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

[Corinnguard]

Just read the Multiclassing entry in the new PHB. It is not optional in the same sense it was back in 2014. Thank you for the non answer though.

How is it not optional in the same sense as it was in 2014?

 

[Nefermandias]

How is it not optional in the same sense as it was in 2014?

Page 163 of the old PHB says:

"The combination of ability scores, race, class, and background defines your character's capabilities in the game, and the personal details you create set your character apart from every other character. Even within your class and race, you have options to fine-tune what your character can do. But a few players—with the DM's permission—want to go a step further.
Chapter 6 of the Player's Handbook defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

Meanwhile, in the new PHB you have none of that. Muticlassing and Feats are the baseline.

 

[Theory of Games]

Meanwhile, in the new PHB you have none of that. Muticlassing and Feats are the baseline.

Only if the GM allows them.

 

[Nefermandias]

Only if the GM allows them.

This is true for pretty much everything in the game. Still, in the 2014 book, multiclassing and feats were presented specifically as optional add-ons to the game, that's my point. Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough.

 

[MGibster]

Meanwhile, in the new PHB you have none of that. Muticlassing and Feats are the baseline.

Heck. Problem solved. If it's the new baseline then it's the new baseline.

 

[Nefermandias]

Heck. Problem solved. If it's the new baseline then it's the new baseline.

Yes. I finally had the chance to read the book and check for myself. I never said otherwise.

 

[MGibster]

Yes. I finally had the chance to read the book and check for myself. I never said otherwise.

No, no, no. THere was no dig at you. If multiclassing is no longer optional then I don't have any real complaint against WotC building advancement rules around it.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

IME, I can't recall a single instance of someone who dipped in a class at level 1, to change for the rest of the game to a different class, without ever returning to the first.

It is fairly normal for any caster dipping into Sorcerer for con save proficiency or into Fighter for con save proficiency + heavy armor proficiency, since it has to be the first level or you don't get the benefit. Otherwise you are right though, there's no reason to care about having your 1 level dip come first so it makes sense to establish your main class features first.

Meh... YMMV but proficiency for concentration is way over-rated. The DC is nearly always 10. Because of that, and the fact any Ranger/Paladin is going to have CON 14+, you usually only need an 8 (or even lower), giving you the 65% target for success in making the concentration check. Paladins adding their CHA to saves at 6th level make it even less important IME.

"Over-rated" is obviously subjective, but to me a 35% chance to lose concentration on my build-defining spell is just NOT something I would ever want to tolerate.

If we're talking about a crowd control spell like banish or polymorph then I could agree - even if concentration breaks you probably get some value out of the partial duration CC, plus even just making enemies waste time breaking your concentration is crowd control in itself to a degree

But if we're talking about a build-defining offensive spell like spirit guardians, conjure minor elementals, spike growth, haste, etc, where you need a setup turn that pays off on the next round, you damn well better keep concentration near 100% of the time or else you're sitting there feeling useless all combat

 

[Micah Sweet]

Page 163 of the old PHB says:

"The combination of ability scores, race, class, and background defines your character's capabilities in the game, and the personal details you create set your character apart from every other character. Even within your class and race, you have options to fine-tune what your character can do. But a few players—with the DM's permission—want to go a step further.
Chapter 6 of the Player's Handbook defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

Meanwhile, in the new PHB you have none of that. Muticlassing and Feats are the baseline.

That definitely seems to read as no more optional than anything else in the 5.5 PH, so I have to conclude that, like with feats,, WotC no longer intends to treat multiclassing as an optional rule, if indeed they ever did (the fact that multiclassing and feats were both in the 5.0 PH suggests calling them optional was always lip service and appeasement for certain players from whom they wanted money).

 

[Nefermandias]

That definitely seems to read as no more optional than anything else in the 5.5 PH, so I have to conclude that, like with feats,, WotC no longer intends to treat multiclassing as an optional rule, if indeed they ever did (the fact that multiclassing and feats were both in the 5.0 PH suggests calling them optional was always lip service and appeasement for certain players from whom they wanted money).

I agree. I know people who didn't even know those rules were optional and had always assumed them baseline.

That said, I'm really disappointed with the removal of the "this is optional" wording. Now as a DM, I'm gonna have to actively ban those from my games instead of just not opting in like I used to do.