D&D 5E Should there be multi-class versions of all the classes?

[ForeverSlayer]

I believe there should be specific versions of the classes whenever a player takes one as a multi-class. I think they shouldbe weaker versions of the full class that you would then eventually gain full use of over time. I think what this would do is cut out the level dip and would actually make sense on an in game level. I mean it takes years for someone to become a wizard and yet you can multi-class into one over night.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't like the idea very much. There are so many classes (12), that the number of combinations (132) would require an enormous amount of design work if each combination was done ad-hoc. Eventually this would mean that some lucky player would get their favourite combo done at launch, while the others would have to wait for who knows how long. Not to mention that several core classes originated as hybrids.

Plus, level-dipping covers interesting and fairly important narrative concepts. It's quite fair to allow characters who are mostly single-class but have side training in a secondary class, or characters who stopped advancing in a class and started the path in another.

For making sense with training times, there is nothing you can do really. In many games, times flows on its own for level advancement, and PC level up just as you say "overnight". Training rules have been designed many times, but for a lot of games, they just don't work, they just become a detestable nuisance. The only good approach is not to force training rules on any gaming group, because a lot of them just don't gain any fun from them. Have an optional module if you want, but be warned that even the best training rules often become stale quickly.

I'd rather keep the flexibility of level-based multiclassing, and tell DMs that if they are concerned with non-sensible combinations, a house rule like "maximum N classes per characters" (for example N=3) is very simple to handle and just as simple to ignore (if it's your own house rule, not a standard rule).

 

[TwoSix]

I believe there should be specific versions of the classes whenever a player takes one as a multi-class. I think they shouldbe weaker versions of the full class that you would then eventually gain full use of over time. I think what this would do is cut out the level dip and would actually make sense on an in game level. I mean it takes years for someone to become a wizard and yet you can multi-class into one over night.

Yea, I've thought before that multiclass-specific subclasses would be a cool concept to add to the game.

To enforce training concepts, maybe requiring complementary backgrounds (and the associated skill and tool proficiencies) would work better than the current stat requirement? A scholar background can multiclass into a wizard much more easily than a pirate, or something like that.

Another thought. There's always this assumption that being a wizard is something that takes years and years to train. Why is that? After all, the rules are pretty clear that you CAN pick up some wizardly ability fairly quickly. Maybe the basics of being a wizard aren't really that hard? Sure, you can do it better if you're a quick study (which is why a high Intelligence benefits the wizard), but pick up a grimoire and practice with a wand for a week or two, and you can do some basic cantriping. It really isn't any different than, say, chemistry. Sure, going to school for years can help you learn lots of theoretical stuff (which is why plenty of wizards go to a school), but you can pick up the basics to do some bench work pretty quickly.

After all, Jesse might not have gone to school in Breaking Bad, but he learned how to cook meth well enough.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm for whatever makes for the best use of space in the Player's Handbook.

Me personally... level dipping has never concerned me. I figure that if a particular table and DM is okay with a PC dipping into a level of some other class, that's up to them. The only issue I would have would be if those level dips increased the PCs power too far ahead of the other players at the table (thereby rendering those other players feeling like what they do doesn't matter next to the "super-character"). But in that regard... I would hope the DM was smart enough to police the situation and keep the supposed "super-characters" in check.

I do think though the best use of space in the PHB is not needing to create "multiclass" versions of the classes in the book... but just design the classes such that one level of dipping doesn't actually overpower anyone. So if a PC takes a level or two of another class... then they're still just like any other PC at the table because the classes were designed effectively.

And as far as the "years and years to train" argument for wizards... I've never personally looked at it that way myself. Cause quite frankly, I've always found the wizard's story weird that it took them years and years and years to learn a handful of cantrips and a pair of spells... but then once they became an "adventurer"... they could gain umpteen levels over a matter of months/weeks/days (depending on how the DM structured his campaign's story), with their power and spellcasting ability growing exponentially over an insanely shorter period of time. That way of looking at the wizard's story never made a lick of sense to me.

 

[Umbran]

It would be simpler to just not front-load the classes with abilities, such that a single-level dip will not gain a character huge amounts.

 

[herrozerro]

It would be simpler to just not front-load the classes with abilities, such that a single-level dip will not gain a character huge amounts.

Or keep the font loading but place things into special starter packages that are only acquired if the class is the starter class.

 

[Umbran]

Or keep the font loading but place things into special starter packages that are only acquired if the class is the starter class.

That's a possible choice, I guess. I'd prefer the class simply not be that front-loaded to begin with, though.

 

[am181d]

It would be simpler to just not front-load the classes with abilities, such that a single-level dip will not gain a character huge amounts.

Indeed. That's one of the primary reasons that I'm a fan of the "apprentice levels." (That and it allows you to start at 3rd level with a more reasonable number of HP.)

 

[herrozerro]

That's a possible choice, I guess. I'd prefer the class simply not be that front-loaded to begin with, though.

I think having starter packages is kind of like 4e's Feat multiclassing. You only get the best stuff if you started in that class.

 

[Obryn]

I believe there should be specific versions of the classes whenever a player takes one as a multi-class. I think they shouldbe weaker versions of the full class that you would then eventually gain full use of over time. I think what this would do is cut out the level dip and would actually make sense on an in game level. I mean it takes years for someone to become a wizard and yet you can multi-class into one over night.

I agree 100%.

I like interesting classes. I also like them to be front loaded so it's interesting to play them right off the bat. I don't like it when I have to earn my right to play an interesting character.

This is one good option. Another good option is to put the more powerful stuff in one of the themes and restrict characters to one.