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

[Micah Sweet]

If I had my preference, multi-classing would not be a thing, and subclasses would be the class. It’s the thing that your PC is. You’re a Warlock but you’re a Hexblade and ultimately I find that players consider the latter part to be the main identity.

I saw the level dipping issue arise in 3e and after initial excitement came to see it as flawed. Much preferred 2e’s version ever since, but that’s a radically different game.

2e's version is good too, but my real preference (other than Level Up, or perhaps in addition to it), is simply to have more classes that cover more archetypes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

and with 13 classes you need 78 of those feats to cover all combos and if it's a 3 feat chain, the it's 234 feats just to cover multiclassing.

Yeah, that right. Level Up has a series of supplements doing just that. It's great!

 

[Corinnguard]

and with 13 classes you need 78 of those feats to cover all combos and if it's a 3 feat chain, the it's 234 feats just to cover multiclassing.

13 classes from the Adventurer's Guide. There are several more 3pp classes for A5e such as the Elementalist and the Wielder classes from Purple Martin Games' Manual of Adventurous Resources: Complete.

Yeah, that right. Level Up has a series of supplements doing just that. It's great!

We're going to have ask @xiphumor about the exact number of multiclass synergy feats in A5e now. There's well over several dozen now, most of them are from Purple Martin Games.

 

[Corinnguard]

It is a phenominal combo but a bit overkill in some situations and it makes certain aspects of features redundent.

But I have always liked it like the Fighter (Arcane Knight) / Rogue (Arcane Trickster).

Getting and using an Oathbow is overkill. All of the benefits of the Sharpshooter feat and the Rogue's Steady Aim, and none of the drawbacks from either one. Sometimes, it's not the class combo that's too OP, but the things you find while adventuring.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

That's a design choice due to caster biased game designers who lean on their experience to be favorable to martials in the moment.

There should have either been a true option simple or complex subsystem for martials or additional martial classes with level by level choice.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

There should have either been a true option simple or complex subsystem for martials or additional martial classes with level by level choice.

I do miss the original DnDNext promise of simple / complex option for every class (or rather, this concept of layers of complexity).

So you could have a simple magical princess doing simple magic (likely a blast + effect of your choice) in one corner, while the complex warlord is busy pulling off party maneuvers while worrying about ways to recharge their Maneuver Dice pool in the other.

 

[Piperken]

I've noticed there's two versions of D&D players that have been roughly described on the periphery and I've been both in past games.

One is the, I lean into my character's fictional experiences at the table to guide what roles they take, at which point they multiclass, take certain feats, learn particular skills and so on.

The second is, I have a concept of a character that I feel would be fun to play for X reasons, what are the paths they might chart so the sheet embodies that concept.

If I were to play D&D now, I'd trend toward the first compared to the past.

But I've had the experience of having a player who wanted to be Darth Vader in D&D. Our group at the time didn't realize this until a few levels later, when we found it curious their character kept wanting to learn particular feats, acquire magic items that gave abilities that were suspiciously like what a Sith Lord could do, as well as in game kept trying to put together a black ensemble.

It was quite hilarious when we confronted them on it out of the game.

One of the characters I made was a half-orc barbarian/bard, who beat a drum; that was the entire concept. I thought the idea of him was great; he was fun for me to play and it was memorable.

I'm sure there are D&D players who have characteristics from both of these roughly described approaches, to a lesser or greater extent. If you're going to have multiclass exist in some form, it should attempt to be accommodating to those ways of engagement.

 

[Blue]

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.

Can you provide any reasonable source that says that rules bloat is a good thing? That having more class choices reduces the barrier to entry for new players? Yes, I picked things where "class explostions" are not a good thing, but that doesn't make them less real.

I especially hate class proliferation when you get 17 ways to build the same archetype, just with different mechanics. "Oh, but this one is a divine warrior that bases using a two handed weapon off of WISDOM."

 

[Nefermandias]

I don't allow multiclassing in my campaigns...I find it to be more trouble than it's worth. The good news is that it's optional, as you said.

Is it still optional in the new PHB?

 

[CleverNickName]

Is it still optional in the new PHB?

Couldn't tell ya. I'm not on the D&D 2024 train.