D&D 5E Multiclassing Borked?

[Dausuul]

I do think that the Extra Attacks thing is an issue. I'll keep an eye on it, but I might house rule that if you have five combined levels in classes that grant Extra Attack, you get one Extra Attack (non-stacking with any other Extra Attacks you may have).

The spell slot problem struck right at the heart of what the caster classes could do, while this is just a single class feature that is important, but maybe not as important as spellcasting is to casting classes.

What? It's by far the most important class feature in any martial class. Spellcasters cast spells; martial classes attack. Extra Attack means you get twice as many attacks. That's enormous.

But the more I think about it, the more I think multiclassing before 5th level, except maybe a 1st-level dip to get proficiencies and such, is a bad idea for anybody. For casters, it means delaying your access to 3rd-level spells; a scaled-up 2nd-level spell doesn't come close (compare scaled-up scorching ray to fireball). For noncasters, it means delaying your Extra Attack. There is pretty much nothing you can possibly get out of MCing that makes up for that. Once you hit 5th, then you can start branching out.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In my case I've found that multiclassing is a no brainer for sorcerers, merely as a sorcerer you are spells known starved and there is no reason to go beyond 17....

Switching to a second class at level 18 is not what most people are thinking of when they discuss multi classing.

 

[Bryk]

This is intentional to make dipping flat out slow you down, making it so multiclassing is balanced.

There is plenty of upside to Multi-classing. However without the class level requirement for the ability score improvements/feats, there would be definitive cut and dry levels to multiclass to. Instead, it truly makes you think of where you want to draw the line and each LEVEL in EACH class actually matters.

For instance, do you want Fighter 11, Barb 9 for the brutal? or Fighter 12, Barbarian 8 for the extra ability score improvement. THIS is a GOOD thing, I assure you, it greatly makes "optimizing" all options a blurry line where you can easily argue one is better than the other! I feel they've done an amazing job balancing!

 

[Bryk]

I do think that the Extra Attacks thing is an issue. I'll keep an eye on it, but I might house rule that if you have five combined levels in classes that grant Extra Attack, you get one Extra Attack (non-stacking with any other Extra Attacks you may have).


What? It's by far the most important class feature in any martial class. Spellcasters cast spells; martial classes attack. Extra Attack means you get twice as many attacks. That's enormous.

But the more I think about it, the more I think multiclassing before 5th level, except maybe a 1st-level dip to get proficiencies and such, is a bad idea for anybody. For casters, it means delaying your access to 3rd-level spells; a scaled-up 2nd-level spell doesn't come close (compare scaled-up scorching ray to fireball). For noncasters, it means delaying your Extra Attack. There is pretty much nothing you can possibly get out of MCing that makes up for that. Once you hit 5th, then you can start branching out.

Completely disagree, it makes it a MUCH much harder decision.

You have to truly evaluate when your character will be able to do what, and at what levels.

Diping 1 level for a level 1 class feature can easily give you what you want, for instance a fighter grabbing 1 level of barbarian for physical resistance while raging can certainly be worth having to wait until 6 for multiple attack.

Trade off being, you put the resistance from level 2 -> 6, where you are putting multiple attack 5 -> 6, it isn't as simple as you'd think.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Because it's not the same thing? Everyone gets hosed by multiclassing, not just martials. It's the price paid for versatility. It just turns out that casters aren't completely gimped now.

My point was that in 3.5 there was the concern 'casters sacrifice too much & gain too little' for the versatility they gained by multiclassing (expanded list of lower level spells, less higher level spells AND higher level slots). It seems everyone accepts that the change to spell slot progression was a step in the right direction (even if, upon further playtesting, we may find it isn't enough of a step).

Now there's a concern 'martials sacrifice too much & gain too little' for the versatility they gain by multiclassing (expanded range of abilities, worse progression of extra attack & ASI).

Why this differing reaction? Why aren't people screaming 'casters shouldn't get special spell slot progression when they multiclass! It's the price paid for versatility!'? Or, if people accept (or at least hope until we test more) that a special spell slot progression strikes a good balance between broader versatility/lower focus of power, then why not want something similar for martials (like an extra attack & ASI multiclassing progression table - even if it's one that's slower than the 'full class' table)?

I'm really not comparing apples & oranges here - more like peaches & nectarines.

 

[jadrax]

Why this differing reaction?

Because is 3.5 Martials sacrificed nothing and Casters sacrificed everything. People have to adjust.

 

[MoonSong]

Switching to a second class at level 18 is not what most people are thinking of when they discuss multi classing.

That first bard level works best as a dip at the beginning... take the second one at some point after 11th level and the one warlock level after gaining your wings....

 

[KarinsDad]

The Rage resists are pretty nice, not sure they are worth putting the levels you get an extra attack up by 1 though. It depends I suppose if you would rather be the Irresistible Force or the Immovable Object.

Multiclassing always seems to lead to pretty hard choices in this edition, which I am in favour of.

True.

But one level of Barbarian also gives +2 damage with Rage.

+2 damage, 2 encounters / day (33% encounters * 15% damage increase) or an overall 5% average increase in damage.

So, 19 levels of 5% more average damage - 3 levels of one fewer attack per round. Each of those levels with the one extra attack would have to increase overall damage by 5% per level to be as good. The one at level 5 increases damage by 100% (i.e. doubles damage), the one at level 11 increases it by 50%, and the one at level 20 increases it by 33%. So, taking the extra attack is still better 183% / 19 levels or almost 10% increase per level (on average, obviously those spikes only occur at levels 5, 11, and 20).

However.

When fighting a Dragon or some other powerful melee foe, those 19 levels of +2 damage and rage resist heavily outshine those 3 levels of an extra attack since the Dragon's claws and bites are half as effective. The extra attack fighter does more DPR on those 3 levels of fighting a Dragon, but the Barb/Fighter does more DPR for 16 levels and can last almost twice as long in the fight for all 19 levels. Lasting almost twice as long in the fight by definition almost doubles the damage output.

The one level of Barbarian is a game changer against the real nasty encounters. It can be the difference between a tough fight and a TPK in all 19 levels. The one extra attack for 3 levels, not so much. Most of the time, that extra damage merely saves on party resources in fights that the party would win anyway.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do think that the Extra Attacks thing is an issue. I'll keep an eye on it, but I might house rule that if you have five combined levels in classes that grant Extra Attack, you get one Extra Attack (non-stacking with any other Extra Attacks you may have).

That's a bad houserule.

Multiclassing is a choice of different pros and cons. Giving the player the pro for free is not fair to those players who did not multiclass. IMO.

If I stuck to my guns and took 5 levels of Bard, just to get the extra attack and another player got it for free at level 5 with multiclassing so that he could cherrypick cool stuff out of 2 or 3 classes, I would say to my DM, WTF?

 

[Agamon]

Why this differing reaction? Why aren't people screaming 'casters shouldn't get special spell slot progression when they multiclass! It's the price paid for versatility!'?

The simplest explanation is most often the correct answer.

I'm not saying there's no chance whatsoever that this won't be shown as a problem as people get a good chance to play the game a lot. I'm just saying that if most people don't see it as an issue, it must not be an issue for most people. Pretty heavy stuff, huh?