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

[TheSword]

Multiclassing has also been a problem in the game since 1e. And IMO while it might not need to be removed outright (though I'd not miss it) it does need to be made clearly sub-optimal.

Why?

Because no single character should be able to be good at everything, and most of the time the idea of being good at everything is exactly why players make multiclass characters. I want to be able to fight AND cast arcane spells (Ftr-W). I want to be able to sneak around AND heal people (Rog-Cl). I want to be able to forage AND sing for my supper AND blow away my enemies (Rgr-Bd-Sor).

No.

Want to fill two functions in the party? Then play two characters.

I just don’t think strict delineation of role is a modern RPG convention, and hasn’t been since 3e when clerics were allowed to do something other than heal.

What’s wrong with being able to do two things slightly less well than a specialist can do one?

 

[Minigiant]

You do have the option to use skills and they don't "suck" at them. I mean, they could if you build your PC that way, and of course they aren't as good as PC with expertise, but that is a feature for those characters who give up something else to have it---something else Fighters and Barbarians do have

They do suck at it.

They don't have many skills in their primary scores and have few class skills.

Vs meaningful DCs their bonuses are low and the whole party knows and will suggest others make those checks.

Multiclassing and feats became thought as default because the designers followed an old school mentality of "Warriors Dumb. Sneaks Weak. Mages West too but Spells can do anything".

2014 5E went out of its way to preserve "stupid martials".

2024 5e is attempting to fix that and the ripple effects that design created. One being rampant multiclassing.

 

[ezo]

Fighter (or Ranger) attacks with their 3/2 attacks, does appreciable damage against one to two opponents.

Rogue tries to maneuver into position to get a backstab, but needs the right conditions, perhaps a Move Silently roll first. Gets a 3x damage on a single target before modifiers.

Wizard casts Lightning Bolt doing 7d6, averaging over 20 points of damage, with possibility to create bank shots or multiple saves on rebounds. Or charms a monster, ending some fights before they begin or turning the battle decidedly in favor of the party.

What were you experiencing that was different?

Something more than that I guess because since the Wizard is doing that once, if they learned and have the spell prepared, while the others are doing their things all day long... I've never had an issue with it particularly in AD&D with d4 hit dice, spell casting times and disruption, etc.

The balance between all the factors was more relevent then IMO.

 

[ezo]

They do suck at it.

They don't have many skills in their primary scores and have few class skills.

No, they don't. They excel where they are meant to and do so with often a single skill. Athletics covers a ton of things, for example, and is obviously the right choice for a STR-based Figther or a Barbarian.

They don't need a wide selection of class skills, either, because anything outside of those class skills can be taken with the background.

Vs meaningful DCs their bonuses are low and the whole party knows and will suggest others make those checks.

LOL what game are you playing in!?!

Multiclassing and feats became thought as default because the designers followed an old school mentality of "Warriors Dumb. Sneaks Weak. Mages West too but Spells can do anything".

2014 5E went out of its way to preserve "stupid martials".

2024 5e is attempting to fix that and the ripple effects that design created. One being rampant multiclassing.

For the most part I simply disagree. The only failing as I see it is that other classes should have some manner to gain expertise in a class-appropriate skill, such as Barbarians and Athletics or Rangers and Stealth, etc. without having to resort to a feat to do it. I don't think it would hurt anything if all PCs started out with one expertise, while Rogue begin with two, and Bards eventually get a second one at 3rd level, etc.

 

[TiQuinn]

Something more than that I guess because since the Wizard is doing that once, if they learned and have the spell prepared, while the others are doing their things all day long... I've never had an issue with it particularly in AD&D with d4 hit dice, spell casting times and disruption, etc.

The balance between all the factors was more relevent then IMO.

Weapon speeds tended to trend higher than spells so they were less likely to be disrupted to begin with, and spell buffs typically did the rest. If the party could actually prepare for a fight, the fight could often be decided before initiative was even rolled.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t understand this? What do you mean a 2nd level multi-class fighter. Do you mean fighter 1/Rogue 1? Or a fighter 2/wizard 3

Either of those. A Ftr-1/Rog-1 is IMO multiclass in both classes and (ideally) should in abilities add to considerably less than the combination of a single-class Ftr-1 and a single-class Rog-1. My specific intent here is that to get the best benefits of playing both classes you have to play two characters: one a single-class Fighter, the other a single-class Rogue.

A character that can do a bit of everything doesn't nearly as much need a party around it, which kinda blows up the whole idea of interdependent parties potentially being greater than the sum of their parts due to that interdependence and teamwork.

You also end up with situations where the Ftr-Rog player above might say "I'm the party Warrior. I'm also the party Scout." meaning anyone else wanting to play either of those class groups has to either find something else or compete for the same in-game resources and at-table spotlight.

 

[ezo]

Weapon speeds tended to trend higher than spells so they were less likely to be disrupted to begin with, and spell buffs typically did the rest. If the party could actually prepare for a fight, the fight could often be decided before initiative was even rolled.

YMMV but being that prepared for a fight or even having a plan that worked out that smoothly was rare IME.

Also, in 1E, spells were harder to get off (and weird how initiative with spells worked), but even in 2E speed factors were not often that much greater than casting times, specially for minions and mooks who tended to use smaller, faster weapons and would gang-up on any spell caster who started waving their arms lol!

Regardless, I just find the LFQW argument a bit facetious (?) in that did a Wizard getting off a well-placed lightning bolt for your party really make your Fighter or Rogue feel like important, effective, or fun to play??? Because that was never my experience nor anyone I can recall ever playing with. It wasn't until 5E and on this forum I ever even heard of the expression LFQW.

 

[Lanefan]

I just don’t think strict delineation of role is a modern RPG convention, and hasn’t been since 3e when clerics were allowed to do something other than heal.

What’s wrong with being able to do two things slightly less well than a specialist can do one?

Slightly less well? Fine. But I don't see anything enforcing that slightly-less-well piece; a Ftr-5/Wiz-5 gets all the benefits of bring a Ftr-5 and all the benefits of being a Wiz-5 PLUS the benefit of being far more mechanically flexible in how it approaches any in-game situation than would a single-class character AND the benefit of being able to get involved in more situations rather than leaving those situations to specialists (a.k.a. spotlight hogging).

Where's the drawback that counters these added benefits?

 

[MoonSong]

"Wait until 3rd level"? In fifth edition? So waiting a whopping 900 X.P. is now a problem?

It isn't necessarilly entitlement. Subclasses tend to be character defining. If I want to be the group main healer as a sorcerer, I need my subclass from first level, otherwise we need the party to go healerless for two levels just for my sake, we need to contrive a method to swap after being a cleric at some point, or I just don't get to be a healer as a sorcerer. I don't see it as entitlement.

 

[MGibster]

TBH I thought you were just being silly here. Your takes have been a little ridiculous.

Well I guess the third time's the charm. Thank you.