The new multiclass system is cool; other forums have said it's pretty much the same as the last playtest. You get your class benefits, though different starting proficiencies, and you combine class levels for determining spellcasting. You add all your levels up to determine your proficiency bonus. All in all, it sounds good.
But what about ability score increases? I forsee people sticking with classes for 4 levels to get the ability score bump, rather than dipping for fun and/or profit (rp and/or power). Maybe that's a feature. I think it's a bug.
Now, I recognize that ability score bonuses are built into class progression so that no levels are dead levels (the casters gain new spell levels on their blank levels). Caster spell progression can be skewed by multiclassing, though, so that a character no longer gains something at every level.
I'm thinking about using the following progression:
Levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17, proficiency bonus is gained (start at +2, +1 each listed level)
Levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19, +2 to an ability score, or +1 to two ability scores.
Even levels, a character gains a feat.
The last part is predicated on me being able to split each feat into two. Based on the Tavern Brawler feat (+1 str/con, proficient with unarmed strikes and improvised weapons, d4 for unarmed strike damage, and bonus action to grapple the target after hitting with unarmed strike or improvised weapon), they should be able to be split into 2, since +1 to two scores is a feat.
This is mostly because my group likes feats and more choices. I don't know whether or not I'd try to rejigger the classes to accomidate for the lost options.
Thoughts? I'm sure others have thought of having feats and ability score improvements, but it could be problematic with feats like Tavern Brawler.
Well, we'll just have to see, won't we?
I do feel that the attribute bumps are not a bug, but a deliberate choice to help lower the bar on system mastery. The game is set up so that you never need a treadmill. You could, concievably, work through the entire game just using your starting stats without a problem.
So, based on this idea that your attributes aren't necessary, raising them isn't a concern. Meanwhile, proficency bonus is the opposite - its the only assumed increase in ability you get as you level. No, that's not quite true - another thing that we learned from 3.x was that Level Adjustments or multiclassing was hell on spellcasters. So, we have two assumed increases - proficency and spell levels. As you can auto-increase fireballs up to fifth level and have them competative with level 5 spells?
Anyways. All that said and done? The large issue with multiclassing, I feel, isn't an attribute bump. Its not going Cleric/Wizard and losing spells. Its the milestones. Let me explain -
At levels 5, 11, 17, and 20 at each class, there are significant jumps in power. Fight-heavy classes like monk, barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger get extra attacks at level 5. Meanwhile, clerics and wizards get their major spells at level 5 - fireball, fly, haste, revivify, mass healing, spirit guardians.
If you multiclass, you trail behind this power curve. A wizard, after he gets level 3 spells, can happily live off those spells for the next couple levels, so long as he continues to raise his spell slots - the ability to cast fireball as a level 5 spell isn't that much worse than casting a cone of cold spell in terms of damage. The same is pretty much true of clerics. With warriors, its the same thing. Trailing behind that extra attack kind of sucks. Once you get it, you can happily fill the next five levels with whatever.
Once you hit level 11, however, pure classes get another huge boost in power. Level 6 spells are a huge sight more powerful than even just level 5 spells. Disintegrate, Globe of Invulnerability, True Sight, Blade Barrier, Heal, Harm. Its practically a waste to use a level 5 or lower spell with a level 6 slot. A wizard 5 / cleric 5 might be arguably better off than a wizard 10 or cleric 10, due to the spells and synergetic subclass benefits. Same number of spells per day, roughly same dpr, two useful spell lists. A wizard 11, however, is much better off than a wizard 6 / cleric 5. Access to 6th tier spells are worth it. A fighter 6 / barbarian 5 doesn't get two extra attacks, where as the fighter 11 would be making three attacks a turn; the hybrid falls behind the power curve without that level 11 milestone.
The same situation repeats itself at level 17. Casters get level 9 spells like Wish and Gate. Fighters get a action surge madness. Rogues take two turns in round 1. Huge boosts in power. And then, the level 20 capstone is pretty much godly in a lot of cases.
So, baring the reintroduction of Prestige Classes to help enable multiclassing, what does this tell us? Well, it depends on the kind of multiclassing, as there are three kinds: dipping, hybrids, and changes. Dipping means you leave your main class for a level or two worth of abilities in another class before moving on, or going back to your main class. Hybrids are where one attempts an equal split between two classes - wizard / cleric at equal levels, for instance - with alternating between the two classes every level. And changes are, well, a career change for a PC; that's where you completely abandon one class and try to grow in another style. This last one is often RP driven, and can involve lots of GM fiat, sending a character back to level 1, and lots of other possibilities.
For those attempting a dip or hybrid, however, we run into the small problem of milestones. Without hitting those milestones, you are behind the curve. You don't want to multiclass for two levels of barbarian rage if you miss out on your extra attacks for a long while. Hybrids are even worse, given that they will reach their milestones... in over double the time they should have.
Now, most games tend to run up until the level 10 or so mark. This means that many games won't reach that second milestone at 11, and, even if they do, the game won't last long beyond it. So, for the majority of the game, that first milestone is what is important. Once you get it, the rest is pretty much open ended for anything to take.
This, then, is how I suspect that "dipping" will work - you will raise a class to level 5. Then, once you reach that milestone, you will then freely swap to different classes for boosts in various areas that you might desire, since there's no worry about never getting your level 11 or level 17 boost. If your game is between 11 and 17 for the run, pure levels til 11, then dipping. And so on.
Hybrids, on the other hand, I just don't see as viable at the given moment. The only hint of how to pull off hybrids, at the moment, is to make a subclass like Eldritch Knight. One could make a Magic Domain to pull off a more satisfying wizard/cleric Mystic Theurge hybrid. In the future, we may see Prestige Classes return that would allow hybrids to function better, and keep milestones in place. However, at the given moment, I don't expect to see the PrCs come back. So, custom subclasses seem to be the only option for creating hybrid builds at the moment, and that's not true multiclassing.
Well, one of the major reason in 3e for multiclassing was to avoid dead levels, which was effectively removed from 5e.
Just want to say, Mephi, that (for someone like myself), concern over the power curve doesn't interest me so much so long as the players are enjoying whatever roleplay they are intending by multiclassing, etc. I had only asked (in giving feedback before release) that multiclassing didn't become greater than the intent, but (wow) your reply was well written, easy to understand and insightful.
Food for thought.
At any rate, I'll keep that in mind when any player decides to enter into multiclassery. Hopefully, they'll be doing it for in-character reasons that enrich their enjoyment of being that character when they play - the rewards there are usually worth the sacrifices for those players.
@Xeviat: Without having everything in front of me, I would worry that with bounded accuracy, your idea would just be an unbalancing influx of power. I'm going to want to see how the feat or stat bonus works in action, over the course of time, before deciding that feat and stat bonus would only add diversity, no create an arms race where I suddenly have to increase relative power to everything else outside of character to keep the balance. That's too much work, imo.
Granted, I could just be not quite understanding what you are suggesting and missing where the trade-off is.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Oh, I don't think anyone is really getting the full picture with number crunching yet! You can't with such a small sample pool, and with so many subclasses and feats still open to debate. Mostly, I'm running off what the developers have told us.
That, and I honestly feel like attribute bumps and feats aren't as major as people make them out to be. In 3 and 4e, they were pretty critical. Here? I'm not as readily impressed. Sure, the first feat you take may be a huge boost in utility and power. So may the second... after that, I feel there's a diminishing return. You run out of things that are central to the concept, so you invest in increasingly niche things. As well, unlike 3/4e, feats really aren't 'necessary' to pull off some play styles, though they do enhance the styles. You can pull anything off without feats, but feats make you better.
I agree that having more feats would be nice. I'm personally contemplating a "get a free feat at level 1, cannot raise race's main attribute" blanket offer. But I'm not really worried or concerned that so many feats that others are offering, divorced from classes, is really game breaking. Why? Because there comes a point when you've covered everything that is centeral to your character, and you're just grabbing things like Resilience or Alert because random boosts to defense or initiative are always nice. Good for high power games, not really a big deal for much else. May need slightly more powerful monsters, but I don't think much more stronger.
Either way, because of the diminishing return, I don't think there's a big deal if you do disassocaite it in order to encourage multiclassing... because of the whole milestone thing I talked about above.
Mephi: Excellent breakdown, particularly on the power steps.
I think some of this is reflected in the pseudo-multiclass feat options and subclasses: You don't need a class dip if you can get the one thing you really wanted from that class through subclass features or a comparable feat. Alternatively, you can look at deferring Attribute Increase / Feats for multiclass as a feature - essentially you are substituting potential ability diversification from feats for ability diversification through the features of another class.
You can really see where you are trading power for versatility, particularly for full casters. A full caster hybrid will have the same casting slots as a single class caster, and double the number of prepared spells, though they are limited to level-boosting their small spells rather than accessing the powerhouses. If they keep the 5-or-mixed-8 for martials (extra attack as offered by a class, or when they have 8 levels in classes with the extra attack feature, whichever comes first), we get a similar effect there.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
SwampDog wrote:
I really hope the DMG has something nice to say about building classes and subclasses so the 5, 11, 17, 20 'pure' class bumps can be enjoyed by homebrew character concepts/hybrids/whatever people want.
With that sort of thing well written out for me, I won't have to worry about multiclassing at all, as I just won't do it, but rather talk to (and build it all out in a balanced way) anyone who wants a different type of PC from level one.
I never liked the method of multiclassing where you take a level of this, then a level of that, etc. 4e hybrid rules (from the PHB 3) worked pretty well, but a relatively easy way to take the class and subclass system of 5e and break it down into little lego block chunks...Then build your own class...Would be so awesome.
At least creating races and backgrounds seems easy in 5e. 
Classes, on the other hand...Eeek. Again, I hope the DMG adresses this in more than just a sidebar, or a single page.
Classes seem just as easy to build in 5E as they were in 3E. I built a few classes; most were variants on existing classes (Templar instead of Paladin, which could reconstruct the standard paladin by choosing the Healing domain, for example), but a few were unique. They're definitely easier to make in 5E than they were in 4E, unless you were just going to make one power choice at each level.
I would say that with MC, you generally either "dip" a level somewhere, or you go 5 levels before you switch. Level 5 for most classes is a great feature (3rd Level spells, Extra Attack, etc.), so most players will pick that up before switching.
Ghaliyah wrote:
To be fair to Ghaliyah, he's attempting to balance a Str-Dex character, when D&D doesn't lend itself to that style of play. D&D favors specializing over generalists. So, a jack-of-all-weapons is difficult to pull off without feeling like you're falling behind. While no one is going to keep count of monsters, when you never successfully make a kill, it does wear down on your enjoyment of a character after a bit.
Xeviat-DM wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote: