D&D (2024) The state of Multiclass-Dips in One D&D

[Kobold Stew]

So tell me how a Wizard 20 is better than a Cleric 1/Wizard 19? Epic Boons? Sorry, try again.

For most players, this is not a real question. Sure, at level 19 a one-level dip is helpful. This, though wold be solved if they altered the spell progression and gave a second level-9 slot at level 20. (That's just an example, but it shows that the problem is not nearly as dire as you present.)

For most players, the decision gets made at any given level as you progress, and for that the game does pretty well. It's almost never advantageous to multiclass before level 5 if you are playing for "power", because the level 5 benefits are significant. So I can tell you how a Wizard 5 is better than a Wiz 4/Cleric 1. I can also tell you how a Wiz 9 is better than a Wiz 8/Cleric1. Maybe some levels aren't as tempting -- sure -- but choosing to multiclass at 6 or 7 or 8 should be an interesting choice, and I don't think it's going to be obvious.

That is a much more interesting break point, I would suggest, to measure the value of multiclassing -- class levels 6-10.

 

[Lojaan]

They should swap holy orders and channel divinity around. The signature experience of playing a cleric is casting spells in armour, which they can do at level 1, not channel divinity, which is situational at best.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm not going to answer every one of your points, because it is clear form your post that your preliminary assumptions differ from mine substantially.

Particularly, the idea that you are "forced" into a one-level dip, frankly, makes no sense. I do not in the current game ever feel "forced" to multiclass, and there is nothing in the current playtest packs that makes multiclassing any more inevitable or "forced".

However, a few small notes:

So here's what each class gives with a 1 level dip & how that expands beyond tier1.
Bard

Is there a reason you don't list the two first-level spells that Bards get? That, um, seems a substantial part of the class. To get that, and to get a free (better than) Healing word proficiency times/long rest seems much more powerful than anything you are suggesting for Cleric.

• L1:Expertise in two of your skills
  • Currently expertise is double proficiency & bounded accuracy is already destrpyed by scaling proficiency bonuses alone even without expertise. This is a problem but perhaps not specifically a multiclass problem.

It is clear you really don't like expertise. Fine -- I don't like it because it erodes the nich I think rogues shoudl hold, and I think too many classes have it, and you can get it through feats etc. But, as you note, that's really separate from the multiclassing issue.

Ranger

• L1:Favored enemy: You always have hunters mark prepared & can cast it without needing to maintain concentration...
  • Ruh-roh: It's entirely possible hunters mark will change in a way that solves this but I think that's a stretch. This is a pretty serious bit of dip candy for any classs that makes weapon attacks& the pressure grows the more attacks a PC makes each round. We don't know what the non-light weapons will ultimately look like but this is already starting to singlehandedly pull an already questionable dip in ways that are looking like it significantly misses the mark for that goal Crawford laid out.

It's worth at least observing that you need to spend a spell slot to cast it.

Cleric Red Alert

• 1st:Channel Divinity: This is a heal or nuke that scales based with both proficiency bonus uses in addition to proficiency bonus number of dice
  • This is an anility that misses that goal by an extreme degree. Any wisdom based class is going to be feeling some pressure & it could be good enough that even non-wisdom based classes start feeling pressure

Can you explain why this causes you more anxiety that Bardic Inspiration?

Finally, I'll talk about your thoughts on Holy orders, which requires a 2-level dip, and as such becomes part of a build established over many sessions.

• 2nd: Holy Order: Choice between A: Martial weapon proficiency & heavy armor proficiency, B: proficiency in two skills from arcana history nature persuasion & religion and you add your wisdom mod to it on top of whatever you normally add, C: an extra divine cantrip and you regain one of those proficiency bonus/long rest proficiency bonus(d8) channel divinity uses when you take a short rest....
  • A is pretty awesome on top of everything else. Even now it's common for characters to dip cleric just to get heavy armor proficiency
  • B is freaking amazing for a face character & further exposes how bad bounded accuracy is by making the best face character a bard X/cleric 2 leaps & bounds beyond anything else.
  • C is something that makes an already overly desirable dip pressuring ability even better and

A. will almost certainly be possible from a 1-level dip in Fighter, so it does not seem overpowered. I would prefer characters invest in Wisdom and be rewarded for it.

B. feels overstated to me. Yes, the presence of Persuasion there makes it powerful, but I do not think there's anything wrong with giving Expertise-level bonuses on Intelligence skills, since Int is so often a dump stat in any case. Compare the Knowledge cleric in the current game -- how often do people complain how it is uber-powerful? In my feedbck, I am going to suggest the bonus only be for INT skills (and so investigation rather than persuasion), and that fixes it for my tastes.

C. Multiple levels of investment into cleric so that you can get Channel divinity features is actually what I want a cleric "dip" to give. This is good design, and if you see it as the obvious choice, then that's good design, doubling down on the core distinctive cleric mechanism.

I'm really not seeing a problem here.

There are definitely some serious problems

We're operating with different assumptions, clearly, but we're both playing the same game. Some of this reaction seems extreme to me, and I think with small tweaks it could be even better.

 

[tetrasodium]

At some point, most classes stop giving you new and interesting features. You can go multiple levels without anything remotely fun. Most of the fun features you get are in the first few levels. As long as this is true, the desire to multiclass will always exist.

And you don't want to push back fundamental features too much either, since there's this desire for players to want to feel like they're "actually playing their class".

Multiclassed individuals have existed in the fiction D&D has been based on from the very beginning- Conan is both warrior and thief. Elric of Melnibone is a warrior and a warlock. Fafhrd has a skill set much like Conan's, the Grey Mouser is a Dex Fighter/Rogue who dabbles in black magic. Where D&D is currently going wrong is that the game isn't balanced around ala carte multiclassing, because single-classed characters are not equal to properly built multiclassed characters (it's very easy to make a terrible multiclassed character).

There should be a single-classed character just as powerful as a Hexblade/Paladin. That there isn't any other way to do what this multiclass does is the reason why it's so popular.

Most games don't reach high levels, and the rewards for being a Tier 4 and up character don't always seem so exciting. "Huzzah, three levels later, and I got another use of Indomitable!".

And the current Cleric shows that they still don't get it. Ok, I can't take a one level dip for Domain and Heavy Armor. But I still get spell slots, medium armor, shields, and a powerful healing ability that scales with proficiency bonus. So tell me how a Wizard 20 is better than a Cleric 1/Wizard 19? Epic Boons? Sorry, try again.

The bold bits are the problem. There should be a cost that balances out the gains in actual play but the design of multiclassing has a cost that is almost purely academic. If Alice is playing a multiclass build for power made by combining the single classes being played by Bob & Dave at the same table she's probably the same level barring missed sessions or something & with that the same proficiency bonus. Because skills are tied to prof bonus she's probably just as skilled as both in important skills. She probably even has the important class defining abilities of both Bob & Dave.

Either classes need to be designed to avoid it or other aspects of the game need to change to avoid them being problematic even without the class design trying to avoid it

 

[James Gasik]

The bold bits are the problem. There should be a cost that balances out the gains in actual play but the design of multiclassing has a cost that is almost purely academic. If Alice is playing a multiclass build for power made by combining the single classes being played by Bob & Dave at the same table she's probably the same level barring missed sessions or something & with that the same proficiency bonus. Because skills are tied to prof bonus she's probably just as skilled as both in important skills. She probably even has the important class defining abilities of both Bob & Dave.

Either classes need to be designed to avoid it or other aspects of the game need to change to avoid them being problematic even without the class design trying to avoid it

You can go too far one way, like Pathfinder 1e, where the classes provide you neat benefits at just about every level, to the point you don't want to multiclass- and go further by making full classes that hybridize single classes so you might not even need to.

Or too far the other way, like the 2e era, where there were few reasons not to multiclass, if you could, since usually you'd end up a level to a level than a half lower, but have 2 classes of abilities to draw upon.

I like multiclassing, but I fully admit that 5e has made it very lackluster to not want to do it. My first character was a Battlemaster, and by level 7, I was pretty much done with being a Fighter. I switched to Rogue (figuring I could get the level 8 ASI later, if I needed it), and had way more fun as a result.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not going to answer every one of your points, because it is clear form your post that your preliminary assumptions differ from mine substantially.

Particularly, the idea that you are "forced" into a one-level dip, frankly, makes no sense. I do not in the current game ever feel "forced" to multiclass, and there is nothing in the current playtest packs that makes multiclassing any more inevitable or "forced".

Here's how it happens. Take Alice(her first paladin) Bob(his first warlock) Chuck(an experienced player who made a hexadin) & Dave(the DM).

• Dave tries to help Alice & bob get going & maybe gives them a pregen or holds their hand through creation. He maybe even calls on Dave to help in that & they do so to the best of their ability
• Alice & Bob are very happy & think they areas awesome as they can be
• Chuck is playing a dwarf with 8 strength 25ft speed platemail 20 cha huge con/wis/dex. He's basically immune to anything capable of not stomping all over Alice & Bob thanks to his ac saves & HP.... Chuck also has the ability to hit just as easily as Alice with the same greatsword she uses & can even smite more often than her.
• Dave (the GM) notices the problems with Alice & Bob feeling so much lesser than Chuck & it comes down to Dave having three options...
  • Option one: Demand Chuck make a new PC that is less optimized Nobody will be happy after this with even Alice & bob feeling guilty because they will eventually realize Chuck self nerfed by choice (or got forced to self nerf) because of them
  • Option two: try to talk to Alice & bob about rebuilding their characters to be more optimized . Again this is a problem because Alice & bob thought they were making an awesome character & are now frustrated because the people they thought were honestly trying to help them do so are trying to sell them on making changes to a character they liked
  • Option three: Give Alice & bob awesome stuff to bring them up a bit towards Chuck's level. As Ackbar said, "It's a trap!!..." in more than one way though. Firstly Alice & bob might not understand how to use it or why they really want to use this awesome bit of kit instead. Second Alice or bob might see exactly how & stick that awesome feather in their cap just before taking the same dip Chuck did to create an even bigger monster. Third & worst of all Alice & Bob might simply refuse the AwesomeThing & suggest Chuck can make the best use of the AwesomeThing intended to bring them up to his level not widen the gap.

However, a few small notes:


Is there a reason you don't list the two first-level spells that Bards get? That, um, seems a substantial part of the class. To get that, and to get a free (better than) Healing word proficiency times/long rest seems much more powerful than anything you are suggesting for Cleric.

Oversight. Charisma based casters (paladin & sorcerer) aren't likely to gain too much from the L1 bard spells though due to already having them or filling a somewhat different niche. It's certainly not impossible that we wind up with a future packet where level one DIET spells is a gigantic edition but we don't have much reason to suspect that given what we know is traditionally true about other casters

It is clear you really don't like expertise. Fine -- I don't like it because it erodes the nich I think rogues shoudl hold, and I think too many classes have it, and you can get it through feats etc. But, as you note, that's really separate from the multiclassing issue.

It is but arcana expertise for example can be the bit needed for an uncommon item to allow an int based caster with some dips to treat almost every spell of every level as simultaneously prepared. There is not yet anything in oned&d that gets borked by expertise but there could be in the future so it's worth noting. Noting the value of expertise for what it is doesn't just come from a dislike of expertise though, it directly subverts what seems to still be part of one d&d's design plans.

It's worth at least observing that you need to spend a spell slot to cast it.

It does give you some of those & I did note them

Can you explain why this causes you more anxiety that Bardic Inspiration?

I don't think it did. "enticing" looks to be the strongest term I used & the bard overall got "There are some questionably dipworthy abilities but barring interaction with abilities from classes we do not yet have bard is probably not a class that's going to make nonbards feel forced to dip. Bard probably meets the goal Crawford laid out." It's worth noting because we are missing 8 classes & 44 subclasses that could interact in noteworthy ways that turn it into something more than just being dipworthy.

Finally, I'll talk about your thoughts on Holy orders, which requires a 2-level dip, and as such becomes part of a build established over many sessions.

That second level following a multiple great first level abilities with one scaling by PB both for number of uses & number of dice involved when used. The second level is going to depend on the specific combo & build a player is going for but it already has some great options. A dip is the sum of its parts & the first two levels of cleric have some that seem overly good.

 

[Kobold Stew]

• Chuck is playing a dwarf with 8 strength 25ft speed platemail 20 cha huge con/wis/dex.

How is Chuck getting all this at level 1? How did he get platemail to start? Why is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game?

• Dave (the GM) notices the problems with Alice & Bob feeling so much lesser than Chuck & it comes down to Dave having three options..

Is Dave not allowed to talk to the group?
Is Dave not having the bad guys target the biggest threat (Chuck's character) and letting Bob and Alice come in for the rescue? Is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game either?

It may be that such hypotheticals aren't as useful as they might be.

As to your specifics:

Oversight. Charisma based casters (paladin & sorcerer) aren't likely to gain too much from the L1 bard spells though due to already having them or filling a somewhat different niche.

Full spellcasting seems a big oversight.

It's certainly not impossible that we wind up with a future packet where level one DIET spells is a gigantic edition but we don't have much reason to suspect that given what we know is traditionally true about other casters

I don't think imagining broken spells in the future is the best way to evaluate the playtest mechanics, but you do you.

I am pleased that you have taken on my DIET acronym -- cheers! I think that's the way of the future.

It is but arcana expertise for example can be the bit needed for an uncommon item to allow an int based caster with some dips to treat almost every spell of every level as simultaneously prepared. There is not yet anything in oned&d that gets borked by expertise but there could be in the future so it's worth noting.

Hypotheticals for future releases aside, I'm not particularly interested in a single broken magic item in a setting-specific book. That's where the problem is, though, not with multiclassing.

It does give you some of those & I did note them

Since you rank it "ruh-roh", this is not at all clear. You've listed it as a separate bullet point, and you overlooked the fact that Bards have full spellcasting. Hunter's Mark uses resources (bonus action and spell slot)., and is not nearly the sure-bet always-on ability you suggest. Is it better than it was? Sure. Still, no one is being "forced" into anything.

I don't think it did.

"Red alert" suggests some degree of anxiety. You also say the "cleric misses the goal ... by miles to the point where it's reasonable to wonder just how much wotc is interested in meeting that goal."

Can there be improvements? Sure. But things are not nearly as dire as you suggest (at least as I read your post).

 

[tetrasodium]

How is Chuck getting all this at level 1? How did he get platemail to start? Why is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game?

Is Dave not allowed to talk to the group?
Is Dave not having the bad guys target the biggest threat (Chuck's character) and letting Bob and Alice come in for the rescue? Is he not invested in Alice and Bob's introduction to the game either?

It may be that such hypotheticals aren't as useful as they might be.

As to your specifics:

Full spellcasting seems a big oversight.


I don't think imagining broken spells in the future is the best way to evaluate the playtest mechanics, but you do you.

I am pleased that you have taken on my DIET acronym -- cheers! I think that's the way of the future.

Hypotheticals for future releases aside, I'm not particularly interested in a single broken magic item in a setting-specific book. That's where the problem is, though, not with multiclassing.


Since you rank it "ruh-roh", this is not at all clear. You've listed it as a separate bullet point, and you overlooked the fact that Bards have full spellcasting. Hunter's Mark uses resources (bonus action and spell slot)., and is not nearly the sure-bet always-on ability you suggest. Is it better than it was? Sure. Still, no one is being "forced" into anything.

"Red alert" suggests some degree of anxiety. You also say the "cleric misses the goal ... by miles to the point where it's reasonable to wonder just how much wotc is interested in meeting that goal."

Can there be improvements? Sure. But things are not nearly as dire as you suggest (at least as I read your post).

So your games not progress beyond level one? Also I don't think I've ever seen a multiclassed level one pc, I think you might be under some pretty serious misconceptions about the problem to be asking that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So your games not progress beyond level one? Also I don't think I've ever seen a multiclassed level one pc, I think you might be under some pretty serious misconceptions about the problem to be asking that.

You sepcifically spoke about the 1 level dip.
The cleric just won't give you armor at level 1, no matter how much your first class progresses.
So you might have serious problems to convey what you actually mean.

 

[tetrasodium]

You sepcifically spoke about the 1 level dip.

Yes but a one or two level dip can be done at pretty much any level except first level because then it wouldn't be multiclassing simply because the character has only one level to their name. Questioning how a multiclassed character could get platemail at level 1 seems odd given the context of how post #17 raised it or the rest of the post #16 "/here's how it happens" example scenario it spun from.

The cleric just won't give you armor at level 1, no matter how much your first class progresses.
So you might have serious problems to convey what you actually mean.

Rather than accusing me of "serious problems" attempting to convey what I actually mean... Can you first explain how "How is Chuck getting all this at level 1?" is relevant to the scenario it was responding to? multiclass dips being too good are a problem because a player of any level can use them to gain huge benefits beyond what a single one or two levels should grant when taken in combination with levels in another class that makes up the bulk of a character's levels as the term "dip" generally implies.