D&D 5E Dual classing; solution to multiclassing?

Mephista said:

And, really, just how are you going to "boost up" an underperforming PC? With overpowered magic items? Having to rewrite the rules mid game? This isn't a minor tweak. Its pretty significant.

Click to expand...

<shrug> This isn't some rules addition WotC is putting out. It's a house rule. A DM shouldn't have too much difficulty giving the underperforming PC a hand with some targeted magic items, no different than they might do for any other PC in a game with a divergence of character effectiveness.

If you're the type of DM who just lets the chips fall where they may, balance-wise, you might have more concerns about such a system, of course.

How are you handling casting? Is it cumulative slots/single class spells known like in 5e multiclassing, or does each class have it's own slots and progression? Or something else.

What I'd consider successful is where a dual-class caster/caster is comparable to a single classed caster at the various tiers - different but comparable, and a caster/martial is comparable to a fighter(eldritch knight) or rogue (arcane trickster). Again, they will be different, the dual class will get higher slots quicker but should therefore be lower on the martial scale.

I think that the solution to multi-classing in 5e was intended to be covered by Sub-classes. Want a Fighter/Magic-user, take Eldritch Knight. Want a Magic-User/Thief, take Arcane Trickster. Want a Cleric/Fighter, choose an appropriate Domain. Certainly there are combinations not yet covered by the available Sub-classes, but that can be remedied with home-brew. You want a Sacred Fist, use Arcane Trickster as a template for a divine-casting Monk Sub-Class.

I do miss the old style multi-classing of 2e, but I think that Sub-Classes, Feats and Backgrounds make it possible to get that feel without the need for this.

Blue said:

How are you handling casting? Is it cumulative slots/single class spells known like in 5e multiclassing, or does each class have it's own slots and progression? Or something else.

What I'd consider successful is where a dual-class caster/caster is comparable to a single classed caster at the various tiers - different but comparable, and a caster/martial is comparable to a fighter(eldritch knight) or rogue (arcane trickster). Again, they will be different, the dual class will get higher slots quicker but should therefore be lower on the martial scale.

Click to expand...

Slots would be added together from each class as a single spell slot pool.

Each class would have it's own preparation/known mechanics and it would determined spell attack bonus/spell save DC.

I.E. lvl 20 wizard/ranger dualclass would have casting abilities of 13th level wizard; with 4/3/3/3/2/1/1 spell slots and 13+int mod spells prepared and ranger would have 4/3/3/1 with 8 spells known.
For total of 8/6/6/4/2/1/1 spell slots.

Horwath said:

Slots would be added together from each class as a single spell slot pool.

Each class would have it's own preparation/known mechanics and it would determined spell attack bonus/spell save DC.

I.E. lvl 20 wizard/ranger dualclass would have casting abilities of 13th level wizard; with 4/3/3/3/2/1/1 spell slots and 13+int mod spells prepared and ranger would have 4/3/3/1 with 8 spells known.
For total of 8/6/6/4/2/1/1 spell slots.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of lower level slots, especially for a caster/caster. Considering that many spells keep their utility (shield, bless, most buffs and debuffs) that will give a considerably deeper pool to cast from then a single classed character, even if the single classed character has a few higher level spells.

A Cleric 20 has 4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1 - 22 slots, totalling 89 spell levels. A 20th level Cleric/Druid (caster 13) has 8/6/6/6/4/2/2 - 34 spell slots totalling 108 spell levels. The only thing they are missing is the one 8th and one 9th level spell which is a big deal, but they have a lot more total spells to cast, more total spell levels to cast, and likely more spells known to chose from.

I don't think that method of dual casting is balanced vs. single class casters.

The other half of my criteria of balance was about martial/casters vs. single classed such as Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster. This will give 13th level martial but also up to 7th level spells, much higher than them. Even compared to a half caster that at 20th tops at 5th level spells, this would give 7th level spells.

This really gives out a lot more spell slots, total levels, and for comparing with half-casters or the EK/AT a lot higher levels of spells known. This seems to be much more powerful then single classed.

I'm not saying this to try to shoot down your dual classing concept, I think that's an interesting idea. This is just to provide feedback to help you balance it against single classes. Unless the idea is that all character are dual classed in which case they are balanced against each other and then who cares - the DM can always up the opposition (but not the XP earned).

Blue said:

That's a lot of lower level slots, especially for a caster/caster. Considering that many spells keep their utility (shield, bless, most buffs and debuffs) that will give a considerably deeper pool to cast from then a single classed character, even if the single classed character has a few higher level spells.

A Cleric 20 has 4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1 - 22 slots, totalling 89 spell levels. A 20th level Cleric/Druid (caster 13) has 8/6/6/6/4/2/2 - 34 spell slots totalling 108 spell levels. The only thing they are missing is the one 8th and one 9th level spell which is a big deal, but they have a lot more total spells to cast, more total spell levels to cast, and likely more spells known to chose from.

I don't think that method of dual casting is balanced vs. single class casters.

The other half of my criteria of balance was about martial/casters vs. single classed such as Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster. This will give 13th level martial but also up to 7th level spells, much higher than them. Even compared to a half caster that at 20th tops at 5th level spells, this would give 7th level spells.

This really gives out a lot more spell slots, total levels, and for comparing with half-casters or the EK/AT a lot higher levels of spells known. This seems to be much more powerful then single classed.

I'm not saying this to try to shoot down your dual classing concept, I think that's an interesting idea. This is just to provide feedback to help you balance it against single classes. Unless the idea is that all character are dual classed in which case they are balanced against each other and then who cares - the DM can always up the opposition (but not the XP earned).

Click to expand...

Yes. Caster/caster could be a problem. But in adddition to losing 8th and 9th level spells they are losing 14th, 18th and 20th level features. Sure some are bad but many low level features are even worse. Also spell levels come much later. 7th level spells at 19th level vs. 13th for normal class caster. Maybe a ban on full caster/full caster dual class could be a simple solution.

Sent from my SM-J320F using EN World mobile app

Blue said:

That's a lot of lower level slots, especially for a caster/caster. Considering that many spells keep their utility (shield, bless, most buffs and debuffs) that will give a considerably deeper pool to cast from then a single classed character, even if the single classed character has a few higher level spells.

A Cleric 20 has 4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1 - 22 slots, totalling 89 spell levels. A 20th level Cleric/Druid (caster 13) has 8/6/6/6/4/2/2 - 34 spell slots totalling 108 spell levels. The only thing they are missing is the one 8th and one 9th level spell which is a big deal, but they have a lot more total spells to cast, more total spell levels to cast, and likely more spells known to chose from.

Click to expand...

I would probably not combine the spell slots; better to have two separate pools of 4/3/3/3/2/1/1, each with their own spell selection. Personally, I don't value extra spell slots that highly, most single casters aren't going to be burning through 2-3 spell slots an encounter to reach the point where having 20+ spells is worthwhile.

Still, I would keep class features as separate as possible so that there's less problematic synergies. No using sorcery points on non-sorcerer spells, for example, or using non-paladin spell slots to smite.

Horwath said:

Yes. Caster/caster could be a problem. But in adddition to losing 8th and 9th level spells they are losing 14th, 18th and 20th level features. Sure some are bad but many low level features are even worse. Also spell levels come much later. 7th level spells at 19th level vs. 13th for normal class caster. Maybe a ban on full caster/full caster dual class could be a simple solution.

Click to expand...

Losing 3 features at 14th, 18th and 20th in return for getting 13 levels worth of features from the other class. I think that imbalance favors the dual-classed character.

But even caster/martial ends up much better casting than single classed half-casters or the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster. I think that the issue isn't just caster/caster, but all casters under this. Perhaps the correct point to balance with single classed characters is also impose less spell slots (though likely not slower spell level progression).

Blue said:

Losing 3 features at 14th, 18th and 20th in return for getting 13 levels worth of features from the other class. I think that imbalance favors the dual-classed character.

But even caster/martial ends up much better casting than single classed half-casters or the Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster. I think that the issue isn't just caster/caster, but all casters under this. Perhaps the correct point to balance with single classed characters is also impose less spell slots (though likely not slower spell level progression).

Click to expand...

Well, let's look at it from the other direction. I haven't seen anyone argue that Fighter10/Wizard10 or Fighter9/Wizard11 or Fighter 11/Wizard9 renders EK an unusable option. What class features can be so problematic that adding one level of class features every 3 levels or so (which is what this system amounts to) would break the system?
Going from a Fighter 11/Wizard9, for example, to this system, would add 2 ASIs, a 5th, 6th, and 7th level slot, a 10th level arcane Tradition feature, and an extra use of Indomitable. It's certainly an upgrade from Fighter 11/Wizard 9, but it doesn't seem like an auto pick over EK 20 or Paladin 20.

More importantly, it's even less of a bonus at lower levels. (20th level balance is problematic anyway.) I'd rather have an EK 11 than a Fighter 5/Wizard 6; Fighter 7/Wizard 7 with less hit points doesn't seem that much better.

TwoSix said:

Personally, I don't value extra spell slots that highly, most single casters aren't going to be burning through 2-3 spell slots an encounter to reach the point where having 20+ spells is worthwhile.

Click to expand...

With 6-8 encounters per day, having 3-4 rounds of casting plus some bonus actions and reaction spells (thank you shieeld, counterspell, etc.) is completely reasonable. Lowballing 6 encounters of 3 actions plus a single reaction/bonus action spell is 24 spells/day right there. Not including any utility spells cast at other times.

That pace is probably common for an entire adventuring career. Let's look at the balance as we go up the levels.

It starts at 2nd level, where you have 4 1st level spells instead of 3 - a 33% increase, and easy to use in an adventuring day. But that's just a scary percentage, not really a big deal. Though if you offer a 2nd level caster a free 1st level slot, I think it's a safe bet they would be happy taking it.

At 5th level, a single classed caster has 9 slots vs. a dual-classed caster/caster will have 12 slots. Both are 16 spell levels worth. Okay, that's not so bad either, if there's a imbalance it's probably in two subclasses coming on line vs. the 5th level caster feature, but that's a different discussion.

At 8th, single classed finally gets up to those 12 slots and 27 spell levels, but dual is up to 18 slots and 32 spell levels. That is a big deal.

At 11th single has 16 slots vs. 22 spell slots. But it's caught up in spell levels, with 47 vs. 46.

At 14th single has 17 slots of 54 spell levels, vs. 28 slots and 72 spell levels. It's here that we're finally getting to the point where there might be "too many" spell slots to use all of them effectively for the dual casters based on the combat math at the beginning, so we'll see more utility and other out-of-combat usage.

For completeness, 17th is 19 slots and 71 spell levels vs. 32 slots and 94 spell levels. 20th we already discussed at 22 / 89 vs. 34 slots and 108 spell levels.

Consistently the dual classed casters have an edge in slots, and for most of the time they also have a considerable edge in the total spell levels of those slots. It's not until the last tier of play is there consideration that they may have "too many" slots.

And lastly, many lower level non-damage spells keep their utility and scale well without needing to e upcast, so having more of those slots is useful. The single classed caster can use more of those by upcasting (for the spells that allow it) or just using a higher level slot for no benefit, but that makes the castable-spell-levels even worse in it's favor.