D&D General Multiclassing Shouldn't be Treated as the Default

[MGibster]

A relatively minor complaint I have about 5th edition is having to wait until third level to get my subslcass. In a few of the D&D campaigns I've run, players have wanted to skip to level three because "that's when it gets fun." One of the reasons we wait until third level to get our subclass is to avoid encouraging players to multiclass by dipping their toes into various classes to get those abilities at level one.

But multiclassing is an optional rule. Why build character generation and progression around an optional rule? Let's just have our subclass at first level and if that makes multiclassing too powerful then don't allow that as an option.

 

[Lanefan]

Or have it that multiclass characters never get any subclass features at any level (and-or in any class) and only get the base features of each class. If that still ends up overcooked, trim away some base features from MC'ed classes.

 

[GnomeWorks]

It is my understanding that subclass at level 3 was done as a way to not overwhelm new players, that 1st and 2nd were sort of "tutorial levels" as it were and that once you got some experience (personal, not character) under your belt, you'd start most games in 5e at 3rd level.

Multiclassing shouldn't exist, period, at least not in D&D. It never delivers on its promises, it can result in both OP synergies and terrible antisynergies, and precludes class explosions because "you can achieve that concept via MCing." Class explosions are a good thing, we should have a ton of classes to choose from.

 

[jmartkdr2]

With standardized subclass levels, you could even make multiclassing your subclass.

But honestly I think limiting multiclassing works against the one thing 5e does really well: power fantasy. 5e delivers power fantasy, and multiclassing (when done well) is a big part of that - it allows system mastery to be a part of that power fantasy for those who want to use it.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

While I kind of hate multiclassing, and it goes against the whole idea of a class-based system...

In 5e, martial classes easily have no choices to make after lv3 if they don't multiclass, so it's kind of necessary for them, just to feel like there is a decision point every level.

 

[GnomeWorks]

In 5e, martial classes easily have no choices to make after lv3 if they don't multiclass, so it's kind of necessary for them, just to feel like there is a decision point every level.

I suppose that's true.

I also don't care: I don't use core classes and I've deleted martials from existence in my setting. "Guy with a pointy stick" is not a valid life choice after somewhere between 3rd and 5th level anyroad. If you have to keep multiclassing around explicitly to make some classes viable, then that's probably a good sign those classes are lacking, IMO.

 

[bedir than]

In 5e, martial classes easily have no choices to make after lv3 if they don't multiclass, so it's kind of necessary for them, just to feel like there is a decision point every level.

That really depends on the subclass.
Wild Heart Barbarians have several choices.
Any that gets an additional Fighting Style.

But, also yes, most martial choice comes from what they do on their turn rather than their build

 

[cbwjm]

I'd much rather have subclasses at 1st level. I get that some new players might have difficulty but then other new players will be more than ready to do some research on their favourite class. If they have the character building all laid out on a page in a nice easy to follow format, I doubt new players would have that much difficulty, this is 5e not pathfinder 2, the decisions aren't that great and also, doesn't 5.5 have written up what to start with or was that dropped from the play test?

I also think that if you want everything starting at level 1, then limit 1st level to a single class ability and 1 or 2 subclass abilities, even if that kicks some class abilities to a later level. I admit this might be easier for some or the current classes than others.

 

[Xeviat]

Or have it that multiclass characters never get any subclass features at any level (and-or in any class) and only get the base features of each class. If that still ends up overcooked, trim away some base features from MC'ed classes.

This is an interesting concept. I wonder if Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster could be adjusted into multiclass subclasses. Like, you can take your class's subclass or you can take a different class as a subclass.

I remember in Baldur's Gate 2 having to decide between being a single class with a kit or being a multiclass. It could allow for subclasses to feel special while limiting multi class shenanigans.

 

[GMMichael]

While I kind of hate multiclassing, and it goes against the whole idea of a class-based system...

This. Why bother with classes when they're just ways to shop for different abilities? A la carte abilities would be much easier. And flexible.

In 5e, martial classes easily have no choices to make after lv3 if they don't multiclass, so it's kind of necessary for them, just to feel like there is a decision point every level.

A wise man once said, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Anyway, I like to think that RPGs are about the decisions the player makes for the character, not the decisions the player makes about the character.