D&D 5E Optimal Multiclassing

[CapnZapp]

I was pretty surprised (and disappointed) by this since the final public playtest did it "right." Any ideas why they changed it?

Please don't assume we know things about the playtest.

How did things work in the playtest?
What changed?
What changes surprised and disappointed you?

 

[CapnZapp]

I _think_ you'll find that few people are suggesting marital characters multiclass with other martial characters. _that_ part is pretty borked. I'd like to see levels stack for getting the extra attack feature (2 attacks only). The ability gain problem is the same for everyone, but warriors _need_ that extra attack or they fall way (way) behind.

If you prioritize getting the Extra Attack feature then plan to take five levels of one class in a reasonable timeline... what is the problem here?

 

[77IM]

Please don't assume we know things about the playtest.

How did things work in the playtest?
What changed?
What changes surprised and disappointed you?

In the final public playtest, levels in classes granting Extra Attack stacked: once you had a total of 5 combined levels in all such classes you got one Extra Attack. Getting the second required 11 levels of Fighter. Problematically, Bard got Extra Attack at 8th level and Monk never got it (instead getting an improved flurry at 8th level).

Now, it simply says that Extra Attack does not stack.

I'm disappointed because I'm confused, especially since they fixed the problems with Bard and Monk. The fact that so many warrior classes get Extra Attack at 5th level makes it seem important for that to happen for them to keep up their damage output. It's not clear to me that low-level dips into other classes is going to make up for the delay in getting Extra Attack. That's why I'm curious if anyone has thought up a good explanation (e.g. examples of how it'd be broken); all I hear is people complaining about how they fixed spellcaster multiclassing but broke warrior multiclassing.

If you prioritize getting the Extra Attack feature then plan to take five levels of one class in a reasonable timeline... what is the problem here?

A game should not present players with an option that seems fun, but actually kind of sucks.

If Extra Attack matters an much as I think it does, the rules should have forbade warrior multiclassing until 5th level. Or at least had a sidebar warning players against it so they can make an informed decision. If someone wants to make a weak character, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn't come as a surprise. I'm worried about the guy with the Ranger 4/Monk 3 who thought this was a cool concept with a lot of story potential and is bummed because the party's Paladin 7 is doing way more damage.

 

[brehobit]

If you prioritize getting the Extra Attack feature then plan to take five levels of one class in a reasonable timeline... what is the problem here?

When most games are in the levels 4-7 range, you really don't get to play the multi-class character you want to play _or_ you suck at doing it from levels 5+. They went far out of their way to enable spellcasting multi-classing. And they did it quite well IMO, especially with respect to 3e. But they hosed the martial side in levels 5-8 or so. Wouldn't be a big deal (only a few levels) but that's IME where most people play the game.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I was pretty surprised (and disappointed) by this since the final public playtest did it "right." Any ideas why they changed it?

Conceptually, I agree that it worked (5 levels in one class, or a combination of 8 levels in classes with the feature), but in the end, I'm not sure it came into play that often, did it?

Monk 4/Ranger 4?
Paladin 3/Ranger 3/Fighter 2?

My sense was that it was giving a false incentive towards weaker builds.

Was there something in particular that you felt worked well with the play test rule? I'd be interested.

 

[CapnZapp]

If you believe 5th level characters absolutely must have two attacks, then, yes, you should not multiclass.

But it looks to me your evaluation is not the only one, and other people are happy even if they don't get that second attack until levels later.

 

[CapnZapp]

In the final public playtest, levels in classes granting Extra Attack stacked: once you had a total of 5 combined levels in all such classes you got one Extra Attack.

Thanks.

I'm sure there's a compelling reason why this was removed, though.

 

[brehobit]

If you believe 5th level characters absolutely must have two attacks, then, yes, you should not multiclass.

But it looks to me your evaluation is not the only one, and other people are happy even if they don't get that second attack until levels later.

I'm not sure other people are happy--I've not seen a multi-class character described that has two classes with multi-attack in it that _hasn't_ complained.

And I think it's well past belief--doing half as much damage is really huge. This isn't like iterative attacks in 3e, this is a pure doubling.

 

[Stalker0]

And I think it's well past belief--doing half as much damage is really huge. This isn't like iterative attacks in 3e, this is a pure doubling.

There is something to be said here.

3e and 4e, there were several ways to boost the damage of a single attack, so while secondary attacks are useful they aren't as important. At least so far, 5e's primary damage boost seems driven on multiple attacks....at least until higher levels in certain classes (such as the 8th level cleric +1d8 damage on an attack). The only martial class that focuses on the single attack is the rogue.

I think what would be interesting to see is what people can do buildwise with a single attack martial character at 6th level. What single attack focuses can they dig out of the multiclass rules that would keep up with the multiattack martial?


That said, I would rather the multiclass rules start out a bit on the weak side than the other way around. Flexibility always has the greater potential for abuse, and people I think will start to find those combination "gems" as time goes it.

 

[Tzarevitch]

That said, I would rather the multiclass rules start out a bit on the weak side than the other way around. Flexibility always has the greater potential for abuse, and people I think will start to find those combination "gems" as time goes it.

Agreed. In my opinion multiclassing should give the player flexibility. It should not be useable to generate builds which are significantly more powerful that single class builds. If it does multiclassing becomes effectively mandatory for everyone rather than an option.