D&D General Do We Really Need Multiclassing?

[ECMO3]

What I think you're running up against, particularly with the distaste for multiclassing you developed in 3e, is mostly a clash of styles. As long as a character has a lot of options, and 3e certainly added a lot from feats to skills and level-based wealth driving magic equipment, some types of players were going to map it all out with a plan to maximize their chances of getting the character they want. And that's even without talking about multiclassing and prestige classes. That player may not be you, they may even drive you crazy, but their way of approaching things is as valid as yours.

I agree with your observations on players and playstyles, but I don't agree that 3E provided a lot of options. IMO 3E offered the illusion of options but most were either unavailable or you took a severe penalty for exercising them so they were not really viable options.

I completely agree that there are characters who map out their 5E characters for levels 1-20 at game start (I even do this myself at times). But it differs from 3E in two important ways IME:

1. Plans are not permanent in 5E. They are plans. As I noted I have mapped out some characters, but the characters I have actually played "as planned" are very few. The mapping in 5E is a plan which you can (and in my case do) easily deviate from without a lot of bad ramifications. In 3E your plans were a binding pact. I remember building a Swashbuckler-Wizard-Bladesinger in 3E. This guy was going to be awesome getting his intelligence bonus to damage on finesse weapons with some nice spell options and a good AC, white roomed it to death and then we ended up playing in a campaign with a crap ton of undead who were immune to sneak attack and therefore her damage bonus. Problem was by the time I figured this out there was not a lot I could do to salvage it.

2. In 5e there is not a huge power disparity between the players who map and the players who don't. The guy who just picks his level up on the fly is not going to be that far behind the guy who planned it out from the get go to squeeze the most out of things. In fact in 5E I would argue the disparities in ability scores from good dice vs bad dice at character creation cause bigger disparities in power than disparities due to one player planning out a great multiclass combo and the other guy just hitting the level up button and taking an ASI.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If you want to do away with multiclassing, the game needs a willingness to create a lot more classes. It's one of my primary frustrations with class based games, that they don't lean in on their primary strength of portraying a bunch of archetypes at nominally similar growth/power levels.

I don't think that this situation is as severe as it looks. The subclasses (well, a good half of them) would have in 3.X been mostly represented by different prestige classes, and in AD&D by entirely different classes much of the time. I believe there are about 120 official subclasses.

Multiclassing ends up as a player desire, because their just isn't enough variety in character optionality without it. If there was 6 different Fighters, that covered a bunch of different combat approaches, the Divine Rogue, the summoner, fey edition, summoner, elemental edition and on and on, all with some choices built into their chasses, and a few universal systems like feats for point buy-esque customization, we wouldn't miss it.

In 5e there are more than six different fighters that cover a bunch of different combat approaches; the Echo Knight is not the Rune Knight is not the Psi Warrior, is not the Eldritch Knight is not the Arcane Archer is not the Battlemaster. The core problem is that if we count levels 1 and 2 to be the "training levels" we have over a hundred mechanical backstories from your class - but the past is prologue. Once your backstory is done your path is set unless you multiclass.

The analogy I could use here is to a "nice" Railroad DM. You might have a choice of what to play, but you're still on that railroad heading at speed towards the destination whether or not you get the choice of which carriage you are in.

 

[Pedantic]

I don't think that this situation is as severe as it looks. The subclasses (well, a good half of them) would have in 3.X been mostly represented by different prestige classes, and in AD&D by entirely different classes much of the time. I believe there are about 120 official subclasses.

I think subclasses are the wrong solution. You want to give players optionality inside of whatever archetype/theme they're playing, instead of making picking that theme into the only real choices. You should be picking from a few appropriate fighting styles as an Echo Knight, instead of picking a fighting style, and deciding to be an Echo Knight.

In 5e there are more than six different fighters that cover a bunch of different combat approaches; the Echo Knight is not the Rune Knight is not the Psi Warrior, is not the Eldritch Knight is not the Arcane Archer is not the Battlemaster. The core problem is that if we count levels 1 and 2 to be the "training levels" we have over a hundred mechanical backstories from your class - but the past is prologue. Once your backstory is done your path is set unless you multiclass.

The analogy I could use here is to a "nice" Railroad DM. You might have a choice of what to play, but you're still on that railroad heading at speed towards the destination whether or not you get the choice of which carriage you are in.

This is basically the problem. If we blew subclass up to the level of class, and then made the choices inside each class more atomic (I actually think PF1 style lists of "pick a Ninja ability" are a good template here), you could have the best of both worlds.

 

[Cruentus]

I don't usually see that and I don't really agree either, because "maximization" will generally drive players to play a Wizard, and not one with a lot of other classes.

Multiclassing can boost the power of a lot of builds, especially weapon-fighting and skill monkeys builds and there are a ton of great synergies. But those builds are behind casters to start with.

It can also bring a lot of off-color flavor and mechanics to a spellcaster build (Death Cleric/Bladesinger, Order Cleric/Enchantment Wizard, Wizard/Sorcerer, Sorlock). But when it comes to maxing a character for level 1-20 I think a single class Wizard will generally outperform any multiclass combo (assuming identical ability scores and at least one 16 to start).

There are a few specific levels and level ranges I could build a multiclass character that would be more powerful than a single class Wizard at that level, but overall they will be behind through most of the campaign.

Sure, you don't see it. I do. Different tables and different experiences and all that. The players I have played with for over 40 years are min/maxers, and all about the power. If they can multiclass to boost slots to, say, Smite, or stack up Ability Score bonuses for whatever, or to do wonky combos with familiars, darkness, devilsight while combining that with a rogue's sneak attack, etc., its pure gamism (in my opinion, your experience may vary, etc.).

Like in your example about your getting lost in the jungle. So, the only way the game could progress is for your character to all of a sudden be able to become a ranger, complete with "favored terrain: jungle" (how convenient!). I mean, great that that worked for your table, but that is jarring, and shouldn't be necessary. Why are hired guides so bad at "guiding"? Is everything left to the whims of the dice rolls vs ability checks? Why can't the environment, or the guides, actually do what they're supposed to be able to do without constantly getting lost?

I'd be annoyed at "having" to dip to make the campaign actually work. But I'm glad you made lemonade.

I get the off flavor stuff. But it should be flavor. I'm perfectly happy with feats, backgrounds, and such offering some ability, but not necessitating MC'ing.

In the game I DM'd, session zero was about a FR campaign set in 900 DR, in the Moonshaes, with a very dark ages/celtic/mystery/low magic type setting, with less murderhobo, more RP, total sandbox, etc. All agreed upon by the players, and then two of the four go about multiclassing into some kind of spellcaster, except for the arcane archer, and fighter. So we had Sorcerer into Twilight Cleric, Rogue into Warlock for familiar stuff, etc. Completely against theme, completely at odds with session zero agreement, etc. All for the perceived ability to want to "win" DND by a couple of players at the table. I also realize that can happen in any version of DnD as well. But 5e makes is easier, again, in my experience.

And the single class advantage is only really a thing when you're playing up into the teens and close to 20th level, where the lost levels to MC might matter. Most games I've been in or run cap out after years around level 12ish or less. So the MC "penalty" isn't really one at all considering the additional benefits you can just bake in.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think subclasses are the wrong solution. You want to give players optionality inside of whatever archetype/theme they're playing, instead of making picking that theme into the only real choices. You should be picking from a few appropriate fighting styles as an Echo Knight, instead of picking a fighting style, and deciding to be an Echo Knight.

But as an Echo Knight you do have fighting styles and feats. A battlemaster archer is a very different beast from a battlemaster great weapon fighter.

This is basically the problem. If we blew subclass up to the level of class, and then made the choices inside each class more atomic (I actually think PF1 style lists of "pick a Ninja ability" are a good template here), you could have the best of both worlds.

Subclasses are a compromise and an attempt to have the best of both worlds between the maximalist "hundred classes all geared out to twenty levels so no one can keep track of them" and the minimalist "just four classes and it's much more newbie and more DM friendly". But one disappointment is that the PHB had subclasses with internal options such as hunter, totem warrior, and battlemaster but they were very generic in many ways.

I'd love to see options for e.g. the echo knight or psychic warrior.

 

[Pedantic]

But as an Echo Knight you do have fighting styles and feats. A battlemaster archer is a very different beast from a battlemaster great weapon fighter.

Right, the problem I'm saying is that Echo Knight is a customization you add to your Fighter. It's a fighting style, not your archetype with its own choices to make your Echo Knight special relative to every other Echo Knight.

Subclasses are a compromise and an attempt to have the best of both worlds between the maximalist "hundred classes all geared out to twenty levels so no one can keep track of them" and the minimalist "just four classes and it's much more newbie and more DM friendly". But one disappointment is that the PHB had subclasses with internal options such as hunter, totem warrior, and battlemaster but they were very generic in many ways.

I'd love to see options for e.g. the echo knight or psychic warrior.

The thing is, this gets presented as a nightmare in the context of level-buy multiclassing. If that weren't the case and you couldn't mix and match features across them (maybe classes come with feats for "snag flavorful 1st level ability" if you want to do a little splashing) after making the big chunky, "which of these 100 classes is inspiring?" choice, you're not going to be overwhelmed by the material.

You'll probably want some shared sub-systems to make initial class design less unwieldy (i.e. combat maneuvers, spells grouped by thematic school, etc), but you can make the player choice pretty manageable. You'd need a solid standard of design so that DM-side system trust can be maintained and so you don't feel a need to read every single class before it appears and just ask your players "what can you do?", but...you know, that's just a thing we should be able to have, in general.

 

[MGibster]

As long as we're not getting new classes to fit other archetypes and no commitment to breaking niche protection, multiclassing will always be the sad, janky lesser evil to not addressing those archetypes at all.

That's a valid point. How many classes does D&D need in your opinion?

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's a valid point. How many classes does D&D need in your opinion?

Yes.

 

[MGibster]

If multiclassing were removed from the game, players would reinvent it. Even with the ability to pick up a background to help with blending skills, as long as a class offers some kind of mechanical effect, players are going to find ways they want to blend them.

How would you reinvent it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One of the things I like about 5th edition is the inclusion of backgrounds which I (naively) thought would eliminate some of the desire for people to multiclass. After all, does my Fighter really need to take a level of Rogue in order for me to meet my vision of a character with who grew up as a gutter snipe stealing things? Or am I just better having the Criminal background which will allow me access to some skills and proficiency in thieve's tools?

That was a naive belief on your part, yes, because you are not looking at multiclassing the way other people are looking at it. Since you expect others to bring the same perspective, you are thus blindsided when they want something alien to that perspective. That is, you appear to see "multiclassing" as serving one, and only one, valid purpose: to reflect historical background of a character, or provide mechanical support to something already established about a character's story.

There are at least three other purposes for multiclassing. One, as has already been brought up (because it always will be, usually in the most derisive and often mocking manner possible), is multiclassing for "optimization." Despite the demonization this gets, most players consider some amount of optimization in whatever they do. This is why they scratch their heads at the fact that the 5e Trident is a "worse" spear (heavier, more expensive, higher training required, but otherwise mechanically identical.) It's why you don't bother casting sleep at high levels, because it just can't do enough to be worth using. Etc. Unfortunately, what people always hold up is the worst examples of such behavior, as though that is the only and inherent result of optimization, while ignoring the degenerate behaviors that other interests can foster (the classic "It's what my character would do" excuse, for example, or the "joke" character that is mostly a drag on the party.)

But I said there were (at least) three. The second is multiclassing for archetype, rather than for identity/history. 5e has somewhat reduced this burden through a smattering of subclasses, but whether they're actually good at representing those archetypes is hugely variable. Some are pretty solid, e.g. the Shadow Monk is IMO a great way to represent a ninja-type character. Others are imperfect but serviceable, e.g. most of the ways to be a "swordmage" are either "SWORDmage" or "swordMAGE," failing to truly integrate the parts into something harmonious and more-or-less equal. And others still are just crap, e.g. if you want to play a Warlord in 5e, your options are Battle Master (not actually a Warlord...), PDK (garbage), Mastermind (really not very good and not actually a Warlord), or something magical (emphatically not a Warlord.) With a lot of multiclassing, you can kludge together something vaguely Warlord-like, but if you're forced to stick to just subclasses and feats, you're SOL.

Third, there is multiclassing for future story, which is something I've done. Wishing to explore a certain kind of story with a character and refusing to take Warlock levels because that would conflict with that, but (say) Bard levels would make total sense. Or to represent intentionally having a character practice new skills and methods that they did not use before. My "can a character get every skill proficiency?" exploration hinged critically on what kind of story I could tell about such a person, why they would seek out knowledge of all the skills, and thus shows a blend of both optimization (trying to get the maximum amount of something),

Admittedly I grew to hate multiclassing during 3rd edition. Largely beacuse of the way prestige classes worked. In my mind, they took away all spontaneity requiring players to plan ahead to select specific classes and feats in order to get the prestige class instead of choosing such things in response to the events of the game. And as a general rule, I just don't like keeping track of character builds by dipping into other classes. But I recognize that some people just love building characters and multiclassing can be a part of it and there's nothing wrong with that.

I certainly agree that PrCs failed at what they were intended to be, and instead became meticulous "build everything perfectly before session 0" fodder for optimization of the worst sort. That was the fault of the designers, not the mechanic, but the damage is done and I get why that leaves a permanent distaste in many folks' mouths. The thing is, they also contributed to an awful lot of bad MCing for poor reasons as well: people pursuing quirky franken-characters because "it's what my character would do" (even if it means being dead weight for the other players to drag around) or because one is chasing a...shall we say, idiosyncratic and self-promoting story.

I hear multiclassing is optional, but I've never met a player who viewed it as optional. Does everyone allow mutliclassing in their games? I don't like it, but I've never restricted it.

I personally dislike perfectly functional, non-exploitative options being banned outright. The only things I dislike more are fudging and pretending you allow everything while functionally banning things outright. So, if someone up-front says multiclassing is banned, that's a red flag for me.