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

[DEFCON 1]

This is what house rules are for. You can move subclass levels around all you want, or make custom backgrounds that are essentially the subclass you want so that you can get your "subclass" at level 1, or just do feature exchanges if a player just wants one specific class feature from a different class and you can swap it in for another one you swap out.

WotC doesn't need to write the game exactly the way you want it to go... considering every single one of you wants it to be something different and thus it's actually impossible to give each of you exactly what you want.

So since WotC can't give you what you want, you have to give it to yourself. And yes, that might mean needing to talk to your DM and for them to allow it... but if they are going to give you a hard time about it and it really matters that much to you... find a new DM.

 

[g00se99994]

simple idea would be to replace multiclassing with less fixed class features and more feat slots for every class.
90% of subclas abilities can be feats, same with base class abilities.

with more feat slots, players can choose to have more general feats or will they "steal" features of other classes.
put class(and subclass) features at levels: 1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19 and 20 and feat slots at levels 1,2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20.

This is basically what PF2e has.

 

[g00se99994]

This is what house rules are for. You can move subclass levels around all you want, or make custom backgrounds that are essentially the subclass you want so that you can get your "subclass" at level 1, or just do feature exchanges if a player just wants one specific class feature from a different class and you can swap it in for another one you swap out.

WotC doesn't need to write the game exactly the way you want it to go... considering every single one of you wants it to be something different and thus it's actually impossible to give each of you exactly what you want.

So since WotC can't give you what you want, you have to give it to yourself. And yes, that might mean needing to talk to your DM and for them to allow it... but if they are going to give you a hard time about it and it really matters that much to you... find a new DM.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Horwath]

This is basically what PF2e has.

PF2 has class feats at even levels, sure you can trade them for multiclass feats, but you lose you class features to gain some other class.

I would make even level feats general as they are now, so you trade general feats for other class features.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I couldn't agree more.

No no no, don't sell yourself short! I'm sure you can agree even more that I'm right. I have the utmost faith in your skills to go even further in acknowledging my correctness.

 

[ezo]

He's aiming to be a Ranger (Gloom Stalker)/Rogue (Scout).

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).

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A relatively minor complaint I have about 5th edition is having to wait until third level to get my subslcass. In a few of the D&D campaigns I've run, players have wanted to skip to level three because "that's when it gets fun." One of the reasons we wait until third level to get our subclass is to avoid encouraging players to multiclass by dipping their toes into various classes to get those abilities at level one.

But multiclassing is an optional rule. Why build character generation and progression around an optional rule? Let's just have our subclass at first level and if that makes multiclassing too powerful then don't allow that as an option.

Because they never really treated it as an optional rule. It was IMO marked as such to throw a bone to those players of older editions they wanted money from that didn't like it. Just like feats. If they really wanted either or both to be optional they would have put them in the DMG with the rest of the optional rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or have it that multiclass characters never get any subclass features at any level (and-or in any class) and only get the base features of each class. If that still ends up overcooked, trim away some base features from MC'ed classes.

Interesting idea, but that would have had the unacceptable side effect of making PCs less powerful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

With standardized subclass levels, you could even make multiclassing your subclass.

But honestly I think limiting multiclassing works against the one thing 5e does really well: power fantasy. 5e delivers power fantasy, and multiclassing (when done well) is a big part of that - it allows system mastery to be a part of that power fantasy for those who want to use it.

I think a lot of us would be better off if WotC had just stated power fantasy as a major design goal back in 2014. We would have all known what we were getting into.