D&D 5E Optimal Multiclassing

[brehobit]

Yes, one can manage character ideas and other things with backgrounds rather than multi-classing. But the rule appears to be there to gimp multi-classing warrior types. I'd assume because they are worried about multi-classing warriors being too good. A real concern, but I think the stat-gain penalty is enough, and the multiple attack one is a bridge too far. And it only has an impact at a small number of levels (generally 5-7 or so), so if it is there for balance, it's not having an impact in any other spot. Making it seem like a bad rule.

Not saying it isn't workable. Not saying it's utterly horrible. I'm saying it's unneeded and does make it harder for people to play certain concepts. It's an easy house rule, but it's one I'd like to see officially changed.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

I don't see it as a problem. Sure, a ftr4/barb4 is worse than a ftr5/barb3 most of the time, but a wiz4/clr4 is worse than a wiz5/clr3 too.

Personally, I like starting with ftr1/barb1 or whatever, then taking one class all the way to 5, then evening them out a bit. That way you're only behind on attacks for one level, and the synergies you can get from careful multiclassing help make up for that.

For example, let's say your concept is a dual-wielding (strength-based) berserker. Going straight barbarian will get you an extra attack at level 5, but a level of fighter will get you an extra 3-4 damage on every offhand attack. Sure, at exactly level 5 the straight barbarian is superior, but the advantage from levels 1-4 could make up for that.

Point is, most of the class combos that should work seem to do so. If you want an optimized character every step of the way you'll have to be careful what order you take what class levels in, but I don't see that as a huge downside.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Yes, one can manage character ideas and other things with backgrounds rather than multi-classing. But the rule appears to be there to gimp multi-classing warrior types. I'd assume because they are worried about multi-classing warriors being too good. A real concern, but I think the stat-gain penalty is enough, and the multiple attack one is a bridge too far. And it only has an impact at a small number of levels (generally 5-7 or so), so if it is there for balance, it's not having an impact in any other spot. Making it seem like a bad rule.

Not saying it isn't workable. Not saying it's utterly horrible. I'm saying it's unneeded and does make it harder for people to play certain concepts. It's an easy house rule, but it's one I'd like to see officially changed.

The problem is that in your system, taking level 5 in a martial class is ALWAYS worse than multiclassing, since you've basically stripped away their big level 5 ability.

 

[Talaeden_Denthiir]

My apologies. I'm cut and pasted that all from another forum with my
Messed up not properly updated iPhone 4s. Some clarifications:

1) The rog/mnk multiclass isn't level 20. It is a level 10 that we are
Trying to 'port from 3E where she had 2 levels of Rog.
2) another example is my Avenger/Assassin being hard to port from 4E.
As has been stated on this thread, the MC issue isn't with spellcasting classes,
It's with, "martial type", classses. Rog/mnk and rog/pal in this case.
3) some classses having 1 prereg and others having 2 is an issue.
4) "martial types" not stacking multiple attacks and "spellcasting types" having
A whole chart devoted to stacking spell slots is also not fair to the martial types.
5) no matter how many levels one takes of rog before mnk, it doesn't change the fact
That some classes are much more beneficial to start from than others and RP wise, if the story is
Start as rog than go into mnk and the rules support start as mnk go into rog, THAN go back into
Rog, then the mechanics are determing the RP and not the other way around LOL.

 

[Talaeden_Denthiir]

Regardless of the rog/mnk roleplay issue being relevant to this post or not, the following is relevant:

If all classes are relatively balanced, why is Ftr Str OR Dex, Mnk Dex AND Wis, Pal Str AND Cha, Rgr Dex AND Wis, and all other classes are just one Stat?
Ftr being 'either/or' implies it's easier to MC into.
Mnk, Pal, Rgr being 'and' implies it's harder to MC into those classes.

I just feel that having ability score boosts being tied to level and giving the Ftr and Rog bonus boosts would've came to the same conclusion without gimping the MC rules.

I.E., if Fighters get bonus stat boosts at levels 6 and 14 and Rogues at level 10, give everyone based on level boosts at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, then give Fighters class bonus boosts at levels 6 and 14 and Rogues at level 10.
And don't tell me it's a, "balance issue", cuz' spellcasters don't get nerfed. Heck, there is even a whole chart on page 165 of the PHB, to make sure they don't get nerfed.
The figters and rogues still get ability score bonuses and the MC'ers don't get nerfed. Win - Win!

 

[eryndel]

I don't see it as a problem. Sure, a ftr4/barb4 is worse than a ftr5/barb3 most of the time, but a wiz4/clr4 is worse than a wiz5/clr3 too.

Is it? If I'm sitting at 4/3 (either martial or caster), and I'm taking another level, I have a meaningful choice to make. Bump my level 4 to 5 and get an extra attack, or an extra spell level (and maybe fast movement for Barb), or bump my level 3 to 4 and get an ability score boost/feat. It would really depend on the character, and the role in the party, on which way I'd choose.

Not that I disagree with any of your post, I just wanted to point out that the 4/4 split isn't naturally inferior to the 5/3 split. I think that's a bonus to the system... it seems like there are a lot of meaningful choices players can make in their builds, if they are in to that.

And, for those who really don't like the ASI or Extra Attacks to be based off of class level, this is something that is pretty straightforward to change. Simply decouple the ASIs to character level, give fighters a bonus at ftr-6 and ftr-14, and give rogues a bonus at rogue-10. Similarly, let a total of 5 levels of Barb/Fighter/Ranger/Paladin give you a second attack. This will encourage multiclassing, but if it's uniform throughout the group... it won't really break anything.

If you're a player, ask your GM to adopt those houserules.

 

[jadrax]

Given that spell casters lose access to higher level spells by multi-classing, they do get heavily penalized.

Even the spell slot table is not as beneficial as you might think. Without it a Cleric 3 Wizard 3 would get 8 1st level spells and 4 2nd level. With it they get 4 1st level, 3 2nd, 3 3rd. That's actually a trade off rather than one being directly better than the other.

 

[Talaeden_Denthiir]

Is it? If I'm sitting at 4/3 (either martial or caster), and I'm taking another level, I have a meaningful choice to make. Bump my level 4 to 5 and get an extra attack, or an extra spell level (and maybe fast movement for Barb), or bump my level 3 to 4 and get an ability score boost/feat. It would really depend on the character, and the role in the party, on which way I'd choose.

Not that I disagree with any of your post, I just wanted to point out that the 4/4 split isn't naturally inferior to the 5/3 split. I think that's a bonus to the system... it seems like there are a lot of meaningful choices players can make in their builds, if they are in to that.

And, for those who really don't like the ASI or Extra Attacks to be based off of class level, this is something that is pretty straightforward to change. Simply decouple the ASIs to character level, give fighters a bonus at ftr-6 and ftr-14, and give rogues a bonus at rogue-10. Similarly, let a total of 5 levels of Barb/Fighter/Ranger/Paladin give you a second attack. This will encourage multiclassing, but if it's uniform throughout the group... it won't really break anything.

If you're a player, ask your GM to adopt those houserules.

The problem isn't houseruling for home games. I AGREE with you on that issue. It's that theycan't be 'ported to OP (Organized Play) , such as Adventures League with said house rules.

 

[eryndel]

The problem isn't houseruling for home games. I AGREE with you on that issue. It's that theycan't be 'ported to OP (Organized Play) , such as Adventures League with said house rules.

True... To your point above, the decision on what traits stack with multitasking, I believe, are a balance issue. Not to make sure that characters are balanced within a group, or even between groups, but to what level of balance do you want to encourage single classing over multiclassing. What's in the PHB is what the designers felt was a good baseline, so yeah... that would be reflected in their organized play program.

Honestly, I don't disagree with them. My first take on the multiclassing rules were probably similar to yours... it didn't make much sense why, if all classes get ASI, not just decouple them from the class levels. Or if a number of classes get a bonus attacks at level 5, let that stack across those classes. But seeing some of the talk on this and other boards about the tough choices that are made to stray of a single class concept, the more I think the designers hit it pretty close to the mark, as I'm still seeing plenty of good multiclass options, even on the martial side.

Right now, it appears that characters need to make sacrifices and difficult choices on how expand outside their wheelhouse, which I think is great. I'd much rather the tough choice over the obvious one.

 

[drjones]

Sounds like the problem is you are trying to port from 3e where multiclassing was almost always more powerful than single classing to 5e where the two are more balanced without being willing to change your level progression. Instead of looking at doing the exact same thing and trying to get exactly the same output from a new system look at the whys of what you did and look at the tools you now have available to achieve those goals..