#dnd #dungeonsanddragons #onednd Multiclassing is often brought up as a problem in Dungeons and Dragons and One D&D. In this video we discuss the potential problems it brings up and some solutions that could address it in One D&D.
There’s a simple (well, simple to explain) solution here: Actually make abilities and features at later levels worth taking. If later level abilities are better than 1st-3rd level abilities, it incentivizes players to keep with the class instead of branching out to look for new sources of power. If you make higher level features and abilities actually worth taking, then you can leave multiclassing as it is for the RPers who want more character expression.
I think this is especially true for martial characters. Past the level 6 subclass feature for barbarians (sometimes not even then), what is the incentive to play straight barbarian? Brutal critical is paltry damage compared to a battle master fighter’s level 3 ability. The problem isn’t the battlemaster either… it’s brutal critical. Sorry, but they either need to give the barbarian base class a higher crit range, more damage for their brutal critical or both. Otherwise basically EVERY barbarian is going to be incentivized to multiclass out of barbarian past level 5 or 6, depending on the subclass. I do think this is a problem with casting classes too (see hexblade), but it seems to be the worst with martial characters. Casters have an inherent reason to stay mono-classed: higher level spells in their main class list. Martials don’t even have that.
The problem is a bit tougher than that, but think you’re on the right track. The features have to progressively get better pretty much every level. You have to make people struggle to justify stopping progression at as many stages as possible. The promise of reward in the future already suffers against immediate gain, but even more so when for many games you’re likely to never reach that point.
That lack of incentive is a massive issue. I need to think real hard if i want to take a barbarian past lvl5, but i have spells and spell slots all the way through on a wizard. Its that reason you rarely see more than a dip on casters, they loose a lot on spell slots progression or spell level selection. Sure sorlock is great, no question, but youve given up 2 levels of not casting web. Compared to the barb from earlier, who is just gaining compared to baseline barb. Imo, multiclassing in 5e has helped the caster /martial divide since it gives martials features they otherwise wouldnt have later in the game. I feel a lot of the arguments about multiclassing are because people look at finished characters and havnt actually played through a game with them. It MATTERS if you spend 2 levels w.o good spells. Unless youre playint bg3 and can respec, getting something early is a big deal. NOT getting something for several levels is also a big deal.
@@KaelinGoffI generally agree with this. It's really hard to multiclass a caster because of losing that level of spell progression. Martials and half casters tend to have very defined jumping off points.
I like fiddling with multi-class builds, but I had an idea. What if multi-classing was treated as a sub-class? Where you would gain sub-class features, you gain features from your second class. It would take some work to decide what features multis get when (or at all), but if nothing else it's an interesting thought exercise.
Oh I like this a lot. If my Wizard could forgo being a diviner or Bladesinger to get access to sorcery points and Metamagic, that might be a worthy trade. Or my barbarian could-wait for it-get a fighting style and some BA healing…seems fair, but I do think a lot of subclass features are comparable to base early class features
This is how "multiclassing" works in PF2e. Instead of taking a class feat at an even level for your class, you can pick an archetype feat, which includes class archetypes. For example, if I have a fighter that just got to level 2, instead of picking a level 2 fighter feat, I can pick up the barbarian dedication feat. Now, whenever I get to pick a fighter feat at 4th+ level, I can instead pick up a feat from the barbarian archetype which includes things like barbarian feats, extra HP, improved rage damage, those sorts of thing. It keeps all of the flavor and customization of character creation but with none of the horrific balancing issues of 5e.
@@NutronicAtomic No, prestige classes were separate mini-classes with 5 to 10 levels. They can be found in the 3.5 DMG (and I suspect there are more in splatbooks). Many of them became sub-classes in 5E.
@@LordOz3 Yes but they acted as you're suggesting. It was a different class that you would level into that overrides your normal class features while keeping some and giving new ones. It was a fun system, but got very confusing and all the requirements led to a lot of dead levels or bizarre early levels to meet the requirements.
I really like multiclassing for flavor or to make a hybrid class play the way I envision, so it always irks me when people say "just remove it and let the power gamers cope"
@@andrewshandleThird party example, but it’s the easiest for me since it’s my current character. Craftsman/alchemist (both classes from Mage Hand Press). My character started as a halfling blacksmith apprentice who wanted to learn the trade and return home to make life better for people he lived with. However, his true passion (and morality) is pursuing whatever thing holds his interests. Plan is for it to get wild. He’ll be taking the xenoalchemist subclass for alchemist which has a focus on grafting monster parts onto itself and others. The way I do my character building is starting with an RP concept, possibly looking at what I want to offer the party, and then trying to get it cracked as possible. While looking through build possibilities, I’ll often find RP possibilities that seem like they’d add a ton to the character. In this case, I wanted to make a bunch of gear for the party and be very supportive. The RP goal was bright eyed apprentice that changes his goals with more experience. I was looking for an ideal way to get booming blade when I realized xenoalchemist gave access to grafts with wizard cantrips. Realized how nuts the character concept could be, and how fun it might be trying to convince other party members to become lab experiments. And the character finally formed.
@@andrewshandleWas working on a Druid(wildfire)/Cleric(knowledge) before that. Was inspired by older religions that had the practice of making burnt offerings. Did a decent amount of looking into Zoroastrianism for inspiration (strictly inspiration, as they’d find using fire as a weapon very taboo).
I think a lot of the problem with Multiclassing is that creativity is reduced in favour of a made up sense of balance. So you want a sorcerer or wizard who can use their mage hand to pick pockets... you need to get 2d6 of sneak attack you're never going to use (as well as a few other features). If your concept is a magic user who happens to use magic to steal you might be able to get thieves tools and sleight of hand, you can pick up telekinesis (for an invisible mage hand) but RaW most DMs will say you can't do pocket/lock picking with it (some DMs might allow you to pick a pocket with a telekinesis invisible magehand but not as a bonus action like Mage Hand Legedemain). A sorcerer who can do mage hand legedemain needs 3 levels of arcane trickster - if the campaign starts at lvl1 and your concept is magical thieve you have to really kill your progression for several levels, and you end up with a level 4 character who is only level 1 in the primary class A lot of folk dip into Warlock because eldritch blast is a GOOD alternative to casting a lot of damage spells (lvl 5 getting 2 chances to hit per turn rather than 1 with normal cantrips), with the agonising blast and repelling blast it's just soooo good. I would love to see a world where a lot of "interesting" features of classes become feats, and you just get more feats (but tone some down) - you could still make things like Extra Attack not be a feat. Pathfinder has you picking feats for race, feats for class and just general feats so it's doable in a very similar game system Or put the flavour of subclasses at level 1 - so a dip could give you options, but require several levels for the powerful stuff... or... some other option that enables player choice, but without encouraging crazy min-maxing... rambling.
The way I see it, the various Tabletop games are on a spectrum. Where in one end, you have a lot of creative freedom, but character creation becomes complicated, and in the other end you character creation is quick and straight forward, but you don't have a lot of creative freedom. So if you look at 5e without the optional rules (feats and multiclassing). It is pretty much all to one side, not a lot of freedom, but pretty straight forward character building, pick a class, pick a race, pick a subclass, and that is about it (except for spellcasters). Pathfinder 2e is a step further towards creative freedom. You are constantly picking feats, to specify what you want from your character. Then you have the systems that use character points, like shadowrun or GURPS. That are just "you get x amount of points, every ability in the game has a point cost, mix and match as you see fit". I would say, every one of these games have their merits, every spot on the spectrum can be the right place for your group and your game, and we need games that fulfill every niche. I don't think DnD should move to more feats, more often, because the players who prefer that can just play pathfinder. I think DnD is in a good spot when it comes to what it is trying to be. It is trying to be easy to access for new players, and for players who don't care as much about carefully crafting the character they envision, but would rather just kill some dragons and loot some dungeons. I personally prefer the character point systems, but that doesn't mean I think DnD should drop all classes and become a GURPS clone. Sometimes I like things being a little simpler and straight forward, and I also prefer to introduce people to the hoppy via DnD over GURPS, so I am glad they are different games. Sounds like you want DnD to be more like Pathfinder, but if you got everything you wanted ported over from Pathfinder to DnD, would there even be a point in having 2 different games anymore? Maybe there would, maybe there is something else that makes them distinct that you wouldn't want to port over, but just food for thought :)
You don't need to multiclass to get this. Talk to the DM about what you would like to do with the power. If its beyond the scope of the cantrip, the DM can create a magic item that enhances the cantrip. It really just depends on what you're asking for. Be careful what you wish for. Making too many things into feats really bloats the game. Edition 3.5 was exactly like that to the point where the ridiculous number of feats caused more problems than they solved.
for realz, the goblin alone was fantastic lol i made a rogue-ruffian str based that bites in respnse to an attack, gets a grapple check with it and can cause small auto dmg each round while biting them and continue to bike atack them haha, nevver got a chaance to play him, but there was magic stuff for them too and all dorts, far better system, more akinto 3.5 which was far superior to 5e imo and most others for good reasson.
I wanted a wizard with a side of rogue, kind of a "spells first, skills second" spin on the Arcane Trickster, so I designed one. It's a solid B tier subclass, as it rocks in a party that has no true rogue and sucks if the party does have one. Using it requires coordination with other party members to make sure they're not rogues or intending to multiclass into rogue prior to level 6. The level 6 subclass abilities are Steady Aim, confirmed by Sage Advice to apply to spell attacks, and Cunning Action. This is also when they get to pick locks at a distance with Mage Hand, which is nice because they're probably going to fail a lot and set off a lot of traps with a 14 DEX that never improves. We've had some classic horror-comedy moments arising out of the spellpunk wizard being able to pick locks and disarm traps at a distance, but kind of sucking at it. The party is fine, but any hope of surprising the enemy is completely blown. One encounter I remember involved a room with three devils inside. The party is unaware that there is a secret door on the other side of the building, and they're busy trying to disarm the trap on the front door. Instead, the 14-DEX wizard sets it off. She is unharmed because she's 25 feet away, but takes off running. Her bonus action Dash lets her outrun the rest of the party despite being a dwarf. Two of the devils come out the front door to confront the party directly, but the third one slides out the back door in a flanking attempt. However, the dwarf Wizard using bonus action Dash for the second or third straight round comes flying around the corner. She throws a desperation Banishment, not knowing what else to do... and it works. Then all she had to do for the remainder of the fight was keep the building between her and the remaining two devils so her concentration couldn't be broken, occasionally popping out to line up a cantrip before going back into hiding. If the wizard had decided to run the other direction around the building, they would have missed each other and the rest of the party would have been in a lot more trouble when that devil attacked them from behind. If the devil had made its save against Banishment, the solo wizard would have been in a world of hurt. It could have gone very wrong but it ended up being so easy they didn't even realize that was a mini-boss fight until I told them the building they had just taken was a secure place to rest. Designing subclasses is much easier than trying to design a whole new class. A good subclass should generally fit on both sides of a sheet of paper. If it takes more than three "sides", it's probably too fiddly and needs to be simplified. Testing them is relatively easy too, you only need to playtest them at a handful of levels. If you don't want to multiclass, talk with the DM about the idea of a custom subclass that does similar things.
As a self identified optimizer, I wholeheartedly agree that multiclassing can be both amazing for creativity as it is limiting when you check it against a power curve. Here’s what I’ve noticed the most: 1.) Most Multiclassing isn’t happening till a players invested 3 or 5 levels in their main class. 2.) Martials multiclass way more than casters. Spells known are the important feature that even on “dead levels” keep casters single class. 3.) If a caster is going to multiclass, they are most likely only willing to take 1 level dips and will want to multiclass to another caster. Before Hexblade was a thing, it was a cleric dip that was common. 4.) The class least likely to multiclass by far is the Wizard. The class most likely to multiclass is the Barbarian and Rouge. That means these two classes need more work beyond level 5-6 to feel rewarding to stay with. I do think that class front loading needs to remain somewhat a thing, because convincing people with even mild experience to play at level 1 is hard enough when the main complaint is “I don’t feel like I am playing my class at all.” Simultaneously, If it’s too easy then if later features don’t feel as impactful, people just abandon the main class. So I feel that perhaps some core parts need to be front loaded, but 3 levels feels a bit too long for subclasses. I’d set them at level 2 but only give subclass features and then at level 3 give the next big impactful class fantasy feature.
Yes, this is the core point. Weak classes multiclass for power, because they "need to", strong classes multiclass for flavor, because they "can afford to". It's always the martial builds, that get their 2 core features together, that then multiclass into full casters, because spells are OP compared to martial class features. And of course there are like 2 game breaking design oversights, but you can just ban those.
@@TheAusar On the contrary, most martials don’t multiclass into casters, most martials multiclass into other martials. Specifically fighter is the odd man out due to how potent some of its features are. The full magic casters on the other hand are looking only for a handful of things. Ability Score compatibility and Armor. The half casters tend to favor taking more levels in a main caster than their core class, but they will happily multiclass Fighter in a heartbeat. Overall the Fighter seems equally as problematic as the Hexblade is for charisma casters because it’s the default multiclass choice for other martials.
@@colinwalker6804 I was specifically talking about the actual multiclassing, and not dips. Like a crossbow expert ranger will live out the rest of his career with either full caster or warlock levels, once he gets his extra attack. Same with a polearm master paladin, or any weapon focused warlock build. It's also an issue with the fact, that martials do not have a proper damage progression like casters. Level 5 is your damage spike and after that you can cope with subclass features.
This is an incredibly balanced and thoughtful take on the matter. To be candid, I am puzzled by the assertion that multiclassing is such a controversial issue. I've been playing D&D for nearly 20 years, and, while the execution was different especially in 1st and 2nd, mutliclassing is an enshrined concept within the system. I don't know that I've personally ever played at a table where multiclassing was a problem. Bit of experience bias, I suppose.
I like to think that level 11 features and beyond should compare favorably with 6th level spells and sometimes they do. But the logic is simple, in order to get to level 11 you are barring yourself from, as of now, the most powerful and versatile effects a player can have. You might get 5th level spells, which are great, but you can't get anything better so when deciding on a class it should be clear that at these higher tiers of play, you too get powerful, versatile options.
Id be for removing multiclassing if, and this is a big if, the core character progression had a lot more customisation built into it. 5e's simplicity is great for streamlining gameplay, but it is severely limited in how well you can make your character mechanically your own
Its wild how subclasses at level 3 only feels like an excuse to nerf multiclassing but they then made pact of the blade be a level 1 hexblade + anyway.
Some classes just don't make sense without a subclass. You can be a rogue without being any specific type of rogue, but you can't be a warlock at all without choosing who you made your deal with.
In the current one dnd playtest to compensate for moving warlock subclasses to level 3, they put pacts and invocations to start at level 1, so in the current playtest build you can basically hexblade dip under a different name.@@nathanmulligan2945
@@nathanmulligan2945newest one DnD playtests has shifted pacts to being invocations and you can pick an invocation at lvl 1 iirc. So you can have pact of the Blade from the get go
No, multiclassing has been in D&D since the beginning, and 5e handles it the best so far. Pushing some of the major abilities to later levels is all that is needed
Incorrect. There was no multiclassing in OD&D (unless you count that elves could switch class between adventures), in B/X D&D or in BECMI D&D. There was multiclassing for non-humans only in AD&D and that worked much better than in 5e. The current handling of multiclassing was also present in 3e. In 4e multiclassing was extremely weak, but there was also hybrid classes you could work with. So, there is no reason why it cannot change again in One D&D.
Thing is, martials need multiclassing way, way more than casters. And yet for some reason all the good caster multiclasses are 1-2 level dips, whereas all the good martial multiclasses are 2-5 levels. So, obviously the martial/caster divide needs to be addressed before multiclassing (especially removing it) even enters the discussion. But, interestingly, one way to (very very slightly) help close the divide is to give all the martial classes their subclass at level 1 while making all the casters wait until level 3. Which is in direct opposition to WotC's design goals of keeping level 1 as simple as possible, especially for martials, but that's a hill they have to stop dying on if they want to close the martial/caster divide even a little. Also, 4e, PF2e, and 13th Age all have ways of doing multiclassing that are vastly, vastly more balanced than 5e's method. Doing away with multiclassing greatly impoverishes the creative space for players, so it's good to know that you don't need to remove it for your game to be balanced.
Wouldn't a 1rst lvl subclass only aid the divide. Now the casters get even more with their 1-2 level martial dip to go along with their armor and action surge.
@@SirStanleytheStumbler I think it's fine. You know who you're contracted to , but you only get the feature, the mechanics, at lvl 3. Narratively, you could say that until then your contract only provided you with minor magic, or maybe even that your patron doesn't trust you enough to use their powers.
@@someusername9591 As it stands, right now it's always better for casters to armour dip other casters (because spell slot progression and spells known, plus strong subclass features as a bonus). Specifically, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (and occasionally Artificers). With Action Surge losing its ability to contribute to the Magic action, that's not going to change. And if it did change, well, existing as an armour dip is a more worthwhile state of existence for the martial classes than what they have now. Because right now in high optimization environments the martials may as well not exist at all. I also have a houserule that greatly disincentivises martial armour dips while giving martials a necessary buff and casters a necessary nerf. Namely, Shield, Absorb Elements, and Silvery Barbs are removed as spells and given to the non-casters as non-magical abilities (PB/lr "virtual spell slots" to "cast" them). But these new martial maneuvers can only be performed if you're not concentrating on a spell.
Even if they wanted, I think that they are in too deep to remove multiclassing unless they make a whole new system that is completely different. I also think that as it currently stands 5e has too little high impact customization options, and multiclassing gives that aid that the system needs in that regard.
I think one thing they can do is make it require a Feat to gain the Foundation of a Class as a prerequisite to invest levels in it, but everyone starts with a Feat of choice. This reduces the raw power of the one-off “dip”, permits starting characters to be a bit more loaded, and allows each Feat to represent the “twist” of your character’s capabilities.
Yeah, this makes multi classing so shit, if you also have to sacrifice your ability scores to do it, while also making it very undesirable form a gameplay and narrative perspective, when you just have a dead level.
@@TheAusar I mean I also think there are a lot of ways they could change ability progression, but it could be nice if this “Foundation / Initiate” Feat gave +1 to one of this new Class’ favored Abilities.
Biggest problem most editions of D&D has had, is there is no choice you can make after selecting your class/sub-class other than multi classing. Feats are limited during level progression. For players, Character customization on advancement is what most people want. 5e doesn't really off that. 5e mostly only provides ore-defined advancement paths, not customization. Part of the Class power divide I suspect is a hangover from previous editions. AD&D 2e and earlier, level progression was different for different classes. Wizards/Magic-users needed substantially more XP than other classes. A Level 5 Wizard was more powerful than a Level 5 Fighter or Thief/Rouge. At the Same XP, the Fighter or Thief would be a few levels higher. Problem with 5e power divide is likely because a level 5 Fighter or Rouge is somewhat based on earlier editions as is a Wizard. Now the XP is the same. Effectively, Wizards are leveling up faster or other classes are leveling up slower.
Pretty sure 3.5 had a lot of choices after choosing a class (Although it was infamous for having people planning their characters since level one so i guess a lot of people didn't play it that way)
0:42 and then they kinda forgot about it when they made Eldritch Blast scale using you overall level instead of you warlock level. To be clear, that's how it works in 5e, but they changed it and then... Walked it back? Why?
Neither is a good fix. Scales with total level, means a 1-level dip gives you a full power at-will magical ranged attack for very little investment. Scales with class level means damage lags too far behind the current tier, and you'll almost never use it. Same problem with most of the cantrips. Simple all or nothing power scaling rules are crude and either over-reward investment or are weak. But anything else adds complexity, you don't want to be doing more involved maths to figure out the fair middle ground.
@@neilslater8223 Since it is Eldritch Blast, I think making it punishing no to be a straight class warlock is adequate. Again, a huge part of what makes multiclassing a problem is how many classes simply are worthless at higher levels. Making EB scale with warlock levels makes taking those levels more worth, albeit in a weird roundabout way.
Because first they made it a class feature and then they changed it back to a cantrip, and cantrips scale with character level. The easy fix is no cantrip should scale with character level. And if course people who play casters will scream at that suggestion, because it nerfs them. When they already are more powerful, and sustained damage is supposed to be their weakness. Of course, that would gut sustained damage casting build, which would be quite unfun, too.
Hot take: they should remove multiclassing, but make a subclass that is basically like taking three to five levels in another class for every other class.
They sort of do that already though some achieve this goal better than others and not for every class. The arcane trickster is your wizard rogue and the blade singer is your fighter wizard for example.
@@XanderHarris1023 the problem is that there are simply not enough to cater to every persons playstyle. Also it does kinda hurt creativity when you remove too much of the players ability to create their own build within a systems core rules. For instance I like playing what is effectively a "death knight" in pretty much every game ever. I just like it. I play other stuff of course but that is my fave. Unfortunately doing so is basically impossible in many games. With dnd you do it by multiclassing wizard with something that gives you heavy armor. Mostly fighter. If I do that with bladesinger i have to wait way longer to get my heavy armor so I can start playing my character as I wanted. Its not even a power gaming move. It also just feels off flavor wise though you can ignore that. To remedy this they need to make many many combinations or give us an alternative way to customize our characters. Unfortunately when someone is making a class they will they will often come in with a bias. Like how the eldritch knight doesn't get necromancy. Instead of just letting you choose schools of magic they chose for you.
I think that Pathfinder 2e did "multiclassing" very well. The archtype system is something any player can appreciate. If they aren't excited for any of their class's feats for whatever reason, they can go into any archtype they want to flavor their character more specifically or go into another "class" as an archtype, a much weaker version of it where you only get some of the core aspects of said class. DnD multiclassing kills any early game fun you can design for classes. The fact that most choices for most characters is in level 3 is a problem, for a game all about choice your really don't get that many (especially if you play completely vanilla without feats as an option).
From a dungeon masters perspective, if my players are all playing weak combat characters, I’m just gonna tone down the combats. If they’re playing twinks then I’m gonna make things harder. There’s no balance. I make the balance. This isn’t a video game or a competition
I fully agree and I have echoed nearly the same sentiment in multiple videos. “Balance” in D&D only exists in a relative sense, not in a strict sense like a hyper competitive online game. Potential issues can arise if there are great power imbalances between players at a table of some are particularly strong and others aren’t, that’s where things get more complicated. As I said though, I don’t personally mind but I can totally see why some would.
One of the things you could do to stifle the power of multiclassing is to simply have the prerequisite Ability Score to be higher. 13 is so low of a number and so achievable at low level that you can essentially multiclass into anything you want right from the start. Id honestly like to see it be 15, or have some other prerequisite to make it feel more substantial and impressive.
Something I had considered but didn't include in the video was the idea of potentially lowering the score requirement but then increasing it for each subsequent level taken. The more I thought about it, the less good I thought it was so I ultimately left that part out of the script.
@@InsightCheck yeah, the issue then comes down to the relatively static Ability Scores and only getting any boosts to them through ASI levels or magic items. And making the multi class prereq 15 doesn't solve classes who use the same Ability Scores taking multiclassing earlier than if you use another AS. If anything it limits the creative space players have when multiclassing
I disagree. The problem historically has been classes that share ability scores. Typically the charisma classes (Paladin, bard, warlock, sorcerer) dipping into one another. Another example is the classic artificer 1 wizard x dip. For any of these combinations, setting a higher threshold wouldn’t matter at all. By contrast, it would kill all the weird and janky combos like rogue/barbarian that people like to play and for the most part cause no balance issues.
My idea would be to limit when you can Multiclass instead, requiring you to have at least 4 Levels in all yours current Classes, so you can't just go for a quick dip in a Class immediately. I would also like to see them add on to the builds that typically require Multiclassing to function well, notably Colleges of Valor and Swords getting Cha for Weapon Attacks to remove the need to dip Warlock (which is still good) to make them play better without being so MAD. They're already addressing the Assassin+Gloom-Stalker combo by making pure Assassin more interesting while Gloom-Stalker is being made to not be so synergistic with Assassin.
In my expereince, 5E is already pretty multiclass averse, the majority of combinations that might otherwise bring some interesting customisation to characters result in very weak builds. Fixing that is just as much a priority as blocking overpowered combos that either synergise powers or front load abilities. One major issue is whether a multiclass makes a character muli-attribute-dependent (MAD) or not. Combinations that are MAD, but otherwise have early access to defining class abilities encourage quick dips. Combinations that maintain the opposite single-attribute-dependent (SAD) can be overpowered due to added flexibility at little to no cost. I'm up for more pre-defined multiclasses such as Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight, provided they are not too single-track. There is a design tendency in 5E to have the subclasses as one-off collections of features - these are so narrowly designed that they don't feel like customising a character so much as buying a pre-built one. Spellcasting features are OK though, because you have a lot of freedom to set the character theme through choice of spells.
Yeah, even a lot of the powerful multiclass combos are more or less gimmiks. Like look at nova builds. Sure you can blow up one mean guy in a turn. (If you don't miss). But for the rest of the day you are just a worse fighter.
I agree that if you're gonna homebrew, subclasses are the place to do it. First off, they're a lot simpler mechanically than most classes (although there are notorious exceptions), they only provide features at three or four specific points in the character's career which means they're easier to playtest, and you can use the 80/20 rule to your benefit. By changing 20% of a character's abilities, you can change 80% of its roleplaying character -- but only if you choose them wisely.
The PF2 answer to that, I find it very elegant. You can't multiclass, the class you get from level1 is the one you'll have till level 20. However, at certain levels, you have a secondary list of powers that come from all other classes in the game. So you can mix and match to build the character you envision, while still having a solid progression without dead levels, without falling to far behind, and your character will always be functional, since your full balanced class is there.
I think the main thing I do like about PF2e's dedication/archetype feats is that you get either a watered down version of what the class gets, or you have to invest more to get some of the starting features. The magus dedication for instance gives you the ability to cast spells like a magus and you have to keep picking up feats in order to get things like spellstrike (the magus' main mechanic) to get some of the starting abilities of the magus. However, you won't get something like arcane cascade, the other major mechanic that Magus' have, which is an incentive for other people to mainclass Magus. It's something I've always liked about pf2e because something like free archetype allows you to dip into another class or just one of the other archetypes to really help flesh out your character while not having to sacrifice your progression in your main class. One of my biggest issues with 5e has more to do with the level ranges I usually play in, and it's difficult to get multiclass builds to work due to just not having a good idea of when we'll level up or be stuck for a month at a certain level. Also there are just some combos that feel like they're too good.
ANother thing that that's great about PF2e's archetypes is that not all of them are Multiclass. There's more than a few like "Archer Dedication" that anyone can take and give get more archery-focused stuff.
One that I will say, is WotC needs to decide if they want sustained damage to scale with character or class level. Because the fact that extra attacks need you to stay in your class, while cantrips scale regardless of what you do is one of the biggest flaws of 5e. Whenever you want to do something cool with a martial, it's always "can I really afford to delay my extra attack", while casters will always have their cantrips at max, and If they are multiclassing, they have to upcast a few spells.
Never had a problem with Multiclassing because of the people at my tables. All my players have taken multiclass for RP reasons or because of the flavour behind the mix rather than just because it makes their build x3 more effective. As it stands I think it would just be better if people didn't assume it was a default rule used at tables. When/if the next edition comes out (one that's not pretending it's still 5e anyway) then they might reconsider multiclassing. Until then whether it we think it's good or not it'll undoubtedly still be in OneD&D, just learn to use it responsibly at your tables.
I'm largely in the same boat. I've got 5 players at my table and none of them or power/optimizers. They're all in it for the story and take features/multiclass that makes sense for their progression and I love that. I think many people overlook that multiclassing is an optional rule. If you don't like the way it works at your table, definitely don't use it!
I’ve never understood the divide between role-players and roll-players. I just let them play they want to play. I’ve never seen a class or subclass provide exactly what the players are looking for
If everything is front loaded, then multiclass will most likely always be better than pure. But if you make pure better no one will multiclass. Therefore, multiclassing really cant work well the way dnd is structured, and trying to force it is folley
Pathfinder 2e uses feats to multiclass. Even before I learned that game I've been a proponent of feat based multiclassing. Get the flavor and some features without overloading with new features or messing up progression. Also allows for lets you balance things so much better
The unfortunate problem with PF2e is that dedication feats really need a clean up. You can get: a full animal companion from Beastmaster, or, a single skill...because that's why you went into fighter, that proficiency in athletics. Dual Weapon Dedication gives you dual slice, which effectively offsets the cost of entering it!...Duelist gets quick draw, which isn't nearly as great but is still something...unlike mauler and archer, who's abilities you almost certainly have anyway. Don't get me wrong, it is genuinely so much better, but it still has a ways to go.
With just starting the video: YES. It restrains a lot of the design process, and most of the time it's used to improve the character mechanically with 0 roleplay behind it (I hate hexblade warlock for that same reason). The concept of multiclassing should be implemented through Feats, like Artificier Initiate or Metamagic Adept.
Yeah, I hear what you're saying and I do get it. I, as I say in the video, do actually like multiclassing but I don't really love the reasons for it. I would love for there to be more of a profound RP reason why a character would do so and not strictly for the purposes of gaining power. The ideas I present are things that impact other areas of the game that will have a knock on effect on multiclassing rather than "attacking" it head on.
I think feat and subclass can really provide pretty much all the customization that multiclass can provide, without providing the multiplicative balance issues. You want a melee wizard? Subclass. Melee wizard using armor? Subclass and a feat.
"more of a profound reason" is not equal to "no reason". I explicitly mention in another comment that I am love that my 5 players at my table pick feats, subclasses, multiclass and just about anything else for RP reasons.
Multiclassing is nice when it allows you to create a build that the pre-baked classes just don't allow. When you want to be a pure blaster caster, a Sorcerer-Warlock combo is top tier. Eldritch Knight-Bladesinger lets you have strong spells while also wielding a weapon. Barbarian-Druid allows you to play with feral yet powerful beast forms. The downside to multiclassing is that you have to balance your classes on the assumption that it will be multiclassed, which can hurt class's design process. I guess one way they could remedy this is to make a subclass for each class that is clearly inspired by the other 12 classes. Extremly bulky, but it would fill in the gaps if they were to cut out multiclassing. I mean, a Barbarian with an Artificer inspired subclass would be interesting. I could easily view the subclass as a brawler with magically empowered gauntlets.
I have wondered f D&D needs to get rid of classes/sub-classes was a whole. This would fundamentally change the game though. Basically have a system where at each level you get some amount of points to spend on buying an ability, combat, HP, spells, skills, Feats etc.
@@TheNanoNinja I do think that sounds super fun. but at that point I think you loose too much of D&D. I've played SWRPG and have been itching to play a medievalish fantasy game that's kind of like it, but I don't think D&D would ever go in that direction.
I think the changes to OneD&D which for the most part eliminates 1 level dips, fixes the "purely for Power" issues but that being said, even in a semi-crunchy game, I always want my players to have a real narrative reason for a multi class. If you are a Paladin who wants to dip Warlock, if you can't come up with a narrative explanation for how it even happened or if you aren't prepared to deal with the consequences of it, then I wouldn't allow it. It just being a mechanical benefit isn't enough, the player has to at least put some effort into it. I also appreciate that for things like a one shot / limited session game I'd not care at all, go hog wild.
I hope you at least let people tell you ahead of time that they want to be a multiclass. Like starting at level 1 wouldn't let you take your intended second class yet even if its in your backstory.
@@Merilirem you do realize that the vast majority of players have no interest in multiclassing, right? Of the ones that do, they more often than not just want to optimize and aren't doing it because of any grand concept. So honestly it's never an issue because the tiny minority of players who multiclass into a non-optimized build will have a story reason why they want to do so.
Three words: Look at pathfinder(2e). It fixes a wide variety of problems from 5e and multiclassing is one of them. Instead of just giving you a level in that class, you get minor aspects of that class instead through feats, and has guardrails in place to further prevent dipping. I believe 4e did something similar as well (although I can’t say much about that since I haven’t looked into it’s rules much).
PF2 took the multiclassing from 4th. It allowed you to get some aspects of the class but not abuse it. Not only did it prevent the powerful dips, but it also prevented you from making a useless character. Yet again, every problem people have with 5e was already solved in 4th.
If D&D modulated the abilities and skills of the characters, as I had an idea for my homebrewing a couple of days ago, then it would also be the end of traditional multiclassing and default skills and default abilities. In their place, there would be modulated characters' abilities, skills and adaptations, as well as paths that would increase the character's individuality and uniqueness. In the future, these modulated characters could be built piece by piece from selectable skills, abilities, traits and traits. Then you can build your character much more freely, versatilely and creatively than now. However, this idea still needs to be developed and refined so that it does not cause imbalance and minmaxing in the game.
At my table, I’ve implemented a house rule where multi classing is tied to the intelligence attribute the higher, your bonus the more classes you’re allowed to learn because you’re smart enough to handle the knowledge of all the classes. Granted that might not apply as well to the physical classes in the game, but a wizard with high intelligence probably isn’t gonna multi class anyways and if a fighter, barbarian or other Marshall class wants to multi class now they have to think do they want to have at least a +2 intelligence modifier so they could have two classes in their brain which means they would have to have a 14 in that stat which would nerve either they’re dex constitution or strength
I would suggest abolishing Class altogether and building characters from a menu of Feat-like abilities! OK, maybe go halfway and have a streamlined set of Martial, Caster and Half-caster classes and go the rest of the way with Feats,
Multiclassing was something the original edition reached for with Elf, Dwarf, multiclassing itself for Demi humans but achieved with dual classing. Taking it away would be going backwards.
In the Original Edition there was no multiclassing. In AD&D demi-humans could advance in more than one class and humans could permanently switch over to another class. In B/X D&D and BECMI D&D there was no multiclassing at all. Only 3e and 5e have done multiclassing this way.
What 5e should do is get rid of mulitclassing and give each class a few more asi/feat choice. Then add a lot of stronger feats. So if you want to play a gish you start as a caster then spend you asi on feats. 1 feat give armor and weapon prof. They take that first then later they take a hp boost or a Martial ability. Or u start as fighter take a feat the gives cantrips and 1st through 3rd level spells but make it a leveling feat so you start off at 0-1 spells then next level you get 2nd then another level you get 3rd.
What you’re basically describing is a system that moves more towards PF2e, where you have more Feat choices and fewer standard abilities in a class, with some that include features from other classes.
I like the idea of feat trees or just higher level feats for this. It makes it so there are options for expression and abilities that might be specific to style that grant power. The giant feats from the recent books are moving in the right direction but we really need 1st level feats for them to work. I liked the dragonlance feats. Ultimately youre right though, we have to buff the classes to get peole excited to reach levels 7, 9, and 11 so theres cool stuff and flavor in the later stages of the game.
I really liked the way AD&D handled multi classing. You took all your classes at first and divided your experience between the classes. You had weaknesses with your classes (no armor for magic users, weapon restrictions for clerics, etc..), but your character was more versatile overall. He just lagged behind the rest of the party by a couple of levels. I personally don't like people diping into a class for just one level.
Having run multiple 5e campaigns with multiclassing and a few without I will say this. Removing Multi-Class as a rules Option is a bad idea. Multi-classing allows for a wider variety of character types and roles that don't neatly fit into a particular class. That being said if a DM is afraid of multi-classed players causing power disparities then don't allow the rule, it is optional for that reason. I do like how One D&D is addressing the dip issue by making every class a 3 level full benefit and keeping the better benefits as 3rd level gains. Clerics and Warlocks are notoriously powerful single level dips that get less powerful under the 3 level proposal. I do find the spell slot progression difficult with multi-classing and that is something that could be improved.
Im fully in the multiclassing wagon. I think that the big toys need to be 3rd leve of higher (ie: hex blades), but other than that, its fine. DnD is balanced around bounded accuracy. Multiclassing delays or even limits ASIs, which explicitly degrades bounded accuracy. So other than a few corner cases, multiclasses are explicitly weaker through most of the games levels. Having one character vastly out performing others isnt a core issue of multiclassing. Compare a Paladin dropping huge smites, barbarians with GWM, gloomstalker rangers with sharp shooter, high level mages/sorcerers droping meteor swarm, etc... The vast majority of multiclasses are not problematic. And most single class builds can be almost as problematic as the most abusive multiclass builds.
I really do think that scaling things off of class level or maybe something like your total caster level for calculating things will fix at least the cantrip issue you get from a 1 level dip for cantrips such as EB, and limiting what features you get from multiclassing (maybe even considering the HP buff you get from taking certain classes like Wizard -> Fighter) will allow people to still get some versatility while not making it overwhelmingly powerful. I very much like the idea of multiclassing being a feat, but only if 5e worked on a feat system that came around more often instead of at level 4 and every 4 levels, otherwise it'd make fighter/rogue especially good at multiclassing compared to other classes, which is funny to me but it would be an unintended consequence.
My buddy likes doing things like going 5 ranger/5 fighter and refusing to have any stat outside of the 10-15 point range. He always uses con as his dump stat and really doesn't care what his spellcasting stat is, because he's going to just put scores in the mental stats based on what he's feeling. Literally made a 13 str, 10 dex, 12 con, 11 int, 15 cha, 14 wis wizard once. Not even an Enchanter, a bladesinger.
One issue with early game vs late game stuff is that Wizards had kind of failed at late game materials. They have no official level 20 campaign besides mad mage and they dont have a lot of enemies to pick from which they are trying to correct. I think Wizards is realizing they need to do more for late game to help relive early game issues because now you have to think of stuff you will be doing in late game.
MC should be limited to changing class only when you gain an ASI. I also think that classes should start with simple weapons and light armor, only gaining martial weapons and heavier armor as they level up. This would limit dips for weapon and armor proficiency. It would mean that martials would have weaker weapons and armor in the early game but it would also feel so much better when you finally get to use that greataxe. Currently 5e character progression is so stagnant, you can gain 5-10 levels and be perfectly capable with most of your character creation equipment.
Don’t get me wrong, multiclassing causes a lot of problems. Games like PF2e do an excellent job without multiclassing, or at least radically redesigned multiclassing. But I don’t know that D&D would feel like D&D without it. I think D&D ought to keep it, even if there are downsides, and other systems have done away with it. I bet a lot of folks would benefit more from just playing PF2e, and just let them be two distinct but also great games. A thought to ponder: Consider a system where one class is your primary class, and there are some abilities you only get for your primary class. Doesn’t necessarily have to be the class you have at level 1, or even the class you have the most levels in, but you can only ever have at most a single primary class. Maybe Paladin smites would only do d4 damage if Paladin wasn’t your primary class, but d8 if it was. Maybe Agonizing Blast/Eldritch Blast scaling only functions if Warlock is Primary. Maybe you have significantly reduced access to sorcery points if Sorcerer isn’t Primary. Basically, some core class-defining features would be weaker if that class was secondary rather than primary. Such a system would allow class defining features to be significantly stronger, since multi-class dips couldn’t get them at full strength. It’d also solve the Monk/Barbarian AC issues, since only the primary class’s alternate AC would apply, and it could probably be better since you couldn’t just dip for a big AC boost. Maybe some popular subclass features that folks get through dips just don’t work at all unless that class is Primary.
I played 5e from launch till now and I did what many people Im sure did and glossed over that feats and multiclassing were optional rules for 5e. I had played in campaigns and seen the broken combos (Gloomstalker Ranger/Rogue, Hexblade Paladin etc) and it was honestly always a headache for me when it came to spellcaster multiclassing. Martial multiclassing while powerful, never seemed to bother me. It was understanding and tracking how different spell slots/resources regenerated and interacted with each other (Warlock spell slots with Sorcerer spell points to spell slots etc) When it occurred to me I had never played a campaign where no one didn’t multiclass or took a feat, I suggested to my group I would try run a game without those rules. Everyone acted like I suggested we kick a puppy! The pushback I got was ridiculous and I ended up leaving that group. Now that OneDnD is going to have feats baked in I will probably never know if taking out feats/multiclassing would help balance 5e or even be fun.
@@mal2ksc Im familiar with the Tasha’s feats and definitely recognize not just the power but straight up options you get. Even then there will always be clear cut spells/feats to take as “the best” if you play it that way. I recognize the intent of feats but after seeing so many people play a fighter and take Pole Arm Master+ Sentinel for the umpteenth time everything just becomes predictable and stale. Making combat encounters and seeing how these “builds” handle everything. It dawned on me that these pre-written adventures may never have been balanced for multiclassing/feats. A Sentinel Feat alone has a far bigger impact on a fight compared to just a +1 to hit and damage. Giving players more options just made everything predictable and trivial. It has stressed out DMs that focus on balance and fairness, while promoting lazy and awful DMs that don’t keep track of anything and just decide whenever they feel like a creature is slain while always keeping players out of deaths reach thanks to Online Tools that let you spy on a characters health with a glance at anytime. I wanted to experience 5e DnD. If I wanted to follow a flowchart with a build I predetermined I would have kept playing 4e DnD.
This is part of why I'm messing with my own system, with some interesting multi-class stuff similar to Pathfinder 2e... but even less restrictive. The solution I came up with is: Make every Class available to those who seek them, and give them all unique and strong powers that encourage people to play around and experiment. Yeah, you could go all Barbarian, but you could also dip into Fighter for Attack of Opportunity, and Cleric for some extra healing for your Party. You just gotta have the right stat to get you started. Still tweaking the system and figuring out balance. As for the gamebreaking stuff... it's locked behind 5th level, and will cost you to abuse. Even just using some of them can be enough to punish you. No GM intervention needed.
The real problem is that leveling up in a single class is counter productive. There are several levels that are totally underwhelming, so multiclassing makes all the sense, because the core features are at lower levels. They would have to fix the whole class levels to remove multiclassing or do what Pathfinder does and give you feats that grant class abilities.
Go back to how it was handled in first edition. Low level caps for those choosing to multiclass. The experience gain is spread between all classes. The gold cost required to level will come up more often for multiclass characters. Human with 2 classes worked a bit differently. You only get 1 chance to switch into another class. No going back to level the first class after taking the second. If that character uses any class abilities from the first character in a adventure. That character gets no experience. This is likely to slows progression. It however, doesn't impede on player agency.
Don't think I like that. If we reduced multiclassing to just your subclass, then your level 3 subclass becomes the only major choice you get to make from levelling up, and taking that subclass option means giving up on the many interesting other subclasses. I'd be down for that route though if the classes themselves had more substantial options at each level.
(3.5 oriented answer, adaptable to others) One solution I like is for classes to designate a lot of their Level 1 abilities as requirements if you class into it later. Gotta spend feats on Cantrip mastery and Scribe Scroll before you can take a level as Wizard, say (maybe just one of these; maybe both if players get more feats). Or maybe you need only one of the feats but you have to have 3 ranks in spellcraft, too. That won't be a class skill for the non-spellcasting classes most likely to want to dip into Wizard, so that'll be a real cost. Similarly for rogue, where you could have to have a bunch of skill points on rogue skills. Can't take a fighter level without claiming Martial Weapons and Heavy Armor proficiency separately. And so on. Rangers requiring survival skills, maybe the self-sufficient feat. Also, maybe separate out one of the two points of the first level saving throw bonuses as applying only to the class taken at level 1.
@@mal2ksc I can see where you're coming from with that, but consider that this reduces the temptation of these other choices. In particular, it makes multiclassing just worse than it is otherwise. 'Gain another level of your current class' is just way better if doing anything else requires burning a feat on it first. If your character plan requires it, you can do it. Otherwise, avoid.
I think level by level multiclassing is intrinsic to D&D. By all means squash the egregious things like Hexblade, but people who want single-classing or archetype multiclassing to be the only options have 4e and Pathfinder.
It's...really not though. Out of all D&D editions (and there have been a lot), only 3.X and 5E do a la carte multiclassing. There's literally more D&D editions that do simultaneous/hybrid style multiclassing than level based.
I don't think it needs to be REMOVED per say, but it should at least be firmly shifted into Optional territory. Classes should not be designed around it. Any time Clas design work is being done and somebody says "That seems overpowered for multiclassing though" the response needs to be "Who cares? Multiclassing isn't balanced anyway." If Hexblade dips are ruining your game, the problem is not the Hexblade, it's Multiclassing.
If they really wanted make MC redundant, they should offer choices for each subclass ability (like Pathfinder), or allow to choose between the abilities of the subclasses of your chosen class of the same or lower level. The PHB Ranger and the Totem Warrior offered some choices , but then they never developed that further, which is a missed opportunity. The ability stats requirement and moving all subclasses to level 3 is a way to discourage players from MCing. But why when all classes and subclasses all get the same abilities? That's boring. Give choices to choose from within the sub-/classes or allow MC freely. Otherwise all characters of the same sub/class will end up to be the same run of the mill.
It should be eliminated. It’s just min maxing. Archtypes like the fighter mage are addressed through subclasses. Also it’s very unbalanced as martials multi well and casters do not
It's a crude idea, but what if multiclassing was a feat? You pick it up, then you can pick a class feature from another class that's equal to half your character level or lower? Caster classes would be tricky, but it's an idea to start with
Think that offers a bit too much really, as well as creating a large number of rule questions unless clearly marking each class feature as something that can or can’t be taken. There’d be a solid number of times this would offer the chance to get exactly the feature you’re looking for while minimizing sacrifice to get it. Meanwhile, it would hurt better multiclassing goals that would find more flavorful features as a bonus since now instead of a bonus it’s the entire goal.
Just saying, for full casters multiclassing is a serious trade off until lvl 18. Its not a default choice to multi out of them since you start trailing on spell levels, and they add a lot of power.
Unfortunately, some classes have little to look forwards to after level 3, 5, 6, etc. This combined with a lack of options in class features and feats makes multiclassing enticing. If they got rid of multiclassing, which I'm not personally into the idea of, they really need to address those issues. They should address those issues anyways, I would love to accomplish more character concepts with just one class + feats. I see some folks saying that you don't need multiclassing because subclasses exist... sorry to say, but that doesn't fix it. Some classes (rogue) can go over 5 levels without a subclass feature, and being made to wait for expansion books that might maybe contain a sub that fits your concept isn't great. Homebrewing is nice but 'just homebrew it' isn't exactly a positive note in the system's favor. One can homebrew for any ttrpg.
I just thought of an idea to have some of the features say something like "If this isn't your main class, then you don't get this feature for 3 more levels" or something like that to slow down immediate power gains. Of course, they could give out more feats and have some features as feats.
Nah, the tweaks are simple and easy to implement. 1. Lv0 skills/features. Simple, you only get these feature if you start with the class. 2. Accumulation skills. These are skills that you only get on your main class. Skills that comes from accumulated experience/knowledge (Having trained as a Ranger from a young age, you now have access to [insert skill]). These skills could potentially be attained by training for X days, letting you access them by doing some downtime activities, training under a true master of said class, stuff like that.
There seems to be a stigma around multiclassing for a mechanical benefit. You can multiclass for a mechanical benefit AND do it for roleplaying, the same is true for optimising your character. You only need to look at Brennan Lee Mulligan's characters when he plays to see you can have an insanely optimised character that is also rich in roleplay. It's way more fun to multiclass for me because the design of late level abilities is awful. You will get something as a 14th level ability something that is just as powerful or even weaker than your 3rd level one. Like what even is Barbarian's Brutal Critical?? And that's all they get at their level? A Paladin is better at getting juicy critical hits than the class with an entire feature dedicated to it. Paladin is actually one of the best designed classes. It's hard to think of bad features they have and thus multiclassing out of them is difficult. They has have strict requirements for multiclassing into (str 13) that stop most full casters from going paladin dip for smites with their huge spell spell slot count.
It's a role playing game. Not having multi classing would be crazy. Yes some stuff is not balanced well but plenty of people pick builds that aren't minmax just do it for the unique lore and Role play you can get out of it.
After a two years campaign I wrote this into my post mortem : No multiclassing. If it took a lifetime for a character to become a monk, a fighter, etc., this character cannot suddenly become something wildly different, all in the span of a few weeks of adventuring. I'll allow multiclassing now only if something major happened to this character, or if it spends months in training with a mentor of specific class and subclass.
So by the same logic you're also banning level ups on classes with long lifespans? It took the elf wizard 362 years to become an intermediate spellcaster, this character can not suddenly become an archmage.
One of the issues I have with people poo pooing multiclassing as a feature and saying it shouldn’t exist, is that it’s dumb to force a character to continue on a route that they don’t want to. In world and meta game. Like if I’m a bard and loved singing a dancing but it took me away from my family who died bc I was off galavanting so I have years of experience as a bard but now don’t want to learn anything new in that class then somehow I’m forced to eithe forget years of experience or even worse, forced to keep being a bard even though I’d much rather bc a necromancer or warlock or some shit??? That’s so gamey and dumb
I really don’t like the fact that multiclassing seems to play a pretty big factor in current subclass balancing. I don’t like the idea of some features getting kneecapped or others having to be reworked because it can be over powered as a dip or in combination with something else. I don’t want to ruin other people’s fun, but I feel like it really should stay as just an optional rule rather than a core consideration.
I think implementing something similar to the guidelines Tasha's gives for changing your subclass could be useful. Mechanically, it adds weight to the decision without removing power. Table play-wise, it forces you to make RP sense for your multiclass, the stuff that's usually built into your backstory as a single class. No more just waking up from a long rest and magically having made a pact with a patron because you said so. There's a time, cost and story investment.
I think the best solution for multiclassing is to give better features to characters as they level up. There are too many high level class features that feel like they’d be at home in tier 1 or 2. If another level of Barbarian gives me substantially less than a level of Fighter or Rogue where’s my motivation to stay loyal to the Barbarian class?
I say if they're really holding back how good martial classes could be because they can't figure out how to balance multiclassing than I say just get rid of it. I'd rather monk be good by itself than needing to multiclass into 3 other classes just to function.
the problem with multiclassing is that they allow you to dip any number of levels in other classes which leads to min/maxing. the way multiclassing should work is you should have to alternate leveling up between the two classes and the two classes should never be able to be more than 1 level apart. And they should change ability score improvements to be based on total level instead of class level and each class should get something good at level 10.
@@mal2ksc spellcasters shouldnt have side hustles theyre already superior to other classes. the problem is multiclassing IS mechnically optimal a lot of the time. for example cleric 1/wizard 19 is pretty mechanically optimal compared to wizard 20. taking a 1 level dip in a different class should never be better than going pure class but thats where the game is at now. thats why multiclassing should either be disallowed entirely or force you to divide your levels 50/50 between the two classes like older versions of D&D.
I love multiclassing, but I'd rather see the game strip it out and add "multiclassing" via subclasses and feats. I'd rather get important parts of my PC at low level rather than having some aspects delayed just to stop people from dipping.
Multiclassing is almost a necessity with how 5e has billed itself as a very narrative-focused rpg. You need that flexibility to follow where the story is going sometimes. However i see two pretty baseline things that could severely limit it's potential and make straight classing more attractive. 1. Simply apply more scaling to low-level features and amp up the power of higher level features. With Barb as an example, maybe have Rage damage be only +1 for a few levels, Push Reckless Attack back a level or so, make Brutal critical actually be fucking brutal. How? Donno, make the damage more impactful or make it so you can eventually crit on a 15, just something, anything. 2. Provide more guidance and content campaigns to start at high level. Give people a reason to go for those impactful high-level features.
Also, the idea that they should make the entire concept of multiclassing weaker bc there are like 3 or 4 Uber powerful or perceived uberpowerful combinations is ignoring the fact that 99% of multiclass combos are either weak or just average. By making the entirety of multiclassing weaker you’re nerfing even further the balanced and fun conceptual multiclasses that just help you flesh out and customize your character concept. If they don’t make more subclasses or classes to address more fantasy concepts then they are just make normal fantasy tropes that aren’t overpowered impossible in what’s supposed to be a fantasy world
Even then, are those combos really so much more powerful than just a straight classed wizard? Delaying spell casting for a sepecific pickup is a tradeoff. Maybe at 19th lvl, but what about 5th?
@@KaelinGoff yea, I think multiclasses get a bad rap bc of people complaining and just wanting single class to be stronger in all cases. Outside of some very weird convoluted optimized combinations I’ve never seen any multiclass that’s overshadowing other optimizers
I kinda hate the 3rd level archetype for everyone thing. It feels very much like a "cut off my nose to spite my face" type of deal what with things like Paladin not getting an Oath until 3rd level. But at the same time lv1 hexblade is still a thing. It just seems backwards and confused.
Alternative class features, more classes, better later features. More flexibility not less, I multiclass for concept or toolkit not for power. Then again the class system itself is the problem.
I've played DND on and off for three or four years, and the furthest I've ever gotten in any campaign is level seven. Multiclassing let's you try fun new things while accommodating the reality that no DM/campaign will ever get you to level ten and beyond.
Honestly, multiclassing for power is way overstated. If you want pure power just play a single class wizard. Job done, no multiclassing required. Multiclassing is if you want to do something specific and not have your character be a total wash after that. Or to get a sub par class with shitty endgame features, like barbarian or rogue to perform in line with other characters in the lategame. If classes were somewhat balanced, "optimized" builds would not lean so heavily into multiclassing. And for the really dumb multiclasses that feel like borderline exploits, like FTK nova builds or life cleric goodberry cheese, there is a very simple solution. Just say no. As a DM, you should not only say no to things, that are against the rules, but also to things, that you do not want to deal with. I'm currently playing a rogue, and I really feel like staying in the class does almost nothing for me. Multiclassing makes level progression feel fresh and exciting again, instead of "Oh boy, every 2 levels I get an extra die." It's like "And next level I get mage armor, and then I get bladesong, after that I can upgrade my weapon to a shadowblade." And it makes playing a character I quite frankly grew bored of feel exciting again.
I limit multiclassing by requiring the to be built into the background (you can multi into cleric if you have acolyte background, etc) or have a high level NPC of that class tutor you. This keeps it from getting out of hand while still being an option for players.
At first I hated it. But after BG3 I love and hate it. The big thing I have noted in modern D&D is the push for personalization of character. From a player perspective I adore it. From a DM perspective it is a nightmare due to the dreaded power gamer. Niche issue arguments against against certain character builds rings so hollow. When magic has been given to every damn class making the class of wizard the least special class in the game. Finally classes should just be ditched and player should just acquire features via point buy system. Now that I think on it the reason I love 3rd ed is due to how feat building and progression is how you could really customize your characters.
If they take out multi-classing, then i would like to see official homebrew subclass rules (with some revisions to them for stricter balance and clarity) included in the Players handbook, and seen as a normal and explicitly valid, totally acceptable part of the game.
To say always multi classing is bad because it makes it easier is wrong. The easiest thing to do is just be a wizard and go all the way with only wizard levels. And just be more powerful than everyone else.
No they shouldnt. It should be on a DM who doesnt like multiclassing to say they dont want multiclasses in their group, while the option remains for those who like it. If someone thinks multiclassing is too powerful, let a table rule disallow it.
I played in a lot of campaigns and can say for sure that only 20-30% of people care about their power level. Most people are not interested in powerful builds and multiclass for plot reasons
The Hexblade Warlock is one of these cases where a subclass was designed to fix an issue with a part of the core class itself (in this case, the Warlock's Pact of the Blade). In my opinion, that is what's flawed about the design of this subclass; the existence of multiclassing only exacerbates the issues brought upon by this approach. However, this does highlight that multiclassing needs to be either a core rule or not in the game at all. Like you said, 5e's class and subclass design doesn't take the existence of multiclassing into account in a bunch of ways, possibly relying on the cop-out argument that multiclassing was just an optional rule anyway, making that optional rule potentially awkward to use in turn. We'll see if the 2024 revision will implement lessons learnt from that. But at the end of the day, I prefer multiclassing with room for improvement over no multiclassing (in the latter of which I include anything less than taking proper levels in at least two different classes): I play at homebrew- and house rule-happy tables where multiclassing is always about the narrative and class fantasy, not about the mechanical benefits, so... eh. We'll do as we always have and will have fun with it our way.
They just gave hexblade all the best features in the game and ran with it. -Using weapons with your casting stat -Medium armor and shield proficiency -The shield spell
Multi classing is an optional rule in 5e. If the DM does not like it they can ban it in their game. If players don’t like it they can choose not to do it. The fact that multi classing seems ubiquitous must surely mean it is really popular. WotC would be foolish to remove such a popular aspect of the rules. The simple fact of making it an optional rule is all the fix you need. My concern with the 2024 edition is they will remove the optional status of multi classing meaning I will have to house rule the ban I have in my homebrew campaign.
YES!! More focus on dungeoneering and adventuring, less focus on powergaming and builds. Your character shouldn't even have a name until they make it to at least third level.
The issue is not multiclassing but SINGLE classing. Look at the Paladin. From level 1 to 12 there is a great incentive to stay in. And so people tend to but for one thing - MAD (Multi Attribute Dependent). MAD weakens a character and class and so if you can get SAD (single attribute dependent) you get a better character. That is why people go Hexblade. So instead of just making that a thing(some magic item or a feat that gets them what they want), let’s make it level 3. Well that will back fire because there is a pattern that will be very powerful and just has you bouncing between the classes as you get an even better power effect even if you hit with the sword less. Optimizers are not a bad thing and if you have one at the table chances are they are happy to teach the “weak” player how to do it or give a DM ideas on how to keep them balanced in the squad. And often Multiclassing is not the way to power up too. You want power be a Wizard. If you still want to hit things - great weapon master gets you 75% to max power without much work at low levels. The One D&D approach of pushing things to third level is a worthless one because ultimately game don’t get beyond level 10 and making anything good not come to the player till level 3 is likely to make multiclassing feel really bad. That sums down what people can do and that makes it so people will get bored and leave the hobby sooner. Ultimate I see some bad out of this but I am just a cranky old gamer what do I know. 😂 Look I think you are hitting on another issue without knowing it that has always ripped the community apart. Tactical players Vs Acting players. But that is another story…
The problem is that early level subclass makes sense for cleric and warlock I mean you get the power from a patron or God you need to have a specific one from level 3 onwards. I figure you could something like the patron or God doesn't show itself in full until after you have proved your worth, but it seems iffy.
Incorrect. It has not been in every edition. They kind of multiclassing we have in 5e has only existed in one other edition (3e). Several editions had no multiclassing at all.
@OldtimerOfSweden 2e had multiclassing and I'm fairly sure 4e did aswell. 1e I believe had multiclassing as more of a house rule, but it definitely was something people did.
@@ATMOSK1234 Multiclassing in AD&D (1e and 2e) was significally different from what was in 3e and 5e. So was multiclassing in 4e. So the kind of multiclassing we have in 5e was only present in 3e. Also, there was no multiclassing in OD&D, in B/X D&D, or in BECMI D&D.
Multiclassing is honestly fine. It's much better with every subclass being level 3 now in 2024. It can sometimes be kind of strange story wise. For instance i'm currently playing an Alchemist Artificer and kind of want to go Genie Warlock as well, but the DM says that makes no sense as we've never even seen an Efreeti before, so how could I just magically make one my patron. In a previous campaign I was a Circle of Stars Druid who multi-classed in to War Domain Cleric strictly because we found a magical glaive weapon that no one wanted, so I took it. The best way for me to use that weapon was to take a level of Cleric because I was already the healer anyways and used Wisdom, so it made perfect sense.
As for the Warlock multiclass you could ask your DM if they could work that into the campaign at some point like having you find a magic lamp or something which gives you the level in warlock. I find weird multiclassing is a lot easier when you have an open discussion about it with your DM to try and make it work in the story somehow
@@sylkegaming The artificer accidentally overdoses himself while preparing potions, and goes on a full-blown psychedelic trip where he is offered the powers of the Great Old Ones.
@@sylkegaming I'd also be able to burn half an hour of session time just describing the trip when I'm just alternating between an info dump and visuals from _2001: A Space Odyssey._ Then they come out the other end with a level of Warlock! I would use a music visualizer on a phone or tablet to give them a general idea how the patron is revealing [him/her/their/it]self if they've never seen the movie. Or I'd just show them that part of the movie while I talk. If the player wants to dip Warlock and wants my help getting it to make sense, I'm on board. Usually lore dumps get yawns, but when they're lore dumps _about your shiny new patron,_ complete with visuals, they become a lot more interesting. I don't care if we technically aren't "playing D&D" as long as we're all enjoying it and it advances the game/plot. I'd just appreciate some warning, so I know to prepare for the one info dump I know you'll be listening to.
Individual level multiclassing (i.e. how it works in 5e and was invented in 3e) is the biggest mistake anyone ever made in D&D (except maybe 4th edition). AD&D's multiclassing and dualclassing was a lot more restrictive and stopped the dumb cherry-picking that so many people do in 3.x and 5.x. It screws the game designers because they have to try to make every class feel distinct at low levels, but they also have to balance out what you get for 1-3 levels with what other levels give any other class at any other level. If you didn't have multiclassing, you could give classes really powerful and distinctive abilities from level one. I think we should go back to AD&D multiclassing. You can take multiple classes, but you have to choose which ones at first level, and you have to go up in them at equal rates. And then you don't have to worry about balancing individual levels of a class, because no one can cherry pick levels.
I don't mc much, and sometimes not at all, but I am considering making a 2 level Tempest cleric, that finds out he's a storm sorcerer with transmuted spell meta magic. once they get to 7th level (2 in cleric and 5 in sorcerer) to try casting fireball and making in thunder damage, and maxing out the damage on one hit with channel divinity (once per rest) but he could stink overall, and I don't think it would be very good until level 7 and I'm not sure even then. But I am curious as to how it would play.
