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

[Minigiant]

Huh??? I have no clue what you are even talking about...

Fighter sucked at skills
Barbarian sucked at skills

"Your character totally has the option of using skills".

 

[TiQuinn]

What--exactly--was this thing you were experiencing?

Fighter (or Ranger) attacks with their 3/2 attacks, does appreciable damage against one to two opponents.

Rogue tries to maneuver into position to get a backstab, but needs the right conditions, perhaps a Move Silently roll first. Gets a 3x damage on a single target before modifiers.

Wizard casts Lightning Bolt doing 7d6, averaging over 20 points of damage, with possibility to create bank shots or multiple saves on rebounds. Or charms a monster, ending some fights before they begin or turning the battle decidedly in favor of the party.

What were you experiencing that was different?

 

[FrogReaver]

How does this stop dipping??

I mean, I love the idea of a feat to allow multiclassing. Our groups have toyed around with the idea ourselves so you cannot multiclass until 4th (or 5th depending on how you word it) level, unless you started as a variant human and took it at 1st level.

But, the more we thought about it, the more we realized it doesn't stop much really. A +1 to a stat for something you want anyway wasn't even in our original idea, but just makes it more attractive.

IME, most PCs dip once into another class for 1-3 levels at most, but otherwise put all their levels into their primary class.... OR they go the "balanced route" from the beginning and do a 1:1 split between two classes.

So, how do you see this really helping to stop class dipping?

It curbs the power incentive for doing so. How do you think it wouldn’t?

 

[MoonSong]

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.

I support all subclasses at first level. I don't care about limiting multiclassing though.

 

[TheSword]

Multiclassing is fun.

I love multi-classing.

It helps me create a character over time that I envision.

It allows the creation of fighting characters who can also cast spells competently and allow additional options without necessarily adding power.

Any table that doesn’t want it can cut it out easily without breaking the game.

Don’t see the problem.

 

[Lanefan]

I like multiclassing in a narrative way because I like long campaigns where in-game events influence the choices players make about their character advancement, not a pre-determined build concept. I am not knocking that approach, it just has never been one common to my circles. I like to think of it as, "At this time of his life, Waldorf the Wizard decided he was going to practice martial skills should he ever be cursed to lose his magic again!" or something, because of some adventure we had, and I take a few levels of fighter.

Which is great. All for it.

My point is that when Waldorf gets to 2nd-level multi-class Fighter he shouldn't be as good at fightng as Fredegar the 2nd-level single-class Fighter.

It's a problem with additive multiclassing that the first class can't take a hit (which IMO it should) when a character multiclasses later like this, because up till then you've been single-class. I far prefer the 2e side-along multiclass system where your decision to multiclass is almost always made at roll-up and thus MC-ing penalties to both (or all) classes can apply all the way along.

But I know that style of play frustrates some people who want everyone to be optimized.

It also frustrates those who see the character-build side of the game as being more important than the character-play side; and I'm just fine with that.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Fighter sucked at skills
Barbarian sucked at skills

"Your character totally has the option of using skills".

You do have the option to use skills and they don't "suck" at them. I mean, they could if you build your PC that way, and of course they aren't as good as PC with expertise, but that is a feature for those characters who give up something else to have it---something else Fighters and Barbarians do have.

So, I find your argument lacking--as well as brief.

It curbs the power incentive for doing so. How do you think it wouldn’t?

Well, if you are offering a +1 ASI along with it, I don't see how it would. Most class dips are because the first two levels are relatively feature rich and offer some synergy that makes it worth losing out on the power of levels in your primary class. Since you are already getting something good out of it, even spending a feat really wouldn't be much of a sacrifice, especially with a +1 ASI to boot.

I suppose it might be a deterent for some, but I wouldn't think it would for most. The "casual" or "bored" multiclasser might see it more your way I expect...?

 

[TheSword]

Which is great. All for it.

My point is that when Waldorf gets to 2nd-level multi-class Fighter he shouldn't be as good at fightng as Fredegar the 2nd-level single-class Fighter.

It's a problem with additive multiclassing that the first class can't take a hit (which IMO it should) when a character multiclasses later like this, because up itll then you've been single-class. I far prefer the 2e side-along multiclass system where your decision to multiclass is almost always made at roll-up and thus MC-ing penalties to both (or all) classes can apply all the way along.

It also frustrates those who see the character-build side of the game as being more important than the character-play side; and I'm just fine with that.

I don’t understand this? What do you mean a 2nd level multi-class fighter. Do you mean fighter 1/Rogue 1? Or a fighter 2/wizard 3

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

I don’t think it was a goal per se, just what was left over after all the compromises on actual limitations on gameplay.

 

[Lanefan]

Multiclassing is a traditional part of D&D that has been part of the game since 1st edition. You can’t remove it (or deliberately break it) any more than you can remove rangers.

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.