Tiefling... What is a tief?

[Millstone85]

This feels like a dumb question, but it has been bothering me for a while.

Aasimar are called like this because aasimon is another name for D&D angels.

Genasi are called like this because of their connection to genies.

But what is the deal with tieflings? Why not fiendlings? Is there any connection to anything?

[Lalliman]

I've wondered the same for a long time. But Wikipedia has the answer: "The name, pronounced /ˈtiːflɪŋ/, was derived by Wolfgang Baur from German tief meaning "deep, low", and the suffix -ling, "offspring," alluding to their origins in the "lower planes" (in the 2nd and 3rd editions); it may also allude to Teufel, German for "devil.""

[Millstone85]

Ah, well, thank you. :smallsmile:

[Yora]

The word "fiend" comes from the German "Feind", which is "the enemy" (of mankind), so The Devil.

But "tief" really just means "deep", so I'll guess the idea might be "spawn from the deep", which would imply "hellspawn". The suffix "-ling" is the same in German as in English, so "tiefling" actually looks like it could be a proper German word. (Though one that doesn't exist in any other context.)

Also, since it's the most common pronunciation error of German words by English speakers, it's "tee", not "tye". Though I don't recall ever hearing someone do that with tiefling.

[hamishspence]

Also, since it's the most common pronunciation error of German words by English speakers, it's "tee", not "tye". Though I don't recall ever hearing someone do that with tiefling.

Because the prefix is exactly like "thief" but with no H, I've always pronounced it as if I was going to pronounce "thief" but leaving the H sound out.

[Anonymouswizard]

But "tief" really just means "deep", so I'll guess the idea might be "spawn from the deep", which would imply "hellspawn". The suffix "-ling" is the same in German as in English, so "tiefling" actually looks like it could be a proper German word. (Though one that doesn't exist in any other context.)

I think we also need to take a couple of other things into account:
1) In D&D demons and devils are different things, but either can generate Tieflings.
2) Tieflings were originally released when D&D had renamed demons/devils.

Hellspawn would have worked, except that D&D was trying to work around certain groups at the time so that was out of the equation. But the planes in question are known as the Lower Planes, thus 'depthling'.

Only in German because everything sounds cooler in German.

[Kraynic]

According to some of my in-game experience, they are mostly odd looking individuals that are rather ignorant and don't know how to spell thief correctly.

[LibraryOgre]

The tief are the mostly white things in your mouth that let you chew and bite and stuff.

[Slipjig]

According to some of my in-game experience, they are mostly odd looking individuals that are rather ignorant and don't know how to spell thief correctly.

And prior to picking their subclass, many of those people were a "rouge"!

[Scots Dragon]

According to some of my in-game experience, they are mostly odd looking individuals that are rather ignorant and don't know how to spell thief correctly.

Could just be Irish people going all phonetic on the spelling.

[Prime32]

Could just be Irish people going all phonetic on the spelling.
You mean taoighdhph?

[Scots Dragon]

You mean taoighdhph?

Didn't wanna scare the poor Anglophones.

[Forevaxp]

In Planescape planar cant, tieflings are sometimes called zu'lings (if they have Baatezu origins), tanar'lings (if they have Tanar’ri origins), or loth'lings (if they have Yugoloth origins)

But it’s easier to just lump these 3 subcategories into one, especially for people unfamiliar with the lore. And that’s just if you go with the official planar lore.

[InvisibleBison]

In Planescape planar cant, tieflings are sometimes called zu'lings (if they have Baatezu origins), tanar'lings (if they have Tanar’ri origins), or loth'lings (if they have Yugoloth origins)

But it’s easier to just lump these 3 subcategories into one, especially for people unfamiliar with the lore. And that’s just if you go with the official planar lore.

It seems to me that lots of tieflings, quite possibly the majority, wouldn't know what kind of fiendish ancestry they had.

[Scots Dragon]

In Planescape planar cant, tieflings are sometimes called zu'lings (if they have Baatezu origins), tanar'lings (if they have Tanar’ri origins), or loth'lings (if they have Yugoloth origins)

But it’s easier to just lump these 3 subcategories into one, especially for people unfamiliar with the lore. And that’s just if you go with the official planar lore.

There's also those descended from gehreleths, rakshasas, night hags, and evil deities.

[Scots Dragon]

It seems to me that lots of tieflings, quite possibly the majority, wouldn't know what kind of fiendish ancestry they had.

One idea I really liked from Pathfinder's tieflings is that they might not have fiendish ancestry per se, but were instead tainted by being born near places where fiendish activity was common, or by fiendish pacts made by their ancestors.

[Millstone85]

One idea I really liked from Pathfinder's tieflings is that they might not have fiendish ancestry per se, but were instead tainted by being born near places where fiendish activity was common, or by fiendish pacts made by their ancestors.That should work for other planetouched too. An elemental portal, the blessing of an angel... and your bloodline is changed.

[Squire Doodad]

One idea I really liked from Pathfinder's tieflings is that they might not have fiendish ancestry per se, but were instead tainted by being born near places where fiendish activity was common, or by fiendish pacts made by their ancestors.

"In exchange for your powers, I give you my first-born child!"
"Honestly, you can keep the kid. The dark taint from our foul covenant will give your line, like, leathery wings and fire breath and stuff within a few generations."
"So do you...not get anything from this?"
"It's called a "long-term investment"."

[TinyMushroom]

I always thought of a butchered version of "Teufel" which is just Devil in german

[Eldan]

One idea I really liked from Pathfinder's tieflings is that they might not have fiendish ancestry per se, but were instead tainted by being born near places where fiendish activity was common, or by fiendish pacts made by their ancestors.

Planescape did that one too, but it's only mentioned kind of off-handedly. But it mentions that one assumption why Tiefligns are relatively common on the Planes is that the parents might have lived on a lower plane for a while.

[Zombimode]

I always thought of a butchered version of "Teufel" which is just Devil in german

I wouldn't call it "butchered". Just like in english with a bit playing arround you get from "Tiefling" to "Thiefling", you get from "Tiefling" to "Teufling" in german, as Yora mentioned above. Both instances I find quite nice, actually :-)

[Psyren]

Also, since it's the most common pronunciation error of German words by English speakers, it's "tee", not "tye". Though I don't recall ever hearing someone do that with tiefling.


Because the prefix is exactly like "thief" but with no H, I've always pronounced it as if I was going to pronounce "thief" but leaving the H sound out.

On of my favorite and very minor features in D&D Beyond is that the races have official pronounciation guides now :smallbiggrin: just click the speaker icon next to their name.

"TEE-fling" (https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/tiefling)

[BisectedBrioche]

I just remember it with a joke:

"A martial focused tiefling bloodline should have a free manoeuvrer which allows them to throw a hot beverage with deadly precision; the tea fling!"

[Eldan]

On of my favorite and very minor features in D&D Beyond is that the races have official pronounciation guides now :smallbiggrin: just click the speaker icon next to their name.

"TEE-fling" (https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/tiefling)

Eh.

I don't like WotC pronunciation guides. Especially for planar stuff, which is directly taken from Roman, Greek, middle Eastern, Nordic etc. mythology, but Anglicized and then Americanized so far, the original word is barely recognizeable.

[Batcathat]

I don't like WotC pronunciation guides. Especially for planar stuff, which is directly taken from Roman, Greek, middle Eastern, Nordic etc. mythology, but Anglicized and then Americanized so far, the original word is barely recognizeable.

Considering the concepts the words describe are frequently just as mangled, doing the same to the pronunciation seems kinda fitting. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

The word "fiend" comes from the German "Feind", which is "the enemy" (of mankind), so The Devil.

But "tief" really just means "deep", so I'll guess the idea might be "spawn from the deep", which would imply "hellspawn". The suffix "-ling" is the same in German as in English, so "tiefling" actually looks like it could be a proper German word. (Though one that doesn't exist in any other context.)

Also, since it's the most common pronunciation error of German words by English speakers, it's "tee", not "tye". Though I don't recall ever hearing someone do that with tiefling. Thanks for that, my German recedes the longer I don't use it. (I assumed a Teufel link which you seem to have dispelled).

One idea I really liked from Pathfinder's tieflings is that they might not have fiendish ancestry per se, but were instead tainted by being born near places where fiendish activity was common, or by fiendish pacts made by their ancestors. Also means you can dump the horns and tail. They are not necessary.

I just remember it with a joke:

"A martial focused tiefling bloodline should have a free manoeuvrer which allows them to throw a hot beverage with deadly precision; the tea fling!" :) Barroom brawl, or a tea fight.

Considering the concepts the words describe are frequently just as mangled, doing the same to the pronunciation seems kinda fitting. :smalltongue: Aye. (Which is pronounced 'eye' not 'aay!'

[LibraryOgre]

Halfling... what's a half? ;-)

Personally, I miss 2e's tieflings. While I appreciate that they're getting more play, I want weird-ass tieflings with bizarre features.

[Scots Dragon]

Also means you can dump the horns and tail. They are not necessary.
The fourth edition redesign was so bloody boring.

[Prime32]

The fourth edition redesign was so bloody boring.
Yeah, I like it more when tieflings don't have a consistent appearance (especially the PF version which doesn't even have consistent abilities). Partly because there's a large number of sources for tieflings and it's weird for them all to look the same, partly because it plays better to the "distrusted outcast" themes when they don't have anyone similar to turn to.
But also if they had to pick a consistent appearance, the 4e one isn't the one I'd go with.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, I like it more when tieflings don't have a consistent appearance {snip} Partly because there's a large number of sources for tieflings and it's weird for them all to look the same That's a part of my thematic objection.

[Millstone85]

there's a large number of sources for tieflings and it's weird for them all to look the sameFor some reason, 4e/5e also decided that tieflings came exclusively from devils.

[LibraryOgre]

TBH, I'd use something like a tiefling chassis to create all sorts of planetouched, rather than having separate asimaar and genasi races. In 5e, you might even have them all be subraces.

[Psyren]

TBH, I'd use something like a tiefling chassis to create all sorts of planetouched, rather than having separate asimaar and genasi races. In 5e, you might even have them all be subraces.

If you're interested in ideas, Pathfinder created a bunch of extra planetouched you can peruse, such as Law-planetouched (Aphorites), Chaos-planetouched (Ganzi), Boneyard/Neutral-planetouched (Duskwalkers), Shadow-planetouched (Fetchlings), and quad-element Jann Genasi (Suli).

[Metastachydium]

If you're interested in ideas, Pathfinder created a bunch of extra planetouched you can peruse, such as Law-planetouched (Aphorites), Chaos-planetouched (Ganzi), Boneyard/Neutral-planetouched (Duskwalkers), Shadow-planetouched (Fetchlings), and quad-element Jann Genasi (Suli).

Eh, as is usual on the wacky races front, 3(.5)e easily beats PF in this game. Planetouched races in the former include Zenythri, Mechanatrices and Axani (L); Chaonds and Cansin (C); Shyfts (N); Maeluths (LE); Wisplings (E); Fey'ri and Tanarukks (CE; elf- and orc-based, respectively); Genasi (Air, Water, Fire, Earth); Azerbloods (dwarf/azer); Celadrins (elf/eladrin); D'hin (halfling/djinn); Whorgests (goblin/barghest); Para-Genasi (dust, ice, magma, ooze, salt, steam); technically mephlings (air, water, fire, earth) and I'm probably missing some.

[Scots Dragon]

For some reason, 4e/5e also decided that tieflings came exclusively from devils.

You could fill an entire wiki with the things that fourth edition pointlessly screwed up.

[Anonymouswizard]

You could fill an entire wiki with the things that fourth edition pointlessly screwed up.

And then 5e came along to revert the good changes and keep the bad ones?

Although I don't mind Tieflings all being devilish as much as 1) there being no demonic equivalent* and 2) the fact that they have significantly more standard looks than D&D devils. Plus I just hate the 4e backstory of 'long ago a group of humans made a pact to become something else, now their descendants are hated and feared'. I much, much prefer the classic 'quarter devil' origin and having Planetouched be rare enough that a kingdom might only see a handful every generation.

Although I do like the Planetouched. If I ever play 5e again I've got plans for a Genasi Genie Warlock. They made a pact with their genie ancestor and carry them around in a kettle.

* Kind of understandable in 4e's World Axis cosmology, not in 5e's Great Wheel. Also the other fiend races, but demons are the only ones with as much prominence as devils.

[a_flemish_guy]

I've wondered the same for a long time. But Wikipedia has the answer: "The name, pronounced /ˈtiːflɪŋ/, was derived by Wolfgang Baur from German tief meaning "deep, low", and the suffix -ling, "offspring," alluding to their origins in the "lower planes" (in the 2nd and 3rd editions); it may also allude to Teufel, German for "devil.""

huh, I thought tiefling had the same connotation as changeling where parents would think their real children were stolen and exchanged for evil beings, your's a much cooler explanation
although that means that tiefling ought to be pronounced [deefling] instead of [teefling]


One idea I really liked from Pathfinder's tieflings is that they might not have fiendish ancestry per se, but were instead tainted by being born near places where fiendish activity was common, or by fiendish pacts made by their ancestors.

I remember someone making a good tiefling origin for fall from heaven (a civ4 mod itself derived from a d&d game that some people were trying to convert into a d&d setting)
bassicly the evilest religion in the mod can create a unique building called "stigmata of the unborn" with what that stigmata entails being obscured
some guy picked up on that and decided that's where tieflings came from, it doesn't mean you're evil or that your parents or ancestors did something wrong, somewhere someone in your line just had the rotten luck of being born in a city where all unborn were cursed

[Scots Dragon]

And then 5e came along to revert the good changes and keep the bad ones?

What good changes?

[Anonymouswizard]

What good changes?

Racial powers, healing surges, getting rid of that horrific 3e multiclassing system...

Although thankfully 5e Half-Orcs still make passable Jäegermonsters.

[Berenger]

although that means that tiefling ought to be pronounced [deefling] instead of [teefling]

If you go by modern standard german, the letters T and F are pronounced very sharply in both "tief" and "Teufel", so [teefling] would be correct. In older local dialects, such as colognian, both words are written and pronounced in a much softer way, "deef" and "Deuvel". So I think a case could be made for both pronunciations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One idea I really liked from Pathfinder's tieflings is that they might not have fiendish ancestry per se, but were instead tainted by being born near places where fiendish activity was common, or by fiendish pacts made by their ancestors.


That should work for other planetouched too. An elemental portal, the blessing of an angel... and your bloodline is changed.

This is how I run all of my -touched people. They're not a race as much as a set of individuals influenced by various powers. Including fey, dragons, and other material plane things.

Heck, even half elves are frequently just humans with some elven influence a long time ago who have expressed more of it than normal.

I mean, there are some people whose parents include actual entities from other places. But those tend to be more powerful and more distinct.

[Telok]

Lets see...

One setting had a history of problems with demons so everything demonic looking was "kill on sight" to 95% of all sapients. Nasty shock to the guy who didn't read setting stuff & showed up with a winged tief. The party & goblins allied to kill him part way through the first combat when he took off the concealing cloak.

Another setting had real racial divisions so they were relegated to slave/non-person status along with the mongrel folk, half elves, and half orcs.

Another setting ran all the non-standard non-full blooded races as the result of magical mutations. There they were pitiable mutant second class citizens unless they got corrective magic surgery.

One campaign we kept referring to them as "emo necro corpse fodder", I don't recall why.

In DtD40k7e they're people brain-wiped & mutated by Chaos for use in a never ending war with Order. Of course in that setting assimar are the exact same thing but on the Order side, if with less random mutations and more post-op indoctrination.

[Psyren]

Racial powers, healing surges, getting rid of that horrific 3e multiclassing system...

5e didn't revert to 3e muticlassing, in fact 5e multiclassing is much better (with the tiny exception of multiclass builds being penalized by ASIs being class features now.) You don't gut caster builds by combiing them anymore for instance.

Races still have powers too, and I vastly prefer hit dice to healing surges.

[Anonymouswizard]

5e didn't revert to 3e muticlassing, in fact 5e multiclassing is much better (with the tiny exception of multiclass builds being penalized by ASIs being class features now.) You don't gut caster builds by combiing them anymore for instance.

Races still have powers too, and I vastly prefer hit dice to healing surges.

It made one and a half changes to the 3e multiclassing system as used: generating slots from casting class levels and adding requrings. It's still one class level at a time, and blargh at that point you might as well abandon the idea of classes :smallyuk: give me GURPS level Character Point counting over that.

Also, I really don't think the races get anything comparable to the big powers the 4e races got. Some do, but it's not universal.

As to hit dice, they miss out one of the big benefits of healing surges: they limited healing. That's very different to 5e's hit dice which are just an extra healing resource to ease the 'somebody needs to play a cleric' problem. They're also less reliable than healing surges, take several levels for you to get a decent number, and at higher levels are somewhat more fiddly, but that's a personal preference thing.

[Scots Dragon]

Racial powers, healing surges, getting rid of that horrific 3e multiclassing system...

Spending feats to swap-out abilities barely qualifies as multiclassing at all, so I'd rather have the 3e system in that case.

Honestly as far as multiclassing goes the system in AD&D was best.

[Anonymouswizard]

5e has perfectly good multiclassing already with archetypes like the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Bladesinget. I'd much rather have seen that pursued as the multiclassing model than returning to the horrors of 3e multiclassing.

I think Pathfinder 2e made the right choice by doing Feat-based multiclassing. It does at least let you nab more significant power from your secondary class.

(Let's also not forget that 4e had Hybrid characters, who were closer in concept to AD&D multiclassing.)

[Xervous]

give me GURPS level Character Point counting over that.

Then how many fighters could you make for the price of one wizard?

[Anonymouswizard]

Then how many fighters could you make for the price of one wizard?

It depends, we keeping wizards at their overly powerful D&D level?

[Scots Dragon]

Then how many fighters could you make for the price of one wizard?

Technically? One.

It'd just be a spectacularly powerful fighter.

[Xervous]

It depends, we keeping wizards at their overly powerful D&D level?


Technically? One.

It'd just be a spectacularly powerful fighter.

As Scots Dragon points out it’s mainly a question of how the budgets for various features breaks down. Fighters lacking features in a point buy system naturally translates into high stats/skills

[Anonymouswizard]

As Scots Dragon points out it’s mainly a question of how the budgets for various features breaks down. Fighters lacking features in a point buy system naturally translates into high stats/skills

So getting a couple of low level Fighter superpowers will cost about as much as a Wizard's Margery will. Plus warriors might not care about IQ (which a mage very much does) and care less about HT because they don't have to take any abilities with XP costs. Which means the points a mage is spending on IQ and spells can instead go on ST, DX, and DX-based skills.

A fighter is likely delivering similar damage to a wizard, especially if they've invested in Weapon Master or guns, and have a bunch of mundane skills. Meanwhile mages might have access to a lot of spells, but need to rest to regain FP and the granularity of magic means you likely only have powerful spells from a couple of colleges.

In high CP games mages pull ahead, because the first rank in a spell is cheap and Magery adds to all spell scores. To combat this the game recommends increasing the price of higher levels of Magery.

[Psyren]

It made one and a half changes to the 3e multiclassing system as used: generating slots from casting class levels and adding requrings. It's still one class level at a time, and blargh at that point you might as well abandon the idea of classes :smallyuk: give me GURPS level Character Point counting over that.

5e did much more to multiclassing than that - it's just that some changes actually took place outside of the multiclassing framework itself. For example, Skill Ranks, spell save DCs and BAB are all standardized to character level via the Proficiency Bonus system, so multiclassing and dipping don't wreak havoc with your expected math for hitting things, being decent at checks, and the potency of your magic or even class ability DCs anymore. Same with spell upcasting - which makes spells scale with slot instead of "caster level" now, letting the multiclass slot progression help your spellcasting stay at least relevant even when you're getting fewer high level spells than a straight class build. Cantrips scale with character level too. And above all else, Bounded Accuracy means multiclass builds are unlikely to fall very far behind single class ones on a pure math basis no matter what configuration your build is using, especially at high levels when everyone has the ASIs to is rock a 20 in their main ability score(s).



Also, I really don't think the races get anything comparable to the big powers the 4e races got. Some do, but it's not universal.

I'm perfectly okay with class mattering so much more to build power than race, especially post-Tasha's.


As to hit dice, they miss out one of the big benefits of healing surges: they limited healing. That's very different to 5e's hit dice which are just an extra healing resource to ease the 'somebody needs to play a cleric' problem. They're also less reliable than healing surges, take several levels for you to get a decent number, and at higher levels are somewhat more fiddly, but that's a personal preference thing.

Hit Dice are limited too. You don't get them all back on a long rest, so if you're relying on them exclusively and have no other source of healing, chances are you will run dry during the day. Being less reliable and more swingy is a feature, the intent is that they shouldn't be your only way to heal.

[Bohandas]

5e did much more to multiclassing than that - it's just that some changes actually took place outside of the multiclassing framework itself. For example, Skill Ranks, spell save DCs and BAB are all standardized to character level via the Proficiency Bonus system, so multiclassing and dipping don't wreak havoc with your expected math for hitting things, being decent at checks, and the potency of your magic or even class ability DCs anymore.

Those first two things were already fixed in 3.5e by the optional fractional bonus rules in Unearthed Arcana wherein instead of increasing those numbers on soecific levels, every level increased the score by a fixed amount (so, for example, instead of a wizard's BAB increasing at every even numbered class level, it would increase by 0.5 for every wizard level they took, similarly a cleric or rogue's BAB would increase by 0.75 per cleric level, and a fighter's would increase by 1.0 per fighter level) similarly a class's good save would increase by 0.5 per class level and its bad save would increase by one third per class level, and you could only get the +2 boost for a good save once.

It also handled ability score bonuses fractionally.

(So for example a cleric 1/rogue 1 with 11 strength would have a total melee attack bonus of +2 (0.75+0.75+0.5)

[Psyren]

Those first two things were already fixed in 3.5e by the optional fractional bonus rules in Unearthed Arcana wherein instead of increasing those numbers on soecific levels, every level increased the score by a fixed amount (so, for example, instead of a wizard's BAB increasing at every even numbered class level, it would increase by 0.5 for every wizard level they took, similarly a cleric or rogue's BAB would increase by 0.75 per cleric level, and a fighter's would increase by 1.0 per fighter level) similarly a class's good save would increase by 0.5 per class level and its bad save would increase by one third per class level, and you could only get the +2 boost for a good save once.

It also handled ability score bonuses fractionally.

(So for example a cleric 1/rogue 1 with 11 strength would have a total melee attack bonus of +2 (0.75+0.75+0.5)

The Fractional variant alleviated the issues of dipping, but it didn't prevent different builds from having different attack bonuses or save progressions. And it certainly didn't help with cross-class skill ranks or lower caps. So there are still innovations in 5e multiclassing that improved on 3.5e.

[RedWarlock]

The Fractional variant alleviated the issues of dipping, but it didn't prevent different builds from having different attack bonuses or save progressions. And it certainly didn't help with cross-class skill ranks or lower caps. So there are still innovations in 5e multiclassing that improved on 3.5e.

You call that an innovation, I call it a waste. Having classes with different numerical capabilities is, in my opinion, part of the point of a class, it sets one apart from another. One of several reasons I no longer play 5e at all. Every much-touted "innovation" goes entirely against the grain of what I enjoy. I accept that it's not for me, I just wish it wasn't so ubiquitous.

[LibraryOgre]

You call that an innovation, I call it a waste. Having classes with different numerical capabilities is, in my opinion, part of the point of a class, it sets one apart from another. One of several reasons I no longer play 5e at all. Every much-touted "innovation" goes entirely against the grain of what I enjoy. I accept that it's not for me, I just wish it wasn't so ubiquitous.

Kind of how I feel about 3.x. ;-)

That said, I don't mind the proficiency bonus climbing to be a problem, but I'm not fond of multiple classes combining to your overall caster level, except in specific cases.

[Yakk]

Racial powers, healing surges, getting rid of that horrific 3e multiclassing system...
Yes, "this is something I can do because I'm different" is more fun than "I have a small modifier to a stat" by far.

Healing Surges could have been replaced by HD, and you can retrofit it pretty easily. Just add:
* Whenever you are magically healed (some exceptions: regeneration, heal, power word heal, mass heal) you must also spend a HD. You regain those HP. Cure Wounds can replace the d8 with the HD used if it is larger.
and you get some of the feeling of 4e Healing Surges back. It isn't perfect, because the nice thing about 4e healing surges was that a healing surge was always a good chunk of change; a HD becomes trivial at high levels in 5e.

Although thankfully 5e Half-Orcs still make passable Jäegermonsters.
Bwahaha, I didn't think of that.

I am adding a continent of mad mages who do experimentation of life forms as the source of the half-races (muls, tieflings, half-orcs, half-elves). I can't believe I missed the half-orc Jaegermonster link.


5e didn't revert to 3e muticlassing, in fact 5e multiclassing is much better (with the tiny exception of multiclass builds being penalized by ASIs being class features now.) You don't gut caster builds by combiing them anymore for instance.
It undid the improvement, which is "you don't get to spend a single level to replicate the years of training a level 1 PC represents".

Races still have powers too, and I vastly prefer hit dice to healing surges.
In 4e, racial powers where (intended to be) quite beefy. It didn't always work.

Race+Theme in 4e should have been (Race+Background) in 5e in scale I think. And replacing "Race" with a combined "Race+Background" would have been prescient I think.

Spending feats to swap-out abilities barely qualifies as multiclassing at all, so I'd rather have the 3e system in that case.
So 4e multiclassing was deeper than that.

The first feat would get you a version of the other class's core class feature, and gives you access to the 4e equivalents of subclasses (paragon paths, feats and epic destinies).

You could take more than one "first feat" that got you more weaker versions of the other class's features.

The power swap feats where not top-tier, but the ability to pick the best power from a brand new large menu is actually a significant thing. You'd swap out your least useful power for the most useful in the other class. I do admit it is a feels-bad option, and it requires expertise to use well, and even used well it isn't always amazing.

But there is a 4e epic destiny (L 21-30 subclass) whose feature is "pick powers from any class", and it is quite honestly broken good.

Honestly as far as multiclassing goes the system in AD&D was best.
Dual classing for humans, multiclassing for everyone else? Except only a random subset per race.

One issue, which is both an advantage and disadvantage, is that it pushes the decision to level 1. This is a narrative advantage in that it makes sense (your years of practice etc). The disadvantage is that it doesn't allow for in-game changes in the career path of a character at all.

That could be retrofitted via feats I suppose.

[LibraryOgre]

One issue, which is both an advantage and disadvantage, is that it pushes the decision to level 1. This is a narrative advantage in that it makes sense (your years of practice etc). The disadvantage is that it doesn't allow for in-game changes in the career path of a character at all.


One of my design preferences is for most of the major choices are made at character creation. If you start as a fighter, you're going to continue to be a fighter your entire career, even if you learn some things along the way that differentiate you from other fighters.

While 3e multiclassing allows the illusion that you might change paths, the reality is that the most mechanically effective builds require pre-planning, often from level 1, and that combining different classes could mechanically cripple you (https://www.goblinscomic.com/comic/09022005/). 4e multiclassing really offered that flexibility. Want to be kind of a cleric? Take the cleric multiclassing feat, and you can do some cleric things. You're well behind a real cleric, but you're only slightly behind another member of your class (who picked a better feat, of which there were few). You see the same in 5e feats... you can be a minor cleric by taking the Magic Initiate feat, even if that's not necessarily your best option.

To me, the greatest difficulty of 2e multiclassing was the XP requirements. While, in the long run, you'd only be a level or so behind a single-classed character, that is a LONG level when you're at level 1.

My personal favorite version of multiclassing, however, may actually be Hackmaster's... each multiclass is a distinct class, incorporating part of each of its progenitors. A Fighter/Thief has a d8 HD, not a thief's d6s or a Fighter's d10. A Fighter/Mage starts only able to cast Apprentice spells (compared to a Mage's Apprentice, Journeyman, and 1st level), and will top out at 10th level, not 20th level spells, with about half the spell points... but they can put on heavy armor, if they need to (armor messes up spellcasting). Clerics don't really multiclass, but many are, in effect, multiclasses. The priests of the House of Knives are assassin/clerics. Halls of the Valiant are fighter/clerics. I've even made a couple classes by just mashing two together, and deciding what can be dropped and what can be kept.

ETA: Ah, this brings something to mind! 5e has, essentially, 3 types of multiclassing.

1) Take a level in another class. My least favorite.
2) Take a subclass that represents your multiclass... an Eldritch Knight or Trickery Cleric, for example.
3) Take a feat which gives you some abilities of the other class. Less than 2, but still a part of it.

[Psyren]

You call that an innovation, I call it a waste. Having classes with different numerical capabilities is, in my opinion, part of the point of a class, it sets one apart from another. One of several reasons I no longer play 5e at all. Every much-touted "innovation" goes entirely against the grain of what I enjoy. I accept that it's not for me, I just wish it wasn't so ubiquitous.

5e classes are numerically different, it's just not due to proficiency bonus. A monk for example isn't distinguished by arbitrarily being less accurate than a fighter, they're distinguished by needing Flurry of Blows to get the same number of attacks they get. That carries more interesting tradeoffs than simply getting hit with an empty handicap.


Kind of how I feel about 3.x. ;-)

Indeed.



It undid the improvement, which is "you don't get to spend a single level to replicate the years of training a level 1 PC represents".


Uh what? You could do that in 3e too. If anything 5e is better by not letting you dip Wizard with negative Int. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0127.html)

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes, "this is something I can do because I'm different" is more fun than "I have a small modifier to a stat" by far.

Yeah, I loved it in 13th Age when races were mostly boiled down to +2 to one of two stats and a nice big 4e style power. It makes being a Dwarf Wizard more meaningful.


Healing Surges could have been replaced by HD, and you can retrofit it pretty easily. Just add:
* Whenever you are magically healed (some exceptions: regeneration, heal, power word heal, mass heal) you must also spend a HD. You regain those HP. Cure Wounds can replace the d8 with the HD used if it is larger.
and you get some of the feeling of 4e Healing Surges back. It isn't perfect, because the nice thing about 4e healing surges was that a healing surge was always a good chunk of change; a HD becomes trivial at high levels in 5e.

Oh, it's not hard to get it back, but the fact that you begin with one rather than 6+ basically stops low level healing


Bwahaha, I didn't think of that.

I am adding a continent of mad mages who do experimentation of life forms as the source of the half-races (muls, tieflings, half-orcs, half-elves). I can't believe I missed the half-orc Jaegermonster link.

To be fair I only worked it out when I started brainstorming a Jäegermonster race. It's not perfect, but any missing abilities can be fixed with things like feats.


ETA: Ah, this brings something to mind! 5e has, essentially, 3 types of multiclassing.

1) Take a level in another class. My least favorite.
2) Take a subclass that represents your multiclass... an Eldritch Knight or Trickery Cleric, for example.
3) Take a feat which gives you some abilities of the other class. Less than 2, but still a part of it.

I think 2 and 3 combined pretty much solve my multiclassing desires. I don't see what Hexblade dips really addto that.

Beyond that I'd rather just play something like GURPS, Fate, or M&M.

But if D&D wants to keep system 1, it really needs to stop front loading classes.

[LibraryOgre]

1) Take a level in another class. My least favorite.
2) Take a subclass that represents your multiclass... an Eldritch Knight or Trickery Cleric, for example.
3) Take a feat which gives you some abilities of the other class. Less than 2, but still a part of it.



I think 2 and 3 combined pretty much solve my multiclassing desires. I don't see what Hexblade dips really addto that.

Beyond that I'd rather just play something like GURPS, Fate, or M&M.

But if D&D wants to keep system 1, it really needs to stop front loading classes.

I think dips are one of the bigger issues... so many builds in 3.x and 5e that are "Take X levels in Y, then 1 level in Z to get a specific feature, then the rest of your levels in Y."

And it's almost always the same Z. "Oh, a paladin/hexblade dip will make this character really cool."

[Telok]

I think dips are one of the bigger issues... so many builds in 3.x and 5e that are "Take X levels in Y, then 1 level in Z to get a specific feature, then the rest of your levels in Y."

And it's almost always the same Z. "Oh, a paladin/hexblade dip will make this character really cool."

Well there are two things going on in 5e, covering character concepts and stat/magic synergy.

Sometimes you have an idea for a character that could be represented by a subclass once it gets a feature at level 5 or 6 or so, or is partially represented by two subclasses of the same class. If you can drop one or two levels into another class and have a better & earlier representation of the character... great. Or you just don't get to play that concept if you can't multiclass.

Synergy is just that. If there is a matching stat on another class and it patches a weakness, hole, or is a straight upgrade over what the current class has... then its hard to say "I want my character to be weaker or less fun". Notably its only an issue with spells & magic. All the mundane warrior stuff is written to not work with anything else. Like 90% of the reason nobody ever considers fighter5/barb5 is extra attack being worded to not stack. But spell slots... those stack. And especially enticing is extra short rest slots on half & third casters, with an extra plus for paladins aura + casting off the same stat as warlock & sorc.

In 3.x it was more that the abilities you wanted for a particular prestige class were often easier & faster to get if you dipped something else. Which wss basically both the issues for 5e rolled into one.

What I think would have been interesting instead of the 5e multiclass model would have been to let you take a different class base as your subclass. When you should get another subclass feature you get the next level of the other class. I'm not sure it woukd work with the current subckass feature rate, but if it had been incorporated from the start you coukd have set up the subclasses so they would choose between fighter20(eldrich knight) and fighter20(none)/wizard9(none).

[LibraryOgre]

What I think would have been interesting instead of the 5e multiclass model would have been to let you take a different class base as your subclass. When you should get another subclass feature you get the next level of the other class. I'm not sure it woukd work with the current subckass feature rate, but if it had been incorporated from the start you coukd have set up the subclasses so they would choose between fighter20(eldrich knight) and fighter20(none)/wizard9(none).

I've kind of tried that with some of my homebrew (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641718-Fighter-Subclass-Crusader)... basically, designing subclasses that get some of the features of another class. To an extent, this is what Eldritch Knight, War Cleric, and Bladesinger do, but I would love to expand it. I kind of want to do a monkish rogue, a thief-acrobat, but the thief subclass really takes most of the features I want. A monk that has maneuvers like a battlemaster. A fighter who is a bit druid.

This is kind of evident in Hackmaster, as I mentioned. For example, priests of the Traveller and the Hunter could both be considered Ranger/Cleric multiclasses... but the Traveler gets the skill aspects of the ranger, while the Golden Arrows pick up the missile weapon options.

[Beleriphon]

The tief are the mostly white things in your mouth that let you chew and bite and stuff.

Looks like we found the Space Ork. Get the heavy bolter fellas. :smallbiggrin:

[Yakk]

=4e multiclassing really offered that flexibility. Want to be kind of a cleric? Take the cleric multiclassing feat, and you can do some cleric things. You're well behind a real cleric, but you're only slightly behind another member of your class (who picked a better feat, of which there were few). You see the same in 5e feats... you can be a minor cleric by taking the Magic Initiate feat, even if that's not necessarily your best option.
My personal favorite version of multiclassing, however, may actually be Hackmaster's... each multiclass is a distinct class, incorporating part of each of its progenitors. A Fighter/Thief has a d8 HD, not a thief's d6s or a Fighter's d10. A Fighter/Mage starts only able to cast Apprentice spells (compared to a Mage's Apprentice, Journeyman, and 1st level), and will top out at 10th level, not 20th level spells, with about half the spell points... but they can put on heavy armor, if they need to (armor messes up spellcasting). Clerics don't really multiclass, but many are, in effect, multiclasses. The priests of the House of Knives are assassin/clerics. Halls of the Valiant are fighter/clerics. I've even made a couple classes by just mashing two together, and deciding what can be dropped and what can be kept.

ETA: Ah, this brings something to mind! 5e has, essentially, 3 types of multiclassing.

1) Take a level in another class. My least favorite.
2) Take a subclass that represents your multiclass... an Eldritch Knight or Trickery Cleric, for example.
3) Take a feat which gives you some abilities of the other class. Less than 2, but still a part of it.

4e had Hybrid, which was a lot like 2e/Hackmaster. Here you got a reduced set of class features from both half classes, and an option to get a single extra bundle as a feat.

It worked pretty well. Some combos where difficult to play, however.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Some combos where difficult to play, however.

As well they should have been. Both on thematic grounds and mechanical ones. Hybriding the "I'm a sneaky shadow" and "I'm a big clanky knight" classes should be awkward mechanically. Hybriding the "I made a deal with the devil" and "I'm a holy holy holy knight of holyness" classes (all hypothetically) should be awkward thematically.

This isn't to say impossible, just a (justified) much higher bar to clear.