and nearly posted a tread on it. The way I may introduce into my game is that if you want to Dual Class (as I'll call it to avoid confusion, although Dual classing was something totally different in AD&D, which is already basically doable if you wanted to within 5th ed rules) you have to start at first level, and you advance in both levels at the same time (basically doubling your per level XP requirement, but it actually when you work it out puts you a reasonable amount behind single class) you average your HD (and get the average Hid die rounded up so a mage and fighter with an average of 7 would get a d8) and you cannot take any level dips etc... If you get extra attacks from more than one class you only get one of them (fighter if that's a level due to it's multiple attacks) then get a bonus feat instead of the 2nd class' attack.

I'm not sure how I want to handle magic to keep it simple at first I may simply not allow players to dual class 2 spellcasting class' until I have more experience with the system.

[Tanarii]

Split XP in half results in a character 1 level less up to 5th, two levels up to ten, then rapidly drops behind after that. That could work for or against your concept depending on your campaigns expected levels.

If you're going to do things the AD&D way, you avg hps (as above), and only use the proficiency bonus of 1 class (not the sum of all levels). Spellcasting would be tricky ... maybe MC spellcasters could calculate their character level as if single classed, then determine spell slots from that, then determine spells known prepared as if 1/2 that level. In other words, as if they had MC the traditional way and split their levels evenly. That'd put them ahead of either class in spell slots, but behind in terms of spell levels accessible.

[Kane0]

You'd most likely be looking at some sort of gestalt rules for that kind of feel.

[Toofey]

Split XP in half results in a character 1 level less up to 5th, two levels up to ten, then rapidly drops behind after that. That could work for or against your concept depending on your campaigns expected levels.

If you're going to do things the AD&D way, you avg hps (as above), and only use the proficiency bonus of 1 class (not the sum of all levels). Spellcasting would be tricky ... maybe MC spellcasters could calculate their character level as if single classed, then determine spell slots from that, then determine spells known prepared as if 1/2 that level. In other words, as if they had MC the traditional way and split their levels evenly. That'd put them ahead of either class in spell slots, but behind in terms of spell levels accessible.

In 2nd ed your spellcasting from your magic using classes were left intact. I'm inclined towards that out of habit.

[Tanarii]

In 2nd ed your spellcasting from your magic using classes were left intact. I'm inclined towards that out of habit.
Yup.

My main point though was if you split XP in half, and determine each class's level as if it were single class, you don't end up a character half the level. You end up with one approximately 1 to 4 levels behind in each class. That works out if you're going for the AD&D way of having all the festures of both classes, average hps, and best attack/saving throws.

Note I said works out, not is balanced. :smallwink:

[N810]

I wonder if anyone had tried multi-classing like:
lvl 1 fighter
lvl 2 mage
lvl 3 fighter
lvl 4 mage

ect...

so you would end up with the odd level abilities of fighter,
and the even level abilities of mage...,
or the other way round if you started with mage.

Maybe it should be called Multiple Personality multi-classing ?

[Regitnui]

I wonder if anyone had tried multi-classing like:
lvl 1 fighter
lvl 2 mage
lvl 3 fighter
lvl 4 mage

ect...

so you would end up with the odd level abilities of fighter,
and the even level abilities of mage...,
or the other way round if you started with mage.

Maybe it should be called Multiple Personality multi-classing ?

Wouldn't that end up as 1st level mage, 1st level fighter, 2nd level mage, 2nd level fighter? Or am I missing the point?

[N810]

The point is that you can get 11+ class abilities while multiclassing. with this method,
but you will miss half of each class as you alternate between the two.
admittedly it's a weird idea.

Ps. this would definitely be homebrew rules.

[Moosoculars]

What I remember from the AD&D days with a fighter / mage / thief is that you would have a huge wait while your XP on all three classes grew slowly and then a burst of power as you hit the level.

if you were to play a Fighter 2 / Mage 2 in 5e and wanted to get the next level that would be level 6 so you would not earn your fifth level first but gain 3rd level in both your classes once you had earned So you sit on 2,700 XP until your total is 14,000 then have 2 levels.

If I remember correctly not all levels were even in Ad&d. Non spell casting classes were cheaper than Mage or Wizard. So I would split the XP with a slight 80/20 bias. So a fighter Mage becoming 6th from fourth would get the fifth level of fighter at 11,740 and the 6th level of Wizard at 14,000 (14,000 6th level XP - 2,700 xp = 11,300 /2 = 5650 *80% = 4520 *2 9040 +2700 = 11,300.

[Firechanter]

If I remember correctly not all levels were even in Ad&d. Non spell casting classes were cheaper than Mage or Wizard.

Not always -- hell, it's a rollercoaster. A picture says more than a thousand words:
http://www.sisterworlds.com/olde/2e/xp.htm

To make matters more complicated, classes got bonus XP for doing what they do best: Fighters get bonus XP for killing things, Thieves for taking their stuff, Mages and Priests for casting spells. But even all of that, and the obligatory monster XP, didn't really matter very much at some point. Nobody kills a million XP's worth of monsters. Eventually, most XP you get are direct quest rewards.