TheRPGSite

Title says it all.  Double (or more) the experience needed and get the benefits of both without numerical stacking (just take the best).  What will be the end result?

Personally, my gut tells me there is too much new school in 5e and the combination of card...err power and ability synergies will ruin the concept, but my basic DM attitude is fuck it, Roll with it and see what happens and as I read it 5e is showing me it's more flexible then it appears.  Just wondering if anyone had already looked at this and come up with any massive pitfalls.

Since things rarely stack it would be weaker then it appears because of the experience point penalty. I see no real difference from the RAW except that you'd be 5/5  while everyone else is at 20 levels in some variation if I'm reading your proposal correctly.

I voted based on the promised potential. :p (god, I just love that polling option, every time!)

You'd have to cap the characters at 10, or whatever combo equalling 20 you get. Otherwise they will eventually overpower past the standard multiclassers.

"And if the elf can do it why not the humans too?" Someone will inevitibly ask.

The other problem is that the EXP progression would be off I think.

128000 EXP to hit level 10/10 in a multi classing elf for example. vs 355000 EXP for a standard 5e dual classing character.

Lets say you went 6/7/7. That is 42000 XP + 46000 XP = 88000 XP
5/5/5/5? Thats 26000 XP.
4/4/4/4/4? 13500 XP. The character going the regular route has not even hit level 4 yet...

Looking at it again it depends on what is stackable or not if everything is allowed it might be too powerful especially at low-mid levels since you would top out at 15/15 or 12/12/12 or 11/11/11/11 at 2x exp. I would probably reintroduce racial class restrictions at least and likely level limits if you did nothing else.

Well, I think you'll run into what was, in 3.5, the monk's problem: You'll have lots of options, but they'll be less effective because it'll be a smattering of lower-level abilities. But I admit my instinct for balance isn't too keenly honed. I think there's no reason you couldn't give it a shot, though.

It's basically 3.x Gestalt rules with an attempt to "balance" them with single-class characters with XP penalties/level adjustment.

I prefer the 5e multi-classing rules as they are. The restriction to 20 levels total, the rarity of "dead" levels and the escalating nature of most class features already does a good job of balancing multi-classing.

I agree unlike pre 3x style multiclassing it isn't the obvious best choice if available and in fact looks like the inferior choice which probably means they got it just about right.

the problem with old school multi-classing was that it was vastly over powered.

The xp curver meant that a F/MU was 5/5 by the time the Mu or the F were 6th the criticality of armour until high level magic could replace it and the advantage of a wealth of options means multiclassing was always the best wya to go.

Demi hmans were always tougher and the game imposed balance of racial level limits were arbitrary, anti-immersive and in effective when 99% of PCs never made it past 8th level.


so on that basis why strive to bring them back?

Striving, eh? :rolleyes:
Why? Because when we played back in the day, none of my players ever whined about how the Demi-humans were better, all the most powerful characters in the campaign ended up being humans, multiclasses always seemed to be more organic then the CharOp dipping stupidity of swapping careers back and forth, and one of my players asked about playing a dwarves fighter/cleric?

Quote from: Marleycat;790328I agree unlike pre 3x style multiclassing it isn't the obvious best choice if available and in fact looks like the inferior choice which probably means they got it just about right.

There are some cases where multi-classing can be very interesting even under the restrictive 5e RAW (like Bladelock + Paladin/Eldritch Knight/Bard of Valor), but even they come with significant sacrifices.

I don't want to imagine what havoc a Gestalt Bladelock/[Bard of Valor/Eldritch Knight/Paladin] 20 could create, even if he would need twice the time to get to that point.

Heres a different way of going at it.

Take two levels and add up the EXP two levels at a time.
1/1 = -
2/2 = 3600 (or 3900)
3/3 = 20500
4/4 = 57000
5/5 = 112000
6/6 = 185000
7/7 = 260000
8/8 = 360000
9/9 = 490000
10/10= 660000

Youd advance at about the same rate as a regular dual classer. Just hitting that same equivalent level a bit later.

Can we just get on with giving the Denners massive strokes?

Quote from: LibraryLass;790206Well, I think you'll run into what was, in 3.5, the monk's problem: You'll have lots of options, but they'll be less effective because it'll be a smattering of lower-level abilities. But I admit my instinct for balance isn't too keenly honed. I think there's no reason you couldn't give it a shot, though.

Bounded accuracy will help with the lower level abilities staying relevant. Attack bonuses and defenses don't like they did in 3E. No matter what combo of classes you take, your proficiency bonus won't be higher than +6 at effective character level 20.

Uh, this is a total fuck-up.  REAL Old-school doesn't have Multi-classing!

Quote from: BillDowns;790526Uh, this is a total fuck-up.  REAL Old-school doesn't have Multi-classing!

What real old school would that be? Braunstien?

3 LBB OD&D had multi-classing so what you are talking about has to pre-date that.

I'm optimistic. So far, the 5e rules have demonstrated that the designers more or less get what was wrong-- or right-- with each previous edition, and I suspect these multiclassing variant rules will uphold that.

Hell, give me old-school multiclassing and a way to combine subclasses-- that works-- and I might just be even happier with the new edition.

with subclasses like eldrich knight and arcane trickster and later we will get battle trained wizards etc why do you need to multiclass?

What does an Elvish Figther /MU give you that an Eldrich Knight doesn't?

What does a F/MU/Th give you you can't get from a Eldrich knight with a charlatan background doesn't?

3e had old school style multiclassing, they just called it "Gestalt" and you didn't average the hit points, but used the best one.

Quote from: BillDowns;790526Uh, this is a total fuck-up.  REAL Old-school doesn't have Multi-classing!

Well, 5e doesn't have multi-classing in the core Basic rules. Nor does it have it in the main section on character creation of the PHB. They don't show up until an optional later chapter.

Quote from: jibbajibba;790666with subclasses like eldrich knight and arcane trickster and later we will get battle trained wizards etc why do you need to multiclass?

What does an Elvish Figther /MU give you that an Eldrich Knight doesn't?

What does a F/MU/Th give you you can't get from a Eldrich knight with a charlatan background doesn't?

That's actually a good question. The classes seem, so far overall, well thought out and heavily back-loaded with goodies. With built-in class specialization, the incentive to multi-class seems far less than it previously did.

Quote from: jibbajibba;790666with subclasses like eldrich knight and arcane trickster and later we will get battle trained wizards etc why do you need to multiclass?

What does an Elvish Figther /MU give you that an Eldrich Knight doesn't?

What does a F/MU/Th give you you can't get from a Eldrich knight with a charlatan background doesn't?

My preference would be to allow AT/EK subclasses to have the Paladin's spell progression and spells known and maximum 3 attacks for the EK while being 1/2 casters and that would satisfy me far better.

Better yet some kind of Bladesinger/Sword Dancer built off the Cleric/Wizard instead of the Fighter if we had any of those options multiclassing might never be used.