Alternative Multiclass

[Easy_Lee]

Been a while since I posted here. Hey everyone. Considering writing up a new Multiclass system, and want the playground's opinion on the core idea.

My Issues With the Current System

There are quite a lot of these. I'll list just a few prominent ones:

A level 2 fighter / 3 barbarian doesn't have Extra Attack. Issues like this abound.
You give up your capstone. While not necessarily a big deal, as most games don't even get that far, it just feels messy, incomplete, etc.
Might end up with several archetypes, but you can't just stick with one archetype.
Spell slot progression and how many you can prepare are strange, particularly for Multiclass warlocks.

I could go on, but you guys get the idea.

Alternative System

This initial idea is similar to other systems people have used before. Basically, you pick the class you want to Multiclass into. You lose certain class features from your current class, and gain features of the other. All of this is done only with DM approval for each swap.

DM adjudicates which features may be swapped for which. Ex: swap rogue sneak attack for fighter extra attack, or vice versa. Swap capstone. Etc.
May take another class's archetype in place of your own. Ex: Fighter Multiclasses Ranger to take the Hunter archetype. It may be necessary to drop certain class features of the base class in favor of the new.
May choose to keep either class' spell slot progression and spell preparation rules, but only if the Multiclass has the same or lesser spell progression as your own. A wizard could Multiclass warlock to switch to short rest casting and Arcanums. A fighter could not Multiclass wizard to gain full spell progression, though, and would probably end up with eldritch knight spell slots or similar, depending on the DM.

I'd tried to write up a full set of rules for this before, but it proved too complicated given spell slots. Instead, I choose the DM adjudication idea, as each DM should be able to decide what is and isn't balanced.

I thought I'd just post here and see if people think the base idea is sound. Also, are there any alternative Multiclass systems which I've missed?

[Laserlight]

Instead, I choose the DM adjudication idea, as each DM should be able to decide what is and isn't balanced.

Not trying to throw icewater on this, but "Here's my system: you decide for yourself what's balanced" is not exactly helpful.

[Azreal]

Not trying to throw icewater on this, but "Here's my system: you decide for yourself what's balanced" is not exactly helpful.

I'm of the same mindset. Saying "I have an idea, you should do it yourself" isn't really saying anything at all.

[Easy_Lee]

Hmm, guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm mainly looking for feedback on the concept of swapping one class' features for another's. Things I should consider, similar systems, whether the system sounds fun, etc.

I'm sure I can write up something very specific once I have some feedback, but that post would belong in the homebrew section.

[pwykersotz]

Seems...thorny.

Would your system provide guidance on which options were generally balanced against others based on utility and DPR and such?

[Easy_Lee]

Seems...thorny.

Would your system provide guidance on which options were generally balanced against others based on utility and DPR and such?

From the posts so far, I see that I'm going to have to write up specifics. I'll have to figure out which features from each class are roughly equivalent. Which is tricky.

The main problems I had with this when I tried to write the system up before were things like Monk ki and barbarian rage, and especially spellcasting.

[Waffle_Iron]

From the posts so far, I see that I'm going to have to write up specifics. I'll have to figure out which features from each class are roughly equivalent. Which is tricky.

The main problems I had with this when I tried to write the system up before were things like Monk ki and barbarian rage, and especially spellcasting.

I think the idea has merit. Like anything, the devil is in the details, and careful balancing is needed, if you prefer to avoid obvious combos being preferred over careful consideration.

The concept of multi classing being just giving up your subclass and gaining another is intriguing, but certain combos do not seem to function well. You mentioned fighters gaining MC in wizard already. X/ Druid is also problematic, if the pic is looking to pick up wild shape.

[R.Shackleford]

The best multiclass system I can think of is not having Multiclassing.

The system comes to mind...

Subclasses, just make each class a subclass for each other class.

Hybrid classes, specifically make a class for each combination of classes.

Feats, 5e feats are quite underwhelming*. Scrapping them and putting a feat system together were you can add "multiclass feats" as an option would work nicely.

*they took many things that should be base rules or part of base classes and made them into feats... Sigh.

[djreynolds]

Hmm, guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm mainly looking for feedback on the concept of swapping one class' features for another's. Things I should consider, similar systems, whether the system sounds fun, etc.

I'm sure I can write up something very specific once I have some feedback, but that post would belong in the homebrew section.

Perhaps go 2nd edition on us.
We'll use the fighter, for example. Say I'm third level, but I want horde breaker and not crit. So long as you meet the 13 in Dex and wisdom you can do so. Or a ranger could switch out at 11th volley for 3rd attack.

The issue could be spellcasting, a fighter could give up action surge, for smite but has no spells. But perhaps an EK could give up action surge to smite as a paladin does. Or gives up war magic at 7th and gains aura of courage, still based on charisma though.

It would simpler to be warrior and assign a points system to class features, and multiclass restrictions included and you could just pick and choose, provided the stats and points.

[Specter]

I let my player switch class features. A fighter wanted to be a good grappler a la wrestler, so I let him take Expertise (Athletics) in place of Second Wind.

You could let your players choose one alternate class feature, but let them know that you can ban it if you feel it's too much cheese (some people will try to abuse the system).

[DanyBallon]

Surfing on R.Shackleford idea, we already have feats that are tone down versions of other classes abilities (Martial adept, Magic initiate, Ritual caster, armor proficiencies feat, etc.), what if we added feats that would allow sneak attack (1d4 scaling like cantrip), expertise (max. 2 skills), etc. Maybe this would allow character to gain features from othe classes without level dipping, thus allowing characters to get their capstone feature.

I.e. a Champion fighter with a Criminal background that take a sneak attack feat as a dirty trick to use in fight.

[R.Shackleford]

Surfing on R.Shackleford idea, we already have feats that are tone down versions of other classes abilities (Martial adept, Magic initiate, Ritual caster, armor proficiencies feat, etc.), what if we added feats that would allow sneak attack (1d4 scaling like cantrip), expertise (max. 2 skills), etc. Maybe this would allow character to gain features from othe classes without level dipping, thus allowing characters to get their capstone feature.

I.e. a Champion fighter with a Criminal background that take a sneak attack feat as a dirty trick to use in fight.


That wouldntnreally be worth a feat.

[DanyBallon]

That wouldntnreally be worth a feat.

How? Are you saying that Martial adept, Magic initiate, ritual caster, etc. are not worth a feat either. I don't think so.
Sure if you compare them to PAM, they feel weak, but PAM is the probleme, because it's better than any other feats.

IMO adding 1d4 sneak attack scaling like a cantrip is definately worth an ASI over taking levels in rogue. Getting expertise in two skills is as good as skilled. Nothing prevents to add half an ASI or other abilities, in order to balance the feat.

[R.Shackleford]

How? IMO adding 1d4 sneak attack scaling like a cantrip is definately worth an ASI over taking levels in rogue. Getting expertise in two skills is as good as skilled. Nothing prevents to add half an ASI or other abilities, in order to balance the feat.

Also, it is as saying that Martial adept, Magic initiate, ritual caster, etc. are not worth a feat either. I don't think so.
Sure if you compare them to PAM, they feel weak, but PAM is the probleme, because it's better than any other feats.

First off, Martial Adept is a terrible feat. Like absolutely terrible. Between the limited use and the absolute laughable effect... Just not worth it unless you are making a very specific or specialized character.

Those other feats give you something you couldn't do before. 1d4 sneak attack is something you can already do (doing damage), actually taking it makes you worse at what you want to do. Doing damage isn't the issue with your fighter, they can already do damage, adding a tiny bit more damage isn't anything great.

Feats should give you access to new things. Magic initiate and ritual caster gives you access to magic and spells you didn't have access to before. Now that fighter can overcome non-magical damage reduction and immunity, have some utility, and be useful in places they never could before. Or just be cool and so something awesome.

You may choose only 1 MC feat unless the DM says otherwise.

Rogue Multiclass Feat
Prerequisites: Level 4, Dex 13

You gain the following benefits.

Thieves Cant (Ribbon Ability)
Expertise in one skill that you are trained in
Cunning Action

This makes you a Rogue and would make you feel and be able to show that you multiclassed. When you are playing the game you will *Rogue* anytime Thieves Cant comes up, anytime you roll your favorite skill, and during battle when you can zig and zag around the battle field.

A lot of feats in the PHB need to be reworked, most of them are rather sad.

[Kryx]

Hey Easy, nice to have you back. I enjoy these thought provoking threads.


Instead, I choose the DM adjudication idea, as each DM should be able to decide what is and isn't balanced.
The premise that most people (or even GMs) can determine what is balanced is flawed imo. Based on the ideas and homebrew content presented by many users since release I'd peg the number who can accurately determine balance around 15% of the total forum user base and likely less than 5% of the total player base. Though my concept of balance is more strict so these numbers could double if you don't need as much balance.
Based on that understanding I think a GM adjudication based system is flawed at its core.

Now if you laid out a bunch of examples and made it very clear then there are some baselines that would help increase that number. Still not perfect, but better.
I think R.Shackleford's idea is a decent one. It harkens back to 4e multiclass feats, though I wasn't too fond of those. It depends how much of a dip the player wants.


For Extra attack I think this idea is quite good: Extra Attack From Multiple Classes Fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20842589&postcount=28)

[DanyBallon]

First off, Martial Adept is a terrible feat. Like absolutely terrible. Between the limited use and the absolute laughable effect... Just not worth it unless you are making a very specific or specialized character.

Those other feats give you something you couldn't do before. 1d4 sneak attack is something you can already do (doing damage), actually taking it makes you worse at what you want to do. Doing damage isn't the issue with your fighter, they can already do damage, adding a tiny bit more damage isn't anything great.

Feats should give you access to new things. Magic initiate and ritual caster gives you access to magic and spells you didn't have access to before. Now that fighter can overcome non-magical damage reduction and immunity, have some utility, and be useful in places they never could before. Or just be cool and so something awesome.

You may choose only 1 MC feat unless the DM says otherwise.

Rogue Multiclass Feat
Prerequisites: Level 4, Dex 13

You gain the following benefits.

Thieves Cant (Ribbon Ability)
Expertise in one skill that you are trained in
Cunning Action

This makes you a Rogue and would make you feel and be able to show that you multiclassed. When you are playing the game you will *Rogue* anytime Thieves Cant comes up, anytime you roll your favorite skill, and during battle when you can zig and zag around the battle field.

A lot of feats in the PHB need to be reworked, most of them are rather sad.

I think that we have a diametricaly opposed view on feats. I believe most of them are fine and bring a wide diversity of options for character development, and only a few, i.e. PAM need to be reworked because they are too overpowered compared to the rest of the feats.

So IMO what I suggest is perfectly balanced to suit my playstyle, while your idea of MC feats fit perfectly your view of balance.
Both are fine, they just won't mix well at the same table :)

[R.Shackleford]

I think that we have a diametricaly opposed view on feats. I believe most of them are fine and bring a wide diversity of options for character development, and only a few, i.e. PAM need to be reworked because they are too overpowered compared to the rest of the feats.

So IMO what I suggest is perfectly balanced to suit my playstyle, while your idea of MC feats fit perfectly your view of balance.
Both are fine, they just won't mix well at the same table :)

Most big feats (like PAM) should have been class options instead of character options. Sentinel, for example, was a fantastic Fighter class feature and really have the fighter something to call it's own that others couldn't do. No one else could stop an enemy by hitting them with an OA. Yeah others got to make an OA but they weren't able to do the things the fighter could.

Or at the very least split spells and feats up. Casters get spells, martials get feats, and partials get a little of both. You would need better feats but that's already a problem.

My biggest issue is that players get punished mechanically for taking interesting options. If I want to take Dungeon Delver (4), Mobile (8), and Observant (12) on my Barbarian... I'm stuck with first level ability scores.... Because I wanted an interesting character I have to deal with falling behind with what my team needs my barbarian to do.

[Kryx]

My biggest issue is that players get punished mechanically for taking interesting options. If I want to take Dungeon Delver (4), Mobile (8), and Observant (12) on my Barbarian... I'm stuck with first level ability scores.... Because I wanted an interesting character I have to deal with falling behind with what my team needs my barbarian to do.
I actually moved a lot of those flavor feats to "Traits" and give 1 at 1,5,9,13, and 17.

See Kryx's Refined Feats (http://www.naturalcrit.com/homebrew/share/H19CLykV)

Also some other things like splitting feats into half parts, removing -5/+10 and the bonus attack on PAM.

[DanyBallon]

My biggest issue is that players get punished mechanically for taking interesting options. If I want to take Dungeon Delver (4), Mobile (8), and Observant (12) on my Barbarian... I'm stuck with first level ability scores.... Because I wanted an interesting character I have to deal with falling behind with what my team needs my barbarian to do.

You won't fall behind, because Bounded Accuracy let your 12 or 14 starting stat still be useful even if you didn't pumped it up to 20. It takes time to get used to it, but 5e removed the necessity to max out you ability scores. Once you've realised that a Barbarian with a 14 Str can still be effective at 20th level, you find that it's not cost effective to take an utility feat like dungeon delver.

[Waffle_Iron]

Surfing on R.Shackleford idea, we already have feats that are tone down versions of other classes abilities (Martial adept, Magic initiate, Ritual caster, armor proficiencies feat, etc.), what if we added feats that would allow sneak attack (1d4 scaling like cantrip), expertise (max. 2 skills), etc. Maybe this would allow character to gain features from othe classes without level dipping, thus allowing characters to get their capstone feature.

I.e. a Champion fighter with a Criminal background that take a sneak attack feat as a dirty trick to use in fight.

This makes me think "what if the capstone for every class was like a 'super feat'?"

You could start with the existing capstones as super feats (needs a better name) then you add in a bunch of ideas that would be too powerful for normal feats or class features.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You won't fall behind, because Bounded Accuracy let your 12 or 14 starting stat still be useful even if you didn't pumped it up to 20. It takes time to get used to it, but 5e removed the necessity to max out you ability scores. Once you've realised that a Barbarian with a 14 Str can still be effective at 20th level, you find that it's not cost effective to take an utility feat like dungeon delver.

Wrong

As someone who has played this exact character let me tell you right now. You are absolutely wrong.

Play in a white room all you want but that barbarian fell way behind in terms of hitting, damage, and keeping up with what the team needed me to do. When everyone else is out damaging the Barbarian then you have issues.

[DanyBallon]

This makes me think "what if the capstone for every class was like a 'super feat'?"

You could start with the existing capstones as super feats (needs a better name) then you add in a bunch of ideas that would be too powerful for normal feats or class features.

I'm not sure I get what you are talking about?!? Do you mean we should make capstone abilities as a feat? Capstone are meant to incite the player to stick to a single class. Pathfinder did this better than 5e though.

[R.Shackleford]

Wrong

As someone who has played this exact character let me tell you right now. You are absolutely wrong.

Play in a white room all you want but that barbarian fell way behind in terms of hitting, damage, and keeping up with what the team needed me to do. When everyone else is out damaging the Barbarian then you have issues.

Huh, if you played in Pittsburgh then I may have based this character off you lol

[DanyBallon]

Wrong

As someone who has played this exact character let me tell you right now. You are absolutely wrong.

Play in a white room all you want but that barbarian fell way behind in terms of hitting, damage, and keeping up with what the team needed me to do. When everyone else is out damaging the Barbarian then you have issues.

I'm not talking about white room, I'm talking about actual play. Even with a 14 Str a Barbarian will have decent dpr, some other classes may from time to time outshine them, but won't be able to do so reliably. On the other hand a 14 Str may feel overwhelm in a party with a GWF+PAM Battlemaster and a Paladin both with a 20 Str. Overoptimized character never mesh well with anything but other overoptized character.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not talking about white room, I'm talking about actual play. Even with a 14 Str a Barbarian will have decent dpr, some other classes may from time to time outshine them, but won't be able to do so reliably. On the other hand a 14 Str may feel overwhelm in a party with a GWF+PAM Battlemaster and a Paladin both with a 20 Str. Overoptimized character never mesh well with anything but other overoptized character.

You are talking white room. I've played this build and many like it and I'm telling you that they don't keep up. Use white room all you want, in actual gameplay you are wrong.


@RS It was in Pittsburgh where I played it.

[DanyBallon]

You are talking white room. I've played this build and many like it and I'm telling you that they don't keep up. Use white room all you want, in actual gameplay you are wrong.


@RS It was in Pittsburgh where I played it.

I've done the same and it worked, it all depend on the group you're playing with. Mine don't have any character overoptimized and with maxed out stats. Like I said, if you try playing such a character in a group were all the other characters are overly optimized, you may feel like you falled behind. In any other normal group you'll feel like a decent barbarian.

Saying that I'm playing wrong is quite insulting, all I'm saying is that such a character is viable in a game were the focus of character development is not character optimization. AL characters may be more optimized than the baseline the game allow, but keep in mind that not everyone play at table where optimizing is the norm. 5e allows for both style of play to exist and be fun, but they just don't mesh well in the same group.

[Easy_Lee]

On a side note, thinking more about this, I'm running into an interesting case. How do you keep the feel of the main class while still meaningfully adding another?

The way I had envisioned the system is to write up a list of features for each class that are gaines for the sub class and lost for the main class when multiclassing. That's a real problem for monks, who need their unarmed strike progression for most of their abilities. I suspect that in such cases, I would have to write up a chart specifying that anyone multiclassing into Monk, or barbarian for rage or similar, gains a specific progression to that system in addition to the features gained.

I'm also thinking that, for spell casting, it would work best to simply say anyone multiclassing into a spell casting class gains spell slots at the rate of eldritch knights / arcane tricksters if they did not already have it. That would enable spell casting while also preventing abuse.

I wonder if it would be too much to let players use a full combined spellbook for spells known...

[Kryx]

I've done the same and it worked, it all depend on the group you're playing with.
Level 19 GWM Barb by RAW:
20 str 40.8
18 str 35.3
16 str 29.9
14 str 24.6

As a main damage dealer if you're doing half the damage of a more focused build that's a problem. Unless the DM caters to this style and sends much easier enemies.

Though I see your arguments about character development feats and that's why I branched those out to be their own progression. It won't unbalance the game to offer them in addition to normal ASI/Feats.

[DanyBallon]

Level 19 GWM Barb by RAW:
20 str 40.8
18 str 35.3
16 str 29.9
14 str 24.6

As a main damage dealer if you're doing half the damage of a more focused build that's a problem. Unless the DM caters to this style and sends much easier enemies.

Though I see your arguments about character development feats and that's why I branched those out to be their own progression. It won't unbalance the game to offer them in addition to normal ASI/Feats.

I don't see this as a problem, fight may take longer and use up more ressources, but in the end we would have fun and imo a though fight is more memorable than one that you aced through. Like I said, it's a different playstyle that may not suit everyone, but yet it's a viable playstyle that BA allows, while in 3.p or 4e it would have been suicidal to try this kind of game.

I like what you've done for feats, it gives the player more options on character development. Yet I won't be using it. We kinda like the actual simplicity of 5e and that leveling take us about 5 min (except for spell selection). Allowing your alternate feat system would slow us down, and I might lose the interest of new players that are still playing with us because the game is fast and don't need too much bookkeeping.

[Kryx]

it's a viable playstyle that BA allows, while in 3.p or 4e it would have been suicidal to try this kind of game.
In many games I know it would also be suicidal. Lack of damage means more enemies means more damage means death.

The base system is setup to have some expectations which a 14 str barbarian wouldn't meet without DM adjustment. Though it entirely depends on the table as you say.

[DanyBallon]

In many games I know it would also be suicidal. Lack of damage means more enemies means more damage means death.

The base system is setup to have some expectations which a 14 str barbarian wouldn't meet without DM adjustment. Though it entirely depends on the table as you say.

I won't lie to you, my character fell unconscious many times. It often meant that my comrades had to pick me up and we retreated, or I've been captured or left for dead a few times as well, but it's just adding to the story. We are also aware that our character may suffer from gruesome death, and don't mind rolling a new one if needed. And since character creation is quite fast, you can get back in the game without too much delay. :)

[Spacehamster]

Level 19 GWM Barb by RAW:
20 str 40.8
18 str 35.3
16 str 29.9
14 str 24.6

As a main damage dealer if you're doing half the damage of a more focused build that's a problem. Unless the DM caters to this style and sends much easier enemies.

Though I see your arguments about character development feats and that's why I branched those out to be their own progression. It won't unbalance the game to offer them in addition to normal ASI/Feats.

I have been thinking of another way myself for when using poing buy or when a char have bad rolled stats,
simple thing really: have the level 4 and 8 feat/asi grant you both a feat and an ASI that way even MAD multiclass builds
can get a shot at some feats. :)

[Kryx]

simple thing really: have the level 4 and 8 feat/asi grant you both a feat and an ASI that way even MAD multiclass builds
can get a shot at some feats. :)
That increases the power level. My goal was to force flavorful options without players feeling like they are choosing suboptimal choices.

Giving both Feat and ASI helps MAD builds, but it also helps normal builds. Probably equally. Every class can benefit from more CON or WIS for hp/saves/skills.

[pwykersotz]

On a side note, thinking more about this, I'm running into an interesting case. How do you keep the feel of the main class while still meaningfully adding another?

The way I had envisioned the system is to write up a list of features for each class that are gaines for the sub class and lost for the main class when multiclassing. That's a real problem for monks, who need their unarmed strike progression for most of their abilities. I suspect that in such cases, I would have to write up a chart specifying that anyone multiclassing into Monk, or barbarian for rage or similar, gains a specific progression to that system in addition to the features gained.

I'm also thinking that, for spell casting, it would work best to simply say anyone multiclassing into a spell casting class gains spell slots at the rate of eldritch knights / arcane tricksters if they did not already have it. That would enable spell casting while also preventing abuse.

I wonder if it would be too much to let players use a full combined spellbook for spells known...

Subclasses are great for this. As was suggested earlier, maybe you could define each base class as a subclass. That would be a lot of work since you have 12 classes, necessitating 11 subclasses per class, a grand total of 132. On the other hand, most will be nearly duplicates with minor tweaks for theme and mechanical adaptation, so it might be workable.

For casters, you might consider letting them stay with their core casting mechanics but allow swapped spells at certain points.

[DeAnno]

The main problem with this is that the 5e classes are not standardized in many ways. The different classes get subclass abilities at different levels, and different classes have more or less invested in their subclasses.

Contrast for example Barbarian and Fighter. Barbarian gets a lot of strong frontloaded features in the main class such as Rage and Reckless Attack which both have huge mechanical impact. On the other hand Barbarian subclasses give relatively low amounts of power with abilities which either complement their main class abilities or give them a little bit of an extra boost. Fighter on the other hand gets a huge amount from its subclass, especially in the case of the frontloaded nature of Superiority dice users. Just imagine how devastatingly good a Barbarian who got Battlemaster as his 3rd level instead of a subclass would be.

Of course you can always retreat and say: "The DM will have to decide what is balanced and what is not." This is a total nonanswer though, and makes most discussion on the system completely irrelevant. If you have a DM that willing to play ball with mechanics to sculpt a unique character you don't really need a complicated framework for doing so like we might develop here.

Some people so far in the thread have commented that each class might be able to have a subclass of itself, but this is problematic because you would always take standardized subclasses like that on classes that have relatively weak subclasses to start with, such as Barbarian. Because each class is structured in a unique way, you would really need to design a MC subclass for each class combo if you were to do something like this (quite the daunting task.)

Multiclass Feats are another possibility that has been raised, and one that I think might bear more fruit. This is something we saw in 4e and I actually think it did pretty well there, though the larger nature of feats in 5e and their intractable union with stats present some difficulties. Such feats would have to be big: they need to be competitive with both ASIs and strong feats or they are just albatrosses. They also have to be fairly unique to make such a project worth doing at all. Ideally they could also support a lot of the sorts of things Multiclassing supports now in terms of builds, so as not to restrict the ecosystem overmuch. Here are a couple examples of the sort of thing I have in mind:

Hardened Veteran (Multiclass Fighter)
Prerequisite: Str 13 or Dex 13

Gain proficiency with one weapon of your choice, or with Shields.
Gain any Fighting Style accessible to Fighters.
You can use Action Surge, as the Fighter ability, once per long rest.


A MC feat should probably require the same stats MCing already required. In this case it gives out a proficiency, a medium-strength Fighter feature, and a high-strength Fighter feature at more limited use than usual. It's bigger than your average level, but not by an extreme amount, and a variety of character types might be interested in taking it for different reasons.

Pact-Bound Dabbler (Multiclass Warlock)
Prerequisite: Cha 13

You can use arcane foci for casting any of your spells, and you can use magic items (even those requiring spellcasting) as if you were a Warlock.
Gain any one Warlock cantrip. Cast it with Charisma, as if you were a Warlock.
Gain any one Warlock invocation with a prerequisite level of no more than half your character level. You can switch your invocation out for a new one whenever you gain a level. If the invocation requires a spell slot, you must provide one of the spell's level to use it.


Again, this has one proficiency-esque feature. It also gives you a cantrip and an invocation, which can enable sniping Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast or any of a number of other combinations. Here we enable a base level of competence at fulfilling a role provided by the current rules, but note that without Repelling Blast some of the utility of EB spam is lost, as befits the lesser investment. Note that both here and with Fighter we avoided giving away any subclass features with multiclass feats, which keeps them nice and generic and avoids pidgeonholing.

I'd say if you wanted a system like this, write up a feat of this sort for each class and leave it at that. Possibly enforce a restriction of one MC feat per character.

[CNagy]

The best way to keep the flavor of the original class is to not swap out features. It's messy and hard to balance, plus in the end what you get is just another highly specified progression.

And I like the idea of multiclass feats, but if this is to be an alternative to multiclassing as a whole then it can't be one and done per class. I would suggest 3 feats for each class, the first having the multiclass prereqs and a minimum of 4th level, the second and third requiring the feat before it (and this is the only time and only place I'd ever advocating resurrecting feat chains).

You could either use colorful names like Footman and Veteran or something straightforward like Novice Fighter/Adept Fighter/Expert Fighter. I think I would allow the MC feats to add +1 to an ability score, but it would be one of the ability scores that are required for the MC (i.e. Novice Wizard adds +1 to Int). You could take as many multiclass feats as you had qualifying stats for (you're paying a high price for them in the form of ASIs). So certain classes synergize better than others, Rogues and Fighters have more opportunities to multiclass, but every character has enough ASIs to theoretically max one stat (presumably attack) while still fully multiclassing in another non-synergistic class, with slightly more wiggle room for classes that mesh well (share a main stat).

I would have the feats focus on the front half of the class, or maybe not even that much (the first 7,8, 10 at most levels). I wouldn't in any circumstances allow them to give another class' 11th level feature and I'd probably stay away from giving features specific to subclasses--after all, you're multiclassing into a generic version of the class, so you're not devoting enough attention to being a Rogue that you could, for example, pick up Assassinate as a Fighter.

[Giant2005]

You are essentially describing classless DnD - converting the class abilities into their relative values and letting people purchase them for their character regardless of class.
I am all for it. I might even take a stab at it myself.

[Safety Sword]

The issue you're going to run into is that many of the class abilities are not balanced outside of their specific class.

Classes tend to be pretty well balanced in real play that has the intended number of encounters at specific difficulty.

Once you try and play "class feature pick and mix" you'll see that out of context many of the abilities will have unintended synergies. A lot of the classes are pretty front loaded in any case, so the only penalty for multiclassing is not getting the theoretical capstone abilities and being behind on the spell progression curve. I think that's an OK cost.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm thinking subclasses are just the best way to go. As stated, that's a ton of work. I wouldn't expect the playground to even read through all of that...

What I'll have to do is come up with guidelines for a subclass system. Solid ones. Things like no swapping non combat features for combat features, partial progression from each class for major things like sneak attack and ki, spread out the features so not too many are gained at one level, etc. Players might like this system better since they can potentially work with the DM to create new features.

[Easy_Lee]

You are essentially describing classless DnD - converting the class abilities into their relative values and letting people purchase them for their character regardless of class.
I am all for it. I might even take a stab at it myself.

That's been done on these forums before. I can't remember too many details, but it basically amounted to a system similar to materia from FF7. Abilities were equipable, and players found them throughout the world. There were major slots for things like spellcasting progression, fighter attack progression, and sneak attack, and minor ones for individual features.

[Nicodiemus]

The multiclass system is about balance. If you stay on a path you are rewarded with the ultimate ability for that class. If you stray, you diversify your character, you gain different abilities, but at the expense of reaching the pinnacle of your original class. That being said, no one can say your fun is wrong.

[Wmcook]

Subclasses are great for this. As was suggested earlier, maybe you could define each base class as a subclass. That would be a lot of work since you have 12 classes, necessitating 11 subclasses per class, a grand total of 132. On the other hand, most will be nearly duplicates with minor tweaks for theme and mechanical adaptation, so it might be workable.

For casters, you might consider letting them stay with their core casting mechanics but allow swapped spells at certain points.

I've been working on my ouwn point buy system in which I went through the SRD5 and converted all the class skills into separate skills with upgrade paths. I don't think this is exactly the path you were looking for.

I can't post links to the documents in this forum yet.

giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?492651-Chosen-Way-Classless-system&p=20930531#post20930531

drive.google.com/open?id=0B-yfscOe363iN0tKSEMtck1UaXM

drive.google.com/open?id=13THQf3Ho8m7EO0azko10asBa696MCdOC7bnTUg4jt dA

[djreynolds]

Been a while since I posted here. Hey everyone. Considering writing up a new Multiclass system, and want the playground's opinion on the core idea.

My Issues With the Current System

There are quite a lot of these. I'll list just a few prominent ones:

A level 2 fighter / 3 barbarian doesn't have Extra Attack. Issues like this abound.
You give up your capstone. While not necessarily a big deal, as most games don't even get that far, it just feels messy, incomplete, etc.
Might end up with several archetypes, but you can't just stick with one archetype.
Spell slot progression and how many you can prepare are strange, particularly for Multiclass warlocks.

I could go on, but you guys get the idea.

Alternative System

This initial idea is similar to other systems people have used before. Basically, you pick the class you want to Multiclass into. You lose certain class features from your current class, and gain features of the other. All of this is done only with DM approval for each swap.

DM adjudicates which features may be swapped for which. Ex: swap rogue sneak attack for fighter extra attack, or vice versa. Swap capstone. Etc.
May take another class's archetype in place of your own. Ex: Fighter Multiclasses Ranger to take the Hunter archetype. It may be necessary to drop certain class features of the base class in favor of the new.
May choose to keep either class' spell slot progression and spell preparation rules, but only if the Multiclass has the same or lesser spell progression as your own. A wizard could Multiclass warlock to switch to short rest casting and Arcanums. A fighter could not Multiclass wizard to gain full spell progression, though, and would probably end up with eldritch knight spell slots or similar, depending on the DM.

I'd tried to write up a full set of rules for this before, but it proved too complicated given spell slots. Instead, I choose the DM adjudication idea, as each DM should be able to decide what is and isn't balanced.

I thought I'd just post here and see if people think the base idea is sound. Also, are there any alternative Multiclass systems which I've missed?

Someone else had this. You could try the 2E system, where you picked stuff as you progressed. You had some many points and as you leveled up you took weapon specialization or whatever. You would have to assign a point system. So a barbarian could afford a 3 attack, say but would lose other stuff. I think it is players handbook combat and tactics you should be able to download a pdf for free and their is a skills and powers book as well.

[R.Shackleford]

The multiclass system is about balance. If you stay on a path you are rewarded with the ultimate ability for that class. If you stray, you diversify your character, you gain different abilities, but at the expense of reaching the pinnacle of your original class. That being said, no one can say your fun is wrong.

The problem is that there is no real balance.

Some classes rely on their core class for a majority of their "stuff" while other classes rely specifically on their subclass for their "stuff".

If 5e was more consistent I could see this MC style as being about balance but as is... There is no such thing about balance or consistency.

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah, it'd be nice to just write the basic system up. But like has been said, there's too much difference between classes and archetypes. For example, a partial barbarian with only some rage would get far less from the totem path than a full barbarian.

I'm going to build custom hybrid classes on a case by case basis. I'm sure I can do that without any balance concerns.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, it'd be nice to just write the basic system up. But like has been said, there's too much difference between classes and archetypes. For example, a partial barbarian with only some rage would get far less from the totem path than a full barbarian.

I'm going to build custom hybrid classes on a case by case basis. I'm sure I can do that without any balance concerns.

I've thought of this as well... I miss some 4e classes

Avenger: Cleric/Rogue
Swordmage: Fighter/Sorcerer
Warden: Barbarian/Druid
Invoker: Cleric/Wizard

[Kryx]

Avenger: Cleric/Rogue
See Oath of Vengeance


Swordmage: Fighter/Sorcerer
See the Bladesinger


Warden: Barbarian/Druid
See Oath of the Ancients


Invoker: Cleric/Wizard
See Light domain Cleric


Nearly all of the 4e concepts exist in 5e, some changed more than others.

[R.Shackleford]

See Oath of Vengeance


See the Bladesinger


See Oath of the Ancients


See Light domain Cleric


Nearly all of the 4e concepts exist in 5e, some changed more than others.

And none of these options in 5e give you any of those.

Path of vengeance has the advantage attack but I want mobility/hunting an enemy without all the Paladin baggage added on.

Bladesingers are not swordmages, they are mages with swords but they don't get the defender abilities of the Swordmage.

Close but Ancients still has all the Paladin stuff that the warden doesn't have. I can't recall right now but can Paladins (Ancients) use wildshape/transform starting at low levels?

Light Cleric is about fire, invokers were about feat and radiant damage and control.


All of your choices are off brand pass the expiration date alternatives to the 4e classes.

[Kryx]

Oath of Vengeance is nearly the same as an avenger except armor. It is only of the better ones.

Oath of the Ancients is also really close, just no wildshape as you say.

[Easy_Lee]

Flavor is the bigger deal for me. A proper hybrid should have features from each class but also some unique features of their own. There's no way to do that with a generic system.

To give an example, Beastmasters from everquest were a combination of the Shaman and Monk classes, but also had a strong spirit animal pet that neither base class could match. One could do such a thing in 5e by taking 8-12 levels in each class, but it doesn't always work out the way it should, playa. And such a unique combination would almost have to be custom in d&d, because nothing quite like "monk with buff spells, diseases, and an animal companion" exists in 5e.

Because I mean honestly, you gonna make a ranger BM / monk? Two classes who suffer even more than the reg from lost progression? Mmm...good luck with that.

[R.Shackleford]

Oath of Vengeance is nearly the same as an avenger except armor. It is only of the better ones.

Oath of the Ancients is also really close, just no wildshape as you say.

Also I didmt mean you specifically just I hear that argument a lot and... It just doesn't hold up.

There are so many things the 4e classes could do or had different design principals (Swordmage as a defender/striker) when the core classes can't give you those options.

You should read up the difference between Clerics, Paladins, and Avengers :).

[MrStabby]

I think multiclassing in 5th edition is one of it's few weaknesses. Realistically I think that you give up too much when multiclassing in almost all events. I think this is a shame as multiclassed characters always seem to be the most interesting.

I think that the problems are often with abilities that don't enhance but instead replace. Druid wildshape is kind of good combined with a barbarian dip - but going major barbarian with a wildshape dip is right out. Wildshape replaces your form not enhancing it. Taking a 9th level in cleric gives you access to 5th level spells rather than adding +1 to the level of spells known (although to be fair the spell slots do work on an additive basis).

Now some of these would be dangerous - if multiclassing did continue to also scale spells known with no penalty then it would be too powerful, but as it is it is a bit too weak.


A partial fix I have used in one game is that at first level, if your first level is in druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, bard or warlock you gain the right to take spells of that class corresponding to your slots known when combined with a class that offers lower progression (and keep using the casting stat of the first class). For example if you want to play a wilderness character more magic than a ranger but more martial than a druid you can supplement a druid with ranger levels and instead of learning ranger spells you learn higher level druid spells. Likewise with a divine theme you could use a cleric+paladin to only get cleric spells (so a cleric 5 paladin 4 would be able to cast 5th level cleric spells). It slightly reduced the penalties for multiclassing and in the handful of sessions we had I saw no balance issues.

Some cool characters came out of it as well - someone opened with 2 levels of tempest cleric and followed up with an eldritch knight and was a pretty fun character. Another went with wizard into ranger as a kind of ranger whose favoured terrain was ancient libraries and stores of knowledge.


I think that part of the problem is that some classes exist as classes. Take the sorcerer. If metamagic were available as a feat - in the 3rd ed style of using higher level spell slots to power it, then multiclassing casters would get much more value from the higher level spell slots they have. Not enough to really favour doing it, but still just a little more useful than it is at present. As it is, it cant be added without kind of ruining the sorcerer's thing. If in the beginning it had been done this way then a sorcerer would be close to a wizard but with a specific set of feats selected, and casting from charisma (yeah, in an ideal world I would like all stats to be equally important and let players select the casting stat that matches their character).

[Cybren]

You are essentially describing classless DnD - converting the class abilities into their relative values and letting people purchase them for their character regardless of class.
I am all for it. I might even take a stab at it myself.

I have a handful of notes for a d20modern conversion of 5E that does pretty much this, but can never really find the motivation to finish writing it up. It also sort of reminds me of the 3.5 generic classes variant, which I was a fan of.