D&D (2024) How should multiclassing be implemented for ODnD?

[roger semerad]

This is what gets me about multiclassing in 5e. When you already have various ways of being a sneaky person who does magic, or a fighty person who does magic, why do you need to create the option for a fighter/thief or a a fighter/wizard?

That's an honest question. I feel like these discussions about the changes people want in D&D are often driven by conflicting, or simply incommesurable, motivations. Is multiclassing needed because subclasses don't offer people the thematic flexibility they want? Or is it just a cool mechanical trick?

This comes down to the inherent strengths and weaknesses of class based systems vs. a classless one. A classless system has unmatched ability to express the most character concepts, while the class based one makes it easier for new players by constraining choice down to the bare essentials and is easier to balance very flavorful and unique abilities for each class because there's a limited amount of ways for them to be combined. If you character concept matches the class based options well it's a great way to make a character. If your idea isn't really supported that's where multi-classing comes in. It slightly pushes the class based system more towards the classless side, without completely crossing over. For example the Eldritch Knight gives magical ability, but it's very focused on damage spells and combining them with melee strikes. That's very emblematic of class system, give you a very flavorful class that can only be a narrow set of ideas. If say you wanted to play a mercenary that has spent a lot of time in the Feywild and was a master of combining enchantment, illusion and swordplay, confusing and debuffing your enemies before dispatching them with your blade. Then the Eldritch Knight just doesn't support that idea. That's where multiclassing comes in. The multiclass Fighter/Wizard allows something like this, at the cost of having no specifically flavored abilities tied to it. It's more generic and combines the abilities less well than a fully fleshed out class or subclass would, but it at least is able to support the concept. You could try to make classes and subclasses for every possible concept, but then you end up with 3.5's bloat of literally hundreds of classes and prestige classes.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

This is what gets me about multiclassing in 5e. When you already have various ways of being a sneaky person who does magic, or a fighty person who does magic, why do you need to create the option for a fighter/thief or a a fighter/wizard?

That's an honest question. I feel like these discussions about the changes people want in D&D are often driven by conflicting, or simply incommesurable, motivations. Is multiclassing needed because subclasses don't offer people the thematic flexibility they want? Or is it just a cool mechanical trick?

Honestly, I like there being multiple ways of making the same character. It means that if a player really dislikes playing as one method of building them, then there is an alternative.

Like maybe a player wants a divine warrior theme, but isn't interested in smites. But they still want an extra attack. They also want more support and healing spells. Both pure paladin and pure cleric don't suit there. But a fighter/cleric does do that nicely.

You can essentially make an identical themed character as either, but as their gameplay is very different, it can suit two different players.

 

[Oldestmate]

I’d like subclasses to be robust and custom enough that you don’t need to multiclass.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I like 5e multiclassing. It steers people more towards dips than deep splits, but I think what people are going for with deep splits is better accomplished with subclasses or, dare I say it, even a new class or two. I really liked there just being the base 12 classes, but since we're already in the regime of the base 12 classes and that other guy we could probably stand to let in a couple more.

I do think there should be some multiclassing tweaks, like a set minimum multiclassed ASI progression (if by level 6 you don't have one you get one and miss your next one), and some sort of comparable method to make sure martials get an extra attack in a reasonable time frame. I'm not opposed to having to put off key features when multiclassing, but the current system makes precise timing of when you dip into other classes too important because of the general power-jump at level 5 which is built into class mechanics, and overly-penalizes going straight for a level of each of your classes so that you can round out the concept early.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Removed or made more similar to Pathfinder 2e is my opinion.

 

[aco175]

I could see new classes made from the core classes. Make a new class that is part fighter and part cleric. maybe you get your 2nd attack at 6th level or be only a 2/3 caster. Heck give new powers that straight fighter or straight cleric cannot get.

I would even get rid of the 3rd level paths when you take one of these.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If it is still being called optional I think we should have qusi multiclassing as feats like 4e, and 2 (or more) options you can add on. 3e/5e style and 1e/2e style (now called hybrid or gestalt) and a page or so of doing it either way.

Edit: I would add either prestige class or paragon paths... and either way epic destinies too.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The only changes Id like to see is to make multi class martials levels stack for the extra attack and to make feats/ASI available at character level rather than class level.

yeah I don't get why a level 5 wizard level 6 cleric can get access to slots as if they were 11th level, but a level 5 ranger level 6 fighter can't have 3 attacks

 

[Haplo781]

yeah I don't get why a level 5 wizard level 6 cleric can get access to slots as if they were 11th level, but a level 5 ranger level 6 fighter can't have 3 attacks

Because casters rule and martials drool. As always.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I always laugh at Warlock dips...

"You know that you sold your Soul for Eldritch Blast, right?"