D&D 5E Multiclassing Borked?

[Mistwell]

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....

For games, and characters, that you know in advance will survive and play until level 20.

Most games don't seem to go that way. WOTC is trying to address that, but I suspect still most games will not get to level 19...in which case addressing it in early levels would be a mistake.

 

[Agamon]

For games, and characters, that you know in advance will survive and play until level 20.

Most games don't seem to go that way. WOTC is trying to address that, but I suspect still most games will not get to level 19...in which case addressing it in early levels would be a mistake.

No doubt. There's a lot of discussion about "X at level 20" that, while maybe an interesting thought exercise, shouldn't be confused with anything that will have much effect in reality. Even if a game manages to get to level 20, how long is that PC going to played?

 

[TheGorramBatman]

No doubt. There's a lot of discussion about "X at level 20" that, while maybe an interesting thought exercise, shouldn't be confused with anything that will have much effect in reality. Even if a game manages to get to level 20, how long is that PC going to played?

Which is my issue.

At 20, multiclassing isn't really a problem. You can make a character at level 20 in a vacuum and not have any problems with it.

Of course, I can't even remember the last time I played a game at 20, let alone to 20.

The game has very clear tiers, not a smooth curve. If you get yourself behind tier progression then you find yourself having perhaps several levels essentially stuck in the prior tier.

Of course, you can make a character at any level past 10 or so and have multiclassing work out alright. Making characters in a vacuum is easy and everything is sunshine and roses.

The problem is in actually playing a character, level by level, while attempting to multiclass.

 

[Agamon]

Which is my issue.

Maybe this is why it's optional. They knew a few people might have an issue with it.

 

[Warunsun]

Multiclassing is optional and easily house ruled. Say you want a more traditional multiclass system then have the player select two classes at first level. Have them average the hit die so if a Fighter/Wizard he gets a d8. Duplicate abilities in the classes don't stack including "Ability Score Improvement"--have them use the better progression from both classes involved but otherwise gain all the proficiencies and abilities not duplicated. They then must divided all earned experience by 2 and will advance slower but it will handle both classes well! That was easy. You could do the same with 3 classes but by dividing by 3 probably isn't as useful and much slower.

You could also houserule into the direction of v3.0 and make "Ability Score Improvement Charts" and "Extra Attack Charts" for nee-warriors if you liked. I would go in the direction of the first option if I was going to change it.

We will probably see some options like both of these in the DMG but that is just a guess.

 

[MoonSong]

For games, and characters, that you know in advance will survive and play until level 20.

Most games don't seem to go that way. WOTC is trying to address that, but I suspect still most games will not get to level 19...in which case addressing it in early levels would be a mistake.

But it is at low levelbwhen it is the most useful. As a sorerer player awaiting one level is not that much of a burden if it brings extra spells and flexibility. Not to mention it gives you the spears they didn't want us to have.

 

[Mistwell]

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

But it is at low levelbwhen it is the most useful.

If it's most useful at low levels, then why did you set your position up as focused on level 18, 19, and 20?

 

[MoonSong]

If it's most useful at low levels, then why did you set your position up as focused on level 18, 19, and 20?

To explain why the opportunity cost was so low as to be inexistent.

 

[KarinsDad]

Which is my issue.

At 20, multiclassing isn't really a problem. You can make a character at level 20 in a vacuum and not have any problems with it.

Of course, I can't even remember the last time I played a game at 20, let alone to 20.

The game has very clear tiers, not a smooth curve. If you get yourself behind tier progression then you find yourself having perhaps several levels essentially stuck in the prior tier.

Of course, you can make a character at any level past 10 or so and have multiclassing work out alright. Making characters in a vacuum is easy and everything is sunshine and roses.

The problem is in actually playing a character, level by level, while attempting to multiclass.

This is why I wonder why the multiclassing spell chart exists. More than 1 or 2 levels of multiclassing is difficult to keep up with in various tiers.

Seriously, who cares if a Wizard dips into Cleric for a level and gets 2 Cure Wounds spells? He's pushing his gain of next level spells back a level multiple times in order to heal 10 or so points of damage per day.

Why should someone who is Cleric 10 / Wizard 10 be a threat with 30 spells from levels 1 to 5 as oppose to the 22 spells for the level 20 Cleric or Wizard? The extra spells are almost all level 1 to 4 and the PC loses a ton of awesomeness from the missing 6 6th through 9th level spells.

Spell level, straight caster, even split multiclass caster at 20th level

1: 4 8
2: 3 6
3: 3 6
4: 3 6
5: 3 4
6: 2
7: 2
8: 1
9: 1

Yup, with a non-restricted model, the multiclass PC can spam a boatload of lower level spells. He should be able to do that. He paid for those spells with multiclassing. He gets a lot of spells, the straight spell casters gets the cooler higher level abilities and the really powerful high level spells.

I totally do not get this one.

Ooohhh. At level 20, I can fire off 16 Fireball spells a day. Course, I'm facing creatures that have 300 hit points and make most of their saves and can suck up most or all 142 D8 of those 16 spells (which take forever to cast).

Even at low level (multiclass followed by straight):

Level 2: 4 first vs. 3 first

Level 3: 5 first vs. 4 first and 2 second

Level 4: 6 first vs. 4 first and 3 second

Level 5: 7 first and 2 second vs. 4 first and 3 second and 2 third

Level 6: 8 first and 4 second vs. 4 first and 3 second and 3 third


At level 2, the multiclass PC gets an extra spell. But, he is giving up the second level special ability of one of his classes to do so. At level 8, he gains a lot of spells, but it's 4 first and 1 second vs. 3 third. Not really a contest.

Not seeing the issue. The multiclassing PC gets a few extra low level spells once in a while, the straight caster gets an extra highest level spells each level (except levels 12, 14, and 16 which also seems weird).

 

[Li Shenron]

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 can't know for sure why the designers made multiclassing this way, but one possible additional issue is complexity.

Not only 3e multiclassed spellcasters lagged behind in terms of spells level, but since their spellcasting abilities from each class were treated separately, they tended to have a lot of spells slots. A lot of low-level spell slots to handle separately, sometimes with different rules (spontaneous casters vs vancian, or domain slots in addition to regular cleric's daily slots), are quite burdensome. In 5e you still have separate prepared spells, but at least your daily slots are merged. It's generally easier to play such character.

OTOH, multiple attacks complicate the game, slowing it down, especially if the player is quite tactical and wants to use special attacks rather than simply swing the weapon. During playtest, I had the feeling that a lot of discussions were going on behind the curtains among the designers, and contrasting feedback was given by playtesters, on the issue of multiple attacks. In some playtesting stage, there were no multiple attacks at all, and fighting superiority of the martial classes was represented by the Martial Damage Dice (but later this was apparently considered too tactical to force every Fighter player to have to manage this). Later, a lot of classes had extra attacks, IIRC also Clerics and Druids and Rogues (but I might be wrong). My impression is that they went back and forth until eventually settling for the current compromise idea: Fighters up to 4 attacks (but 3rd only in the heroic tier, and 4th only at 20th level), all other martial classes up to 2 attacks (Bards being an oddity), everybody else no multiple attacks.

Thus I don't think this was merely an issue of balance. They also specifically wanted to keep the amount of actions per turn limited. Instead of looking at the issue as "the others get less attacks than the Fighter ", if you try to see is as "the Fighter, and only a high-level Fighter, gets an attack or two more than everyone else", and so it is the Fighter which constitutes an exception, perhaps it may look more fair.

And also think that if you don't think it's fair, the designers will very likely suggest to remove those 2 more extra attacks from the Fighter (i.e. replace with other bonuses) rather than adding them to non-Fighters.