One of the things I really liked about AD&D 2nd Edition was dual classing. It might not have been balanced (was anything?), but it seemed like a really cool idea. Since 5th edition came out I've been pondering the best way to try to implement it and now that I've had time to play 5th ed I figured I'd give it a shot.
Dual Classing
Dual classing allows you to take 2 levels in 2 classes. You still use the standard XP progression, but must split the XP evenly between each class. In order to qualify for being a dual classed PC, you must select them at level 1 and meet the multiclass ability score minimum for both classes.
Dual Classed PCs get:
- Hit Dice: You get hit dice from both classes.
- Highest HP from either class.
- Armour: Proficiencies from both classes.
- Weapons: Proficiencies from both classes.
- Tools: Proficiencies from both classes.
- Saving Throws: Proficiency in the saving throws of the class of your choice.
- Skills: You are proficient in 2 skills from either class (3 skills if one of your classes is either bard or ranger, 4 skills if one of the classes is rogue).
- Equipment: You get equipment from one of the classes (your choice).
- Class Features: You get classes from both classes.
- Spells Known: You know spells as determined by both classes.
- Extra Attack: Your extra attacks do not stack. Instead you get the best one from either class.
- Spell Slots: You calculate your spell slots according to either class (your choice).
My reasoning for getting both hit die is to help make the character more durable, which will also be helped by getting quicker access to feats/ability score boosters. Spells I'm unsure about as it seems to neuter them a fair bit compared to single classed spellcasters.
I don't expect it to be perfectly balanced against single classed characters (or 5e multiclassed characters) but there should be enough advantages to help make up for the disadvantages and to bring the character "close enough" to be on par with other characters. Obviously some dual classed combinations will be better than others.
What do people think?
Why not simply multi-class 2 classes? i.e. fighter 5/wizard 5.
You get 95% of the same without screwing with balance.
JohnLynch wrote:
What you're describing is multiclassing. Dual classing was where you abandon ever increasing your levels in one class and start leveling in another. It also had the drawback that if you used your old class's abilities during the adventure you only received half the experience you otherwise would have, until your new class is one level higher than your old class.
Dual classing in 5th is better, as you simply multiclass into a new class, with no penalty for using your old class's abilities during an adventure. You also continue to have your proficiency bonus increase with total levels as opposed to your THAC0 starting over. It does come at the expense of continuing on the level progression instead of starting at level 1 in the new class, but that helps keep it balanced with characters that only take levels in one class. With 5th edition you also have to pay close attention to the number of hit dice a character has access to as they are used during short rests to regain HP, whereas 2nd edition had no such mechanic.
If you're looking at simply increasing PC durability you could always rule they get the maximum value for their hit dice when they level (so a fighter aways gets 10 + con mod per level, a cleric always gets 8 + con mod, etc). Or you could have them level up as monsters who take class levels do, as they'd have more hit points for their challenge rating than they would if leveled up as RAW PCs, though their hit dice would be based on their size instead of their class. Gnomes and hobbits halflings would have a hit die of d6, while all of the other races would have a d8 hit die.
This reminds me, loosely, of the 3.5 variant known as Gestalt. Which might be a good model to use, given the rather strong similarities between 3.5 and 5e on a mechanical level - in fact, a quick search shows that people here have been proposing a 5e gestalt variant, largely with the same motivations as the original article. (Largely, the biggest difference is in how you handle spell slots; the easiest way would be to consider each class as adding a certain number of levels to your multiclass spell progression (1:1 for full casters, 1:2 for paladins and rangers, and 1:3 for eldritch knights and arcane tricksters), and picking the best progression at every level (so a gestalt fighter(EK) // wizard would have the same progression as a wizard, while a gestalt rogue (AT) // ranger has the progression of a ranger.)
Note that gestalt was designed as a high-power, high-stamina variant in a game with existing multiclassing, and that some players found clever ways of using it to address power imbalances between the classes (in 3.5, fighters were much weaker than wizards, but if taking a wizard level meant taking a wizard level, while choosing fighter let you gestalt that specific level with another class of similar power, the tradeoff got more interesting. Not ideal, as magic was just that freaking powerful in 3.5, but still).
That said, your specific variant is basically the same as existing 5e multiclassing, except you level up in each class simultaneously instead of sequentially. (Also, strictly speaking, this is the 2e "multiclassing" that you're trying to model, not its "dual classing"; I always mixed that up too.)
Not workable in a mixed group.
The exp-drain slows progression of the prof bonus which is pretty much the mathematical cornerstone of the game. This creates a nasty situation through the mid game where the player either ignores one side of the progression or runs way behind on prof bonus. Then at higher levels becomes just flat out better as they can continue advancing after everyone else stops.
Simply put this kind of dual track progression only works if everybody does it or you trim down the tracks to be fused. So either go gestalt and the whole party does it, or you have to create a hybrid version of each class that's a trimmed down verion of the original and you can progress in two hybrids at the same rate as one full class.
The 4e hydrid was a nice option, IMO. I wouldn't mind seeing 'half classes' at some point in 5e so that's an option as well.
Although, one of my fantasies when the Devs were first talking about a modular edition to end all editions, I was imagining something in the DMG for building classes out of parts of existing classes. I still want my Lego brick D&D, dammit. 
Then, experienced players and patient DMs could just all make classes from scratch.
I like that idea.
The original gestalt ruyles in 3.5 UA book treated the PCs 1 level higher in terms of what they cold take on and you had 2 classes with the best features of both classes. Everyone was dual classed though the rules were not intended for 1 PC to have a normal class in the same party.
So you have both classes take the best HD of the class, you are proficinet in all the saves of both classes and the profincecy bonus is the same as well. YOu get all the class abiliites of both classes as well. Throw the rule book out for encounters.
I definitely prefer the idea of a 4E hybrid to Gestalt. I think it would actually be pretty easy (although I'm not sure how balanced it would be).
Choose two classes. At first level, you gain the weapon proficiencies, shield proficiencies and tool proficiencies of both classes. You gain a number of skills equal to whichever class provides the most, and you can choose from both classes' lists. You gain armor proficiencies of the most restrictive class. You choose one saving throw proficiency from each of your classes, and your starting hit points are the average the two classes provide (rounded down).
Your hit dice are equal to the average of your two classes (rounded down to an even number).
You may only gain the Channel Divinity, Extra Attack, and Unarmored Defense features of one of your classes.
If your class has the spellcasting or pact magic class feature, your spells per day are equal to those of either class (your choice). If you have both spellcasting and pact magic, you may not take the Mystic Arcanum class feature if you use the spells per day from your other class. You may cast spells from either class using your spell slots, although the casting ability and saving throw DC is still based on whichever class you learn the spell from.
At first level and each time you gain a character level, choose either of your classes; you gain the class features, spells known a character of that class at that level would gain. If your class gains cantrips, you still gain them, even if you do not choose that class at first level.
For your class features and abilities, effects relating to class level are equal to your character level.
You may not multiclass.
For example. Shalin is a Fighter/Mage Hybrid.
She is proficient with all weapons, with no armor, and shields. Her hit points are equal to 8 + her Constitution modifier, and her hit die is a d8. She chooses Constitution and Wisdom as her saving throw proficiencies.
At level 1 she chooses fighter, and gains the Fighting Style and Second Wind class features. She knows 3 wizard cantrips and has 2 level 1 spell slots, but knows no first-level spells.
At second level, she can choose to gain the Action Surge class feature, or to gain the Arcane Tradition class feature and learn a first level spell.
No, I have little faith that a template would work. You'd need to carve down each class individually.
these sound like the gestalt rules that were whispered to be in the DMG during playtesting. i'm crossing my fingers that they'll end up in a future Unearthed Arcana as i think the idea is cool and it would have been fun to try a character like that.
Personally? If my friends wanted Gestalt rules, I'd just have them start at level 2 with 2 classes, (maybe even max health for both classes). For skills just have them take 2 less (so a Rogue/Bard doesn't lose anything).
Whenever they'd level up, they'd just go up 2 levels instead. Not much muss, very little fuss. Balancing encounters is easy enough, too. That is, up until they hit about 13/13. Then again, they're basically gods amongst men at that point!
A 5th ed version of a 4E hybrid though would be a bit more...delicate.
Tim your gestalt suggestion confuses me ar eyou talkign about using the multi-class rules or what?
rampant wrote:
Hybrid rules were trully godly.
I'm not sure how they'd handle subclasses, though... Maybe "Whenever you'd gain a feature in a subclass, you can any single subclass feature of your level or lower available, excepting for the first time you'd be eligible for a subclass feature, in which case you'd get all associated subclass features of a single subclass"? I dunno.
Come to think of it, such a Hybrid system would also solve the "not allowed to multiclass into your own class" matter, for purposes of mix-n-matching subclass features.
Honestly I'd think sub-classes would be in danger of being the first things trimmed.
Tim to be honest I thinlk your quick and dirty suggestion sounds more complex than actual gestalt.
rampant wrote: