Rather than continue to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge the way a rule works even after pointing them to a page that explains the rule, I spent a few hours with some friends doing another 5e playtest.  What I came away with on this session was class structure, and how multi-classing might be going away.

First I have to put a disclaimer that I don't play 4e, so I don't know if they got rid of multi-classing in that edition.  If they did, just take this FWIW.

We already know that in 5e, you have your class, your background with skills and traits, and specialties.

In this session, we did some character generation and ran them through Reclaiming Blingdenstone.

Observations:

You can come up with some really cool combinations that make multi-classing unnecessary.  At least at levels 1-5 that the playtest covers.  Here were some examples:

Mountain Dwarf Fighter, Sage background, Acolyte specialty.  This is essentially a fighter/cleric, or a paladin.  He was a an educated holy warrior.  A class that was excellent at fighting, very knowledgeable about lore, and could cast minor cleric spells.  Unlike the AD&D paladin, you didn't have to wait until 9th level or whatever to cast 1st level spells.  Your holy power was there at 1st level.  Sure, you didn't increase in cleric casting ability, but you did get the ability at level 3 to make your weapons do holy damage.

Hill Dwarf thief, thug background, lurker.  The equivalent of an assassin, or fighter/thief.  Wasn't good at opening locks or disarming traps.  But with his stealth, increased damage die with axes, and increased hit points,  one tough individual who surprised you and split your skull before you knew what happened.

High elf cleric, bounty hunter background, archer specialty.  Cleric/Fighter or druid or even ranger.  Elf race gives automatic die increase with bows and swords, combined with archery specialty makes you a great ranged combatant.  Combined with clerical spells and the elf's ability to use minor arcane spells creates one of the best well rounded classes.

High elf thief, spy background, arcane dabbler specialty.  Magic user/thief.  This really shines when you get your familiar, which can grant you several advantages, especially for a spy.

I'm really looking forward to seeing higher level abilities and how they wash out.  But as it stands, I am intrigued by the combinations you can have, and not from a min/maxing perspective, but from an adventuring and background perspective.  For example, in AD&D, you had to have really good attributes to be a holy warrior (either paladin or fighter/cleric).  Now you don't, and can have a character that fits that vision pretty well.

I'd noticed the same.

In fact, I'd wondered if the "extra" classes would even be present (Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Druid, etc)...the only thing that makes me think they might be is the addition of Sorcerer and Warlock in the last revision and the mention of races that aren't currently in the rules let (gnomes, half-orcs and half-elves). Still, you're right...if you use Backgrounds and Specialties, you can get a lot of customization for a little effort, making for some thematically interesting PCs.

I'm pretty sure the paladin, ranger, druid, and monk will be included since they included the sorcerer and warlock.  Like those two, the other four are in the second tier of "core" classes, so if you're gonna have sorcerer and warlock, might as well have the other four as well.

I'm sure you're right...I'm just not sure they're needed (and I say this as someone who is a big fan of Paladins and Rangers). In the character generation for my upcoming playtest, one player made a Lawful Good Human Fighter with the Knight and Acolyte Background and Specialty. Sure looks a lot like a Paladin to me.

I don't disagree at all.  I'd like to see "wilderness something" as a background, which would essentially replace the ranger class.  If the knight background included things like bonuses to mounted combat at higher levels, and the acolyte specialty include things like divine inspiration to buff your character, then the paladin could go the wayside as well.

I think the whole sorcerer class as a unique class was put in to appease the dragonborn fans, since that's essentially what the class turns into when it runs out of spell points.

4e didn't have real multiclassing in a way comparable to either 1e/2e or 3e.  It was done through Feats.  You took a 'multiclass feat' which had moderate ability score prerequisits,  gave you one of the class features of another class.  You then took additional feats to get the 'powers' of that other class in exchange for the ones your actual class gave you.

The system was pretty terrible, causing them to release a 'hybrid' system which was more like the 1e/2e multiclassing of demihumans, but was still confusing and more often than not made for a worse character just like the multiclassing.  Coloring outside the lines in 4e basically just came with built-in penalties.  You had to 'pay' to play something that the 4e devs didn't cook up personally, and play the way it was intended to be played by them.

 The "Next" playtest stuff you are describing sounds similar to Pathfinder, which still has 3e multiclassing and PrCs, but also has "Archetypes" which work a lot like the kits from 2e, which slightly alter a particular classes theme and switches out the standard class abilities for alternate, or more specialized ones.  There are also 'Traits' as well, which sound like a rough analogue for Next's Backgrounds.

I'm willing to bet that "Next" will have multiclassing though.  It doesn't matter if the option gets used much, as long as it is there, because I think that was one of the big sticking points in 4e for a lot of people and I think it's probably going to be unacceptable to release the system without multiclassing.

An interesting observation by the OP.

On the subject of Warlocks and Sorcerors, they have been included specifically for people who don't like Vancian magic. Sorcerors use a power point type mechanic, whilst Warlocks are more similar to the At Will / Encounter / Daily model introduced for 4e.

And just because they are there doesn't automatically mean that Paladins or Rangers will be, IMO. Seems like the background and speciality are used to layer on flavour, whilst the class controls your fundamental mechanics.

So the question is - what different rules would a Paladin need over a fighter / cleric mash up? And the same for a Ranger or Bard?

I can see a Druid needing fundamentally different mechanics to a cleric to accommodate the wild shape ability, but the others aren't mechanically very distinct.

Quote from: dbm;581247So the question is - what different rules would a Paladin need over a fighter / cleric mash up? And the same for a Ranger or Bard?.

For paladin, I can see them losing the combat superiority dice that the fighter has, and instead has a list of divine inspirations, for a lack of a better term.  To pull from the classic paladin, these would be things like poison/disease immunity, smite evil, saving throw bonuses, etc.

Ranger would be the same as far as not having combat superiority.  That would be a fighter only trait.  This one is a lot harder to do since most ranger stuff would be able to be replicated by a woodsman background.  Maybe you give them things like their favored enemy and access to certain spell effects, like the travel domain in 3e.

Bard is easy.  Just have them have a bunch of spells that are invoked by playing music or singing, like in older editions.  They wouldn't need to memorize spells either (since singers shouldn't forget the lyrics to every song).  All spells would have to be mind effecting though; no magic missiles or stuff like that.  To offset, give them better fighting capability.

One problem I've always seen with multi-classing is that its almost impossible to make a system where the multiclass character will be just as good as the non-multiclassed character.

You can fairly easily make a system where, mechanically speaking, multiclassing is a kind of sub-optimal choice, where the price you are paying for multiclassing offsets the very specific benefits you get from it, and this is really how it probably ought to be.

But when you do this, you get a bunch of powergamers complaining that this makes multiclassing "useless", and so it becomes tempting for the designer to create a system where multiclassing is actually the superior choice over playing a single class, where the guy who plays a F3/Ranger2/Thief1/Paladin1 is going to be superior to the sucker who just plays a F7.  And of course, this is royally fucked up, because it ruins a bunch of setting elements, mainly that the guys who want to play the archetypal character ("the fighter", "the wizard", "the Thief") are actually punished for that in favor of people playing character that are basically Nothing, they're unidentifiable and make no sense as characters but are mechanically superior.

So if it was up to me, my top option would be that there be no multiclassing.  

RPGPundit

I'm sympathetic to that POV. If the solution to solve the multiclassing conundrum is to nuke multiclassing out the game, so be it, AFAIC.

From what I see, I think the game is set up to get rid of multi-classing while at the same time allowing someone to have an archetype that would be a multi-class in a previous edition.  And I like that.  I think it could appeal to those people who like "builds" while at the same time getting a reign on those powergamers who try to do builds based solely on DPS or some other ridiculous metric even if it makes no reasonable sense in the setting.

I too like the new system. Am currently playing a Fighter with the Sage and Magic user traits and love kicking in the door with charged-up gear.

A good combo of versatility and simplicity.

Always thought that in 3.5D&D there was a Prestige Class for every sucky build or multiclass combo.

Quote from: RPGPundit;581555So if it was up to me, my top option would be that there be no multiclassing.  

RPGPundit

I love options.  Not every character I've come across in fiction or seen on the silver screen, or even depicted in art is easily defined by a single 'archetypal class' in traditional D&D.

And of course some combination of fighter/wizard is archetypal as well.  While that could be represented with a base class, I haven't seen that done well in any version of D&D.  

If there are enough 'options' to 'stretch' a character class to fill a particular role, I'd be pretty satisfied, but that really takes a lot of work.  Easy, intuitive, and balanced multi-classing would be my preference.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;581592I love options.  Not every character I've come across in fiction or seen on the silver screen, or even depicted in art is easily defined by a single 'archetypal class' in traditional D&D.

And of course some combination of fighter/wizard is archetypal as well.  While that could be represented with a base class, I haven't seen that done well in any version of D&D.  

If there are enough 'options' to 'stretch' a character class to fill a particular role, I'd be pretty satisfied, but that really takes a lot of work.  Easy, intuitive, and balanced multi-classing would be my preference.

If they break down these little class-components into feats for those of us that want to tinker, they'll be feat dips rather than a third of your class. It could actually be even more flexible than 3x multiclassing. Hell, if the math behind it is right, it can mean an easy classless-but-still-leveled variant.

I'd consider that a win for both audiences, if they can just get it functioning properly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;581555So if it was up to me, my top option would be that there be no multiclassing.  

RPGPundit

While I don't think I agree with him for the same reasons I stand with RPGPundit on this one. I took it out of the game I am making though I acknowledge that a lot of people like it. I've tried to, instead, look at "why" people want to multiclass. Most of the time it is for the extra options, to fill out a character concept, for optimization, perhaps to fit something that happened in the campaign that would constitute a radical change (Cleric/Paladin losing faith and doing something else). I find it infinitely better to instead reduce/eliminate the need to multiclass to do these tasks. I feel a similar way about Prestige Classes.