D&D (2024) How to fix multiclassing?

[ECMO3]

Current multi-class system feels like it works pretty well.

Side note: your cleric is a dwarf with plate and a strength of 8? Jeebus...how do they get within 5' of the target when you can only move at 15'? If I was your DM I would have the mobs maneuvering around your slow butt all day long! And what do you do when your party has to move quickly? That just seems like a massive handicap!

Dwarf has a racial ability so her move is 25:

Speed. Your base walking speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor.

I could not have done the build effectively with any other race. What really drove me to this is I LOVE Hypnotic Gaze thematically. It is so cool and running around with an at will "gaze attack" makes me feel like a medusa or vampire or something. It is extremely powerful too completely immobilizing a foe for as long as you want on one failed save with no opportunity to make another save, there is no duration to run out, no concentration to fail and no save after every turn. The low wizard AC/hps and not being able to take actions really made it a drag and very situational. So I decided to figure out how to build a character so it was less situational. Dwarf in heavy armor with at least 6 levels in order cleric to cast effective combat spells as a bonus was the answer and it is a heck of a solution! The fact that oder cleric works on enchantment spells only is also thematic as it is an enchantment wizard, but mechanically I would have done it even if it was another school, as long as it was a school with decent spells.

Since she has more cleric levels than Wizard I did have to adjust my tactics some from what I would normally do with a Cleric. Spirit Guardians for example is an awesome cleric spell and the default 3rd level spell. It does not play well with HG though, it took me a couple fights to figure that out, but I just went with cause fear (upcast) or slow (order cleric spell) as my default 3rd level concentration spell .... or upcast hold person if they were humanoids. I also had to really focus on enchantment spells so I have Charm Person, Suggestion and calm emotions while I normally might not take those. Also Tahsa's Mind Whip, but I take that a lot anyway.

 

[mellored]

When did they change them back? We have only been doubling damage from class features and not item damage. The main problem is the damage spike from paladins but I think that can be overcome by applying a flat +4 damage instead of +1d8 so that only the initial 2d8 is doubled, which is still decent. I think casting the spells should be more effect and more fun than damage layering so reduction of damage to +3 per level might be enough.

The first play test was 1 extra weapon damage only.
The second one was back to double all dice. "critical hits found in the 2014 Player’s Handbook."

But yea. Smite can switch to 1d8+cha on smite if needed.

 

[ECMO3]

Another possible solution would be this: "Your proficiency bonus is not determined by your total character level, but by the class that you have the fewest levels in." Either get them class levels next to each other or get rekt. I'm also ok with granting feats at every 4th level by total character class in this method.

I would not be a fan of this. I think the way proficiency scales is one of the best things compared to the older game,

I don't get what the negative is if someone wants to play a level 1 sorcerer, level 12 Fighter.

 

[ECMO3]

I think this reveals a second pretty significant disconnect over function of the rules this discussion. The rules should not present players with a 5e style madmax free for all & should at least have occasional limits like the prerequisites 3.x had the exp multiplier like 2ekinda* had or something else like a hit to proficiency bonus. Too often 5e chooses to balance the "maximum fun"<-->"good for gamist or balance reasons" spectrum with "ask your gm" and/or by placing a not really optional at all "optional" footnote on it in like was done with 5e's multiclassing.

I would strongly disagree with doing this. As both a DM and a player I much prefer the simpler 5E system. When I was playing 3.5E we eventually houseruled away the favored class restriction because it was just too restrictive to building the character you wanted to build. That guy can play a wizard 1-warlock 10 because he is an elf, but I can't because I am a Dwarf?

There are some extremely powerful combos in 5E, but I have not found them to be a problem. We have played with both Sorlocks and Hexadins and they have not been a problem. On the other hand other "optional" rules have actually been a problem. Specifically the rules on flanking and marking have been issues at several tables and led to a ban (in one case after the campaign had started and been using the rule).

You talk about the DM being put in a tough spot, but IME that is not usually the case. Usually these kinds of questions are addressed and negotiated by the entire table before play starts so the DM is not the bad guy and the DM and players are usually on the same page with it.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would not be a fan of this. I think the way proficiency scales is one of the best things compared to the older game,

I don't get what the negative is if someone wants to play a level 1 sorcerer, level 12 Fighter.

The problem is rarely something like fighter12/wizard 1. It's things like 5e hexadin sorlock or 3.5 lion totem bull rush great cleave monkey grip etc fighter at the same table with a completely overshadowed "this looks fun"

I would strongly disagree with doing this. As both a DM and a player I much prefer the simpler 5E system. When I was playing 3.5E we eventually houseruled away the favored class restriction because it was just too restrictive.

There are some extremely powerful combos in 5E, but I have not found a problem. We have played with Sorlocks and Hexadins and they have not been a problem. On the other hand other "optional" rules have been a problem. Specifically rules on flanking and marking have been issues at several tables and led to a ban (in one case after the campaign had started and been using the rule).

You talk about the DM being put in a tough spot, but IME that is not usually the case. Usually these kinds of questions are addressed and negotiated by the entire table before play starts so the DM is not the bad guy and the DM and players are usually on the same page.

I didn't reven recall that being a thing until you mentioned it so think we probably got rid of it too. In doing so we had the ability to say "we don't use that but we require x y & z so lets start talking about your character" or "Yea.... Alice you are kind of completely overshadowing Bob & Dave combined, lets talk about your PC". There were always rules in 2e & 3.x that the GM said to ignore or chose to modify/restrict. 3.x did have requirements on PrCs like the ability to cast certain things skill x Y or better feat Z & so forth... It was common for a gm to talk with & work with a player to modify or even remove a specific requirement on a PrC yes, but I don't think I've ever heard of or imagined the chaos of people just blanket removing all PrC or feat prerequisites. 3.x had prerequires on stuff, 2e is the one that had the exp rejiggering by virtue of half exp for both sides of a dual class & classes with very different exp charts.

 

[mellored]

5e classes are far more balanced than 3.5.
and that filters down to multiclass as well.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

They changed them back.

Technically they did not change them back. They used the original 5e rules in the second playtest.

We won't see if they changed it back before the 3rd playtest, probably at the 4th. The 2nd playtest did not incorporate the feedback of the 1st.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It was common for a gm to talk with & work with a player to modify or even remove a specific requirement on a PrC yes...

You forgot: and then complaining that PrC are imbalanced, not noticing that the houserule is the cause of the problem.

I have seen it often enough, that houseruling is a double edged sword. Some prerequisites are there to delay too powerful combinations.

This does not man, that houseruling and modifying prerequesites are always bad. But you need to be very careful.

 

[tetrasodium]

You forgot: and then complaining that PrC are imbalanced, not noticing that the houserule is the cause of the problem.

I have seen it often enough, that houseruling is a double edged sword. Some prerequisites are there to delay too powerful combinations.

This does not man, that houseruling and modifying prerequesites are always bad. But you need to be very careful.

Yea you needed to be super careful when allowing those loopholes because it was so easy to take one & run to something crazy because they usually existed with good reason. I usually only did it as a concession to incentivize a player away from something crazy to a different niche they weren't specialized enough to abuse when it was a situation where a player was overshadowing the group too much from charop.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The wrong end of the problem with 5e multiclassing is being looked at IMO. With very rare exceptions (like the Paladin dipping Hexblade 1 to use Cha on weapon attacks and Sorcerers dipping Warlock 2 for Eldritch Blast/Agonizing Blast plus Quicken Spell)* the problem isn't that the level dips are too good. It's that classes, especially martial classes, scale badly.

The two obvious case studies are the Fighter who gets nothing new and meaningful between level 11 and level 20, and the Barbarian who gets almost nothing new and meaningful after level 6 (undying rage is a lot better on paper than in play). Of course they dip.

Meanwhile over in wizard land it's an open question as to whether a level of cleric or artificer is worth it for armour and shield proficiency plus healing magic.

* Both simple fixes. Eldritch Blast becomes a class feature that scales by warlock level (and subclasses get their own versions) and onto Pact of the Blade