D&D 5E Multiclassing Borked?

[TheGorramBatman]

For the most part, I very much enjoy 5th edition.

My two major complaints have to do with Multiclassing. While I feel that the system handles spells well, I think they really screwed the pooch on extra attacks and ability increases (slash feats).

1. Ability increases: Why the hell are these tied directly to class levels? Couldn't they have whipped up a table giving everyone ability increases at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th character levels respectively? So Fighters and Rogues get more ability increases than other classes, but how would it be any different if the Fighters and Rogues just got bonus ability increases at whatever levels are out of the ordinary? This would have been super easy to implement.

2. Extra Attacks: Mostly the same complaint, though to a lesser extent. I'd really have liked to see a system which awarded extra attacks for martials without requiring a hard level (say, 5th for Fighter or 6th for Valor Bards). Anyone who swings a weapon is stuffed into the don't-multiclass-at-all-before-that-second-attack box. This is, admittedly, less cut and dry than the ability score thing and at least I can't immediately come up with a preferable system which would not disrupt anything else. Still, it harshes my mellow.

The result of both of these is that there is incredible pressure to stick to one class and if any multiclassing is done to do it in 4 level increments. This pressure is doubled when attempting to build a martial which relies on multiple attacks.

What does everyone else think?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I see both of these as feature, not flaw. You've set out two of the reasons multi classing feels more robust now than it has in recent years for me: effective multi classing means committing to a second life path. If you want just to dabble, there are (optional) feats.

 

[Agamon]

You're trading power for versatility, the same as with spellcasting.

 

[Tormyr]

I like it. If you multiclass to get some extra ability, you put off getting other benefits. It also looks very well balanced. Multiclass has been described as broken in past editions. I could see a character whose ability upgrades were not pushed back or got a fighter's number of extra attacks on top of the benefits of extra class features as being overpowered. The classes are pretty well balanced as they stand, but they get there through different means. If all martial classes got more than 1 extra attack, it would start unbalancing things. If you want lots of attacks and ability boosts, be a fighter. If you multiclass, you are going to sacrifice some of that for the extra class features you get from the other class.

It is also the case that there are a lot of ways of getting many of the benefits of multiclassing through backgrounds, subclasses and feats. Multiclassing seems to be much more balanced in this edition, and there is more than one way to make your character.

By the way, welcome to the boards!

 

[Paraxis]

The result of both of these is that there is incredible pressure to stick to one class and if any multiclassing is done to do it in 4 level increments. This pressure is doubled when attempting to build a martial which relies on multiple attacks.

What does everyone else think?

I believe that is exactly what they intended, both of those things are designed to discourage rather than encourage multiclassing and level dipping.

I am not sure I like it, but I think that is the intent behind things.

If you want the versatility of multiple classes and the ability to cherry pick the early benefits they offer than, extra attacks and ability score increases/feats are postponed as part of the payment for that ability.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yep, they are definitely both by design, and the game developers have told us so.

You might disagree with this choice, but Mearls had said that they still actually want the Fighter to get more feats or ability score increases compared to everyone else, and that they want those increases/feats to reward single-classed characters a bit, or in other words they want single-class characters to have enough reasons to be attractive choices (not just feats, but also high-level features). Probably because in 3e after a couple of years multiclassing characters seemed to dominate over single-classed.

As for extra attacks, IMHO the reason is that they really wanted the Fighter to have an edge that nobody else has. Originally such edge was supposed to be the Deadly Strike / Combat Expertise (or whatever it was called in the first implementation) but eventually while a lot of people liked it, many others found it too complex, so WotC decided to tuck it under the Battlemaster subclass. So the Fighter doesn't exactly have a huge unique class feature that differentiates it from other martial classes, but it rather has a range of smaller class features. Actually all martial classes get one Extra Attack, but at least the fact that only the Fighter gets more than one, is important to give some reason for single-classed fighters in 5e.

Notice how those Fighter Extra Attacks are placed by level: 5th, 11th and 20th. This is totally a precise placement... they get the first when also other martial classes do. The second at 11th, which is the level where the next "tier" of adventures begin (and to get this 3rd attack, the majority of your character levels must be Fighter levels), and the third Extra Attack only at 20th (so all your character levels must be Fighter).

 

[TheGorramBatman]

I guess my issue is that I'm not trying to do anything silly or ridiculous. I'm just trying to wedge five levels of Valor Bard and 3 levels of Battlemaster Fighter together to make some sort of Warlord thing (yeah I know there is a feat, but a single battlemaster die makes for possibly one of the weakest feats in the game and wouldn't satisfy the character feel I'm going for).

It's only 8 levels out of 20. The order isn't particularly important, though I'd like 3 levels of Valor Bard and 3 of Battlemaster as soon as possible. Obviously that isn't happening. 8 levels in total, the other 12 can go to either class, really not picky. As far as multiclassing builds go it's rather tame and forgiving at first glance.

It's not. I should be able to find an order that satisfies me and it seems ridiculous that I can't. Anyone swinging a weapon needs a second attack (or equivalent) as soon as possible and stopping one level to put off an ability increase/feat for four whole levels is not a smart move at all.

So you've go 6 levels of Valor Bard, might as well make it 8 for another ability increase. At this point you could swing over to Battlemaster 3... well hell, might as well make it 4... and you're halfway through your career before the build did what little you were asking of it in the first place.

OK. So try 3 levels of Battlemaster first. . Make it 5 for the attack. Damn. 6 for the Ability increase. Now over to Valor Bard for 3. Online at 9, but your 10th level is pretty much chosen as Bard whether you like it or not for a fourth level ability increase from Bard. Well crap, it comes online sooner but doesn't leave you much better off.

I understand wanting to discourage multiclassing and the general idea behind it. Hell, I've been playing a Pathfinder campaign for a year now and those guys love their single classing. I just don't think it should be discouraged to the point where picking up two low level class features either shunts you way behind the major class features of your peers or takes 12 damn levels to come online.

 

[TheGorramBatman]

Yep, they are definitely both by design, and the game developers have told us so.

You might disagree with this choice, but Mearls had said that they still actually want the Fighter to get more feats or ability score increases compared to everyone else, and that they want those increases/feats to reward single-classed characters a bit, or in other words they want single-class characters to have enough reasons to be attractive choices (not just feats, but also high-level features). Probably because in 3e after a couple of years multiclassing characters seemed to dominate over single-classed.

As for extra attacks, IMHO the reason is that they really wanted the Fighter to have an edge that nobody else has. Originally such edge was supposed to be the Deadly Strike / Combat Expertise (or whatever it was called in the first implementation) but eventually while a lot of people liked it, many others found it too complex, so WotC decided to tuck it under the Battlemaster subclass. So the Fighter doesn't exactly have a huge unique class feature that differentiates it from other martial classes, but it rather has a range of smaller class features. Actually all martial classes get one Extra Attack, but at least the fact that only the Fighter gets more than one, is important to give some reason for single-classed fighters in 5e.

Notice how those Fighter Extra Attacks are placed by level: 5th, 11th and 20th. This is totally a precise placement... they get the first when also other martial classes do. The second at 11th, which is the level where the next "tier" of adventures begin (and to get this 3rd attack, the majority of your character levels must be Fighter levels), and the third Extra Attack only at 20th (so all your character levels must be Fighter).

I'd like to clairify my arguement.

Yes, Fighters and Rogues get extra AIs, which by design they should. Giving all characters AIs at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 while giving the Fighter bonus AIs at 6, 10, etc wouldn't reduce the Fighter's singleclass appeal but would reduce pressure for those who want to multiclass.

For Extra Attacks, I wasn't even talking about 3rd and 4th attacks. Ignore them. Pretend they either don't exist or the entry for them (11th or 20th level Fighter) remains unchanged. I was talking about the 2nd attack. I'm talking about just swinging twice. This is the first and perhaps most important power bump in the career of anyone who picks up heavy things and swings them at other things.

Take 4 levels of Paladin and then decide to pick up 3 levels of fighter for Battlemaster dice and now you're a 7th level martial with exactly one attack. Granted, I don't have a clean solution to this, but it irks me.

Screw it. Lets do this. Hunter Ranger 4, Champion Fighter 4, Vengeance Paladin 4, Valor Bard 4, Totem Barbarian 4. 20th level character without a second attack feature. That is ridiculous. Both ways. It's a ridiculous build that shouldn't be encouraged, but having a 20th level character that swings weapons for a living and has only swings once on an attack action is just as flat out stupid.

Each class has plenty of scaling features as is, and I'd never argue against those. A dedicated Battlemaster has bigger dice and more of them. A dedicated Bard has bigger dice for inspiration and HP recovery. A dedicated Paladin has more dice for passive smiting (whatever its called).

Deciding to remain a Champion Fighter for another crit range increase is a positive decision. You are actively pursuing something special to your class.

Deciding to stick out a couple more levels of Paladin for Divine Smite dice is a positive decision.

Having to pick up a 4th level of Rogue for a generic ability increase that everyone gets is a negative decision. You aren't pursuing something, you're taking a level you would rather not have in order to pick up a scheduled increase which is intrinsic to the design of all classes. If you don't take it you are meaningfully behind the core power curve of the game. You're not pursuing anything, you're avoiding a penalty.

Picking up a minor feature from another class shouldn't throw a character so far off course. With an AI at 4th and an attack at 5th, low level multiclassing is virtually off limits to anyone who finds enjoyment in being a meaningful contributor to a group. That probably shouldn't be the case.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think you're overstating the problem. When I look at the fighter or rogue, for example, the abilities gained at levels 1, 2 and 3 look at least as juicy as the feat at 4. I could see an argument for being a rogue2/fighter2 rather than a rogue4 or fighter4. I certainly don't think that 2/2 character is so underpowered he needs a whole extra feat to keep up.

As for extra attack - that's probably the only reason every optimized low-level martial character isn't a grab-bag of multiple different classes.

 

[Li Shenron]

For Extra Attacks, I wasn't even talking about 3rd and 4th attacks. Ignore them. Pretend they either don't exist or the entry for them (11th or 20th level Fighter) remains unchanged. I was talking about the 2nd attack. I'm talking about just swinging twice. This is the first and perhaps most important power bump in the career of anyone who picks up heavy things and swings them at other things.

Take 4 levels of Paladin and then decide to pick up 3 levels of fighter for Battlemaster dice and now you're a 7th level martial with exactly one attack. Granted, I don't have a clean solution to this, but it irks me.

Screw it. Lets do this. Hunter Ranger 4, Champion Fighter 4, Vengeance Paladin 4, Valor Bard 4, Totem Barbarian 4. 20th level character without a second attack feature. That is ridiculous. Both ways. It's a ridiculous build that shouldn't be encouraged, but having a 20th level character that swings weapons for a living and has only swings once on an attack action is just as flat out stupid.

I think you should check again the multiclass rules.

I don't remember them exactly, and I've seen only those in playtest which might have changed... but there was specifically an exception for Extra Attack, in order for multiclass martial classes to get the second attack. Something like "add your levels in all classes granting Extra Attack, to determine when you get your second attack".