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

[GnomeWorks]

To the people who always want more classes, a question: WHY? What are you looking for?

There are two reasons, really.

One: my setting has nine power sources, and my approach to class design resulted in seven combat roles. So yes there is some need to "fill in the grid," as it were.

Two: there are myriad class fantasies beyond those presented in core. While some of those class fantasies have overlap, it's considerably easier and more fulfilling to concentrate a few tropes into a single class, than have a class able to represent a wide variety of tropes.

And if the answer is "more options", then another question: why aren't you playing GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, which has always offered more character versatility than D&D? Why are you trying to make class-based system do what a point-based system does better?

Because the point of classes is having a mechanic that can hold archetypal tropified character concepts to fulfill class fantasies. Yes, you can build such a character in a points-based system, but it's also considerably easier to lose grasp on it.

I have doubts you actually did any better than Wotc would have.

Rude and uncalled for.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rude and uncalled for.

What can I say. I’m a skeptic at heart.

 

[el-remmen]

While I understand why WotC needs to be careful about the rules it presents and how they interact, on a practical level if it turns out that the Circle of Doo-Doo Druid and the Plungerer fighter archetype synergize to make something that is way too much the shiz, then I will handle it at my table when it comes up. I don’t play with anyone these days that wouldn’t be open to changing / toning down if it was too OP. (If it just a little OP we might worry about it next campaign instead)

 

[Ancalagon]

If your implication is that WotC in its current state would bungle a class explosion, I won't disagree.

Personally, I'm at ~63 classes. Not all are written or playable at the moment, but for the vast majority of those I at least have the class fantasy and core mechanic down. The goal has been to generally keep them in line with core classes, in terms of power levels: I've toned casters down a notch and my martial-equivalents have considerably more utility than core, but for the majority of them, I imagine most DMs wouldn't balk at their inclusion for mechanical reasons.

The GLOG has, last time I looked over a year ago, over a thousand classes. It helps that it's a 4 level system, so creating an entire class is easy. And anything goes - fighters, summoners, gun priests, monkey dads, muscle mages, petty sell swords...

 

[Ancalagon]

The real problem here isn't with the synergistic effect, but with how bad both hypothetical classes are.

If a single feature from one class added to another class makes said other class so much better than either class on their own to the point that it's a problem, your classes are too weak.

That is objectively incorrect.

say a class has an acceptable "power level" (you strongly imply this by using the terms "classes are too weak". Let us assign this "power level" a value of 5-7. The actual value of these numbers are purely arbitrary. Stay with me.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You are claiming that if a synergy - a multiplicative effect, by definition, is too strong, the base value (5-7) was too low. This is not how synergy works! Say the base class had been very strong (a 20). The value of the synergy is 1.7. The bigger the value of the base class is, the more the multiplicative effect will be dramatic. 1.7 times 5 is 8.5. 1.7 times 20 is 34!

Synergy is the problem. It's not additive, it's multiplicative. Some class powers have very potent synergy. Because multiclassing is possible, good game designs requires that the potential synergy is not too strong. This means that certain features can't be included in the game because they would be too strong - not by themselves, but combined with another feature from another class.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Synergy is the problem. It's not additive, it's multiplicative. Some class powers have very potent synergy. Because multiclassing is possible, good game designs requires that the potential synergy is not too strong. This means that certain features can't be included in the game because they would be too strong - not by themselves, but combined with another feature from another class.

DnD multiclassing isn't particularly about synergy or multiplicative effects. Multiclassing is so powerful because all of the most powerful abilities are frontloaded at very low levels (with the only exception being high level spells).

So once you are past around level 6-8 or so (depending on class), the amount of power you gain from staying in your original class is tiny compared to what you gain by dipping 1-2 levels in another class. The problem is that high level abilities are terrible except for spells.

 

[Horwath]

DnD multiclassing isn't particularly about synergy or multiplicative effects. Multiclassing is so powerful because all of the most powerful abilities are frontloaded at very low levels (with the only exception being high level spells).

So once you are past around level 6-8 or so (depending on class), the amount of power you gain from staying in your original class is tiny compared to what you gain by dipping 1-2 levels in another class. The problem is that high level abilities are terrible except for spells.

classes need to be frontloaded as otherwise playing low level characters would be extreme boring to play low level characters. Now it's just boring until levels 5 or 6.

Sure it would be nice if every level comes with 2 feats worth of features, but that is kind of hard to do.
maybe if you start your design as a classless system and then you print out classes as guides how to make certain archetypes.

 

[steeldragons]

Reads thread title: " Multiclassing shouldnt' be treated as default."

Correct. Full stop.

However, since there are -at this point probably- multiple generations of players who think it is their birthright to pick and choose their way through a D&D campaign (or at least "double up"), I think it is a losing battle to expect the "official game" is going to go that direction. Though 5e did explicitly say MCing was "optional."

As DM, you can just say, at Session 0 or before, "Multiclassing is not an option here. " That is totally fine and within game expectations to say.

If you are so inclined, one could add "conditions." Such as, "If the story/character/campaign necessitates a change or evolution of abilities, then the character's class can/will change." That's also totally fine/"in bounds."

I have set my homebrew to try to curb the draw of MCing, that only two classes may be combined in the life of character. This could be from character creation or could be class abilities that are "picked up" along the line. At least ONE of those two classes MUST BE -what I define as - a "base/default" class; i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Mage, or Thief. There are also stipulated classes that are too involved/occupied/involve too much time or devotion to pick up a whole other class' array of abilities; e.g. Druid, Bard, "Paladin," et al.

This way, some (or "most") classic combo's are available; the Fighter/Mage (if you'd rather that to a Ftr/MU homebrew class of mine), the Ranger/Cleric, the "full-classed" Illusionist/Thief (as opposed to an "Arcane Trickster" type). But certain things in the game are simply not going to be able possible: i.e., a "Druid/Necromancer" or "Cavalier/Warlock," however thematically similar they seem; nor such things as would simply, culturally/internal consistancy, not appear in the campaign world; a "Barbarian/Mage" or "Paladin/Assassin." Just no. Not an option. Can you be a character that hails from the barbarian people/tribe who leaves and becomes a magic-using class? YES! Absolutely. But you won't be/have "Barbarian" class abilities. Sabe?

There will be options for building most character "types" - feats, themes, backgrounds, ways to acquire limited magic abilities, etc... - but you are not ever going to be permitted the entire suite of having their full class.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

5e had Multiclassing and Feats as optional rules - the DM would need to choose to opt-in to the added complexity/balance problems they create, and players would not expect them to always be available for them.

2024 makes both of these base rules. Now a DM has to BAN them if they want to play without them. It turns the DM into the "bad guy" for banning default options, rather than making the more expected choice of just not allowing optional rules.

 

[Lanefan]

IMO part of the perceived problem with Multi-classing is that people often use it for "dipping to get cool new powers" - more meta-gaming than role-playing. As a thought experiment, if Multiclassing rules included a clause like "all levels taken in a class must be taken consecutively" (i.e., once you leave a class to level in another one, you can never again level in the original class, similar to dual-classing in 1E) would multi-classing be nearly as popular?

Yes. Players would merely switch to doing their dipping first rather than later, thus the main intended class would be the last one picked up.