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

[Lanefan]

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.

Sorry, but if you want to be the group's main healer then Sorcerer seems like a very odd place to start.

Healing is (or certainly should be) the one thing the Cleric group of classes can do that no other classes can do. It's their niche.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

If I wanted to be pigeon holed into a single party function based off my class, I go play 4th Edition.

D&D is about the freedom to become your character in any way you see fit. Or uh; your DM sees fit!

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry, but if you want to be the group's main healer then Sorcerer seems like a very odd place to start.

It has totally been a valid concept up until the edition break. I haven't had problems playing as one so far.

I can play clerics fine, but they just aren't as attractive to me if I have a choice. I don't like them being armored and so martial heavy, and due to my personal beliefs, I find the sorcerer more palatable than a god worshipper (not because I am an atheist, but rather the opposite).

 

[MoonSong]

If I wanted to be pigeon holed into a single party function based off my class, I go play 4th Edition.

D&D is about the freedom to become your character in any way you see fit. Or uh; your DM sees fit!

Even 4e started to diversify later on. The most fun I've had with a healer in the edition was with a paladin thata was heavily invested into healing and could go entire combats without attacking.

 

[CreamCloud0]

You're still just attacking--even if in a different way. As you say youself, "even with these there's really only a handful of different ways..."

I disagree. The comparison is about the role in the game. Fighters fighter. Spellcasters cast spells. Outside of combat fighters use skills, as where casters can use skills or continue to cast spells (whichever is more beneficial to the situation... and they don't mind not having them when combat resumes maybe...).

casters could be reduced to just having chromatic orb, shield and cure wounds as the entire extent of their magic repetoir and they'd still be 'just casting spells' as much as they are right now, there's no REAL reason for martial capabilities to be as limited as they are, i know i mentioned those martial capabilities before turning around to say they have limited options but the point is if they were actually expanded on properly and not be monopolised to only be on certain classes then they could 'just attack' in a variety of interesting and impactful ways.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

I disagree with this, because it is a party game and players should work together. We've a party with 3 warriors, a wizard, a cleric, and myself (a barbarian/wizard). The warriors aren't fighting over the "party warrior role" and the wizard and I aren't competing for the "party wizard" role. I'll sometimes be at the front with the warriors and sometimes be at the back with the wizard using spells, there isn't any conflict regarding roles. In your example above, that fighter/rogue might be the scout, but there is no reason why a single classed rogue can't join them in scouting. Basically, just because someone wants a party niche, doesn't mean someone else can't join them in that niche.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

LFQW has been around since 3e days easily. That’s when I first heard it.

Sure, targeting the wizard was a thing, but again, if you know you’re going to be targeted, the game becomes one of “protect the wizard” because the wizard getting their spell off is going to dramatically swing the battle.

Also, being prepared for a fight could be the thief (ha, called it rogue last time) or ranger did some scouting like a good thief or ranger would, or just being aware that one is going into the Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl and so pretty much any room is going to have a fight. It wasn’t that hard to anticipate.

Finally, over the course of multiple games or campaigns, I found that yes, people recognized that being a fighter/mage or a fighter/thief was a lot more fun than being just a fighter or a thief. For the DM, it also meant that you didn’t have to stack treasure in the single class character’s favor to make up for power discrepancies (this was another thing we often did - oh, you’re a single class thief? Here’s some boots of elvenkind to give you a boost…)

It’s not that the game wasn’t fun, but you played a fighter once, and then you were ready to move on because, well, fighters were boring. Not ideal, IMO.

 

[Minigiant]

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

Athletics has limited application and power in 2014 D&D without houserules or multiclassing. They are also bad at most other check of significants strength and mostly rely on the will of the dice.

LOL what game are you playing in!?!

A game where DCs can be 15 or higher.

 

[Greg K]

A wise man once said, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." .

Rush, "Freewill" ! I had to give you a like for that and let you know.

 

[TheSword]

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?

I guess the 10th level fighter lost a feat, indomitable, 10 hp, a fighting style and has to go mad with Int and ain’t getting a third attack next level.

The 10th level wizard loses 4th and 5th level spells and 5 less spells prepared and ain’t getting level 6 spells next level.

That’s not nothing. The trade off for flexibility is action economy - you can only do so much in a given round and a multiclass character has more options but they generally have less punch.