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

[James Gasik]

dual class was two classes only. Multiclass was highly restricted & mostly two classes only but an elf or half elf could go with a fighter/mage/thief combo for 3

I thought so too, but...the last paragraph disagrees.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, my thought was, it was implied because they called it "dual" class, not "switch classes as much as you want". I have no actual evidence either way, other than what happened when I tried to dual class a second time in Baldur's Gate I (nope!), though I'm not saying we should take the rules of a computer game as evidence.

EDIT: checking the 2e PHB however, to my surprise, it actually does say there is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire! I will go back and edit my earlier post.

In my experence 99% of the time it was 1 time only but there was no rule... and the 1 time I remember someone doing more everyone wanted to kill him...
He started as a ranger and took only a handful of levels then went thief (now called rogue) got up to the 3x backstab then went wizard... and when he hit a level that he got the ranger and thief abilities back he was way more powerful with very similar xp as anyone else... but this was before we had heard anything about caster supremacy/LFQW so maybe any wizard with good HP would have been this bad.

edit: that was a human, we also had a half elf Fighter/Cleric and a dwarf thief and a something I don't remember barbarian from the barbarian hand book... I was the half elf and I ended up getting wild talents too.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

dual class was two classes only. Multiclass was highly restricted & mostly two classes only but an elf or half elf could go with a fighter/mage/thief combo for 3

nope. Page 62 of the ADnD 2e PHB seems to disagree with you...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

dual class was two classes only. Multiclass was highly restricted & mostly two classes only but an elf or half elf could go with a fighter/mage/thief combo for 3

by the end of 2e we had swapped multi and duel class for thematic reasons... long lived races had level limits, they stopped being X and started trying Y instead, but humans (and I think we sometimes let half elves) had to cram everything in at once...

 

[James Gasik]

nope. Page 62 of the ADnD 2e PHB seems to disagree with you...

View attachment 269576

Now that's interesting, between the first and second printing, it went from "there's no limit to the number of classes" to "you can acquire up to four classes, one from each group".

I guess they didn't feel the need to mention that there was a fifth group, Psionic characters (but I know a lot of people liked to pretend they don't exist).

I do remember the core books seemed to prohibit the idea of mixing classes in the same group, but the Complete Bard's Handbook had no real problem allowing Thief/Bard multiclassing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Now that's interesting, between the first and second printing, it went from "there's no limit to the number of classes" to "you can acquire up to four classes, one from each group".

I guess they didn't feel the need to mention that there was a fifth group, Psionic characters (but I know a lot of people liked to pretend they don't exist).

I do remember the core books seemed to prohibit the idea of mixing classes in the same group, but the Complete Bard's Handbook had no real problem allowing Thief/Bard multiclassing.

i don't remember thatbit about in the group ( and i am SUREI remember details from 33 years ago ) but I do remember rangers that wanted to become fighters before we house ruled (same memory so maybe it wasn't a house rule) anyone could specilize after 1st level but only warrior types could master and only fighter high and grand master...

 

[Ashrym]

I'm not seeing dipping in another class as a significant issue in itself. A single level doesn't give much in most cases, costs an epic boon now, and still delays main class progression. 2 levels does the same and costs a feat as well. 3 levels is getting beyond dipping and also costs the main high level ability.

In the case of spell casters as the main class that level progression is painful.

We don't have more than 4 classes shown yet so there's a lot of speculation going on here, but those classes show rogues and rangers getting features at every level at high levels to also get delayed. Spells as well in the ranger's case.

The example of splashing ranger for hunter's mark with a fighter only works because the fighter's extra attacks are powerful so point at the ranger doesn't make sense. Splashing ranger delays gaining extra attacks or whatever we see at high levels. We cannot see that but from what we see now that another attack, a feat, an extra feat, another feat, another feat maybe, and saving throw benefits. And subclass abilities. Delays matter while playing and cherry picking a nice level gain doesn't change any other level.

That character also needs to invest in dex and wis for ranger M/C plus anything he might need for that fighter class. This matters less for some classes and can matter for others.

Expertise in a couple of skills is useful but the only thing it does is make that character more reliable in attempting the same tasks. It's not a huge deal.

Channel divinity healing looks like it's stronger than it needs to be, but it's still just bonus healing a few times a day for an action cost.

I don't see any reason to splash bard or rogue. (I have a hard time seeing much reason to play a bard at all over a reflavored cleric with the spell changes).

I'm not a fan of multi-classing. Multi-classing can be complex. I prefer using feats instead. That method is simpler. But I need to question what the point is in making multi-classing not appealing to players. Low level abilities are there because they are iconic to the class and players should have iconic abilities throughout the class. Making them less appealing can make the class less appealing. Loading up the high levels with must have abilities can make multi-classing undesirable but that only shifts the issue onto the other side of the spectrum where people who like to multi-class will have incentive to avoid multi-classing. That leaves out the players who want to recreate their old elven fighter / magic user.

It's okay for multi-classing to have advantages and the existence of those advantages won't necessarily be problematic.

 

[Scott Christian]

I know I am in the minority here, but anything they can do to make multiclassing worse is a step in the right direction. There are already so many subclasses, that almost everyone's niche can be filled. There may be a few outliers, but that is about it. The only reason anyone in any of my groups took a second (or third) class was to powergame. And I do not mean that as a bad thing. I just mean that their character concept had nothing to do with it. It was just so they could combine powers to be the highlight reel in every single encounter.
I personally like the mini-game of character development, but some things just seem silly after a while. Multiclassing has always felt that way to me.

 

[Horwath]

I'm confused as to why multiclassing is the underlying problem here. It very much feels like we're making an intrinsic argument that dips in and of themselves are bad, not in the pursuit of some particular design reason.

If a Fighter 1/rogue 7 is better than a rogue 8, that suggests whatever rogues get at 8 isn't particularly impressive. I don't think we can evaluate higher level class features as generally "worth" putting up with less impressive mid-level features, because it's very much not a given that any game ever uses them. With that in mind, I think it's much more pointing to a need to make class features after level 3 more compelling than the 1-3 features of other classes.

Honestly, I don't think there's much wrong with a lot of the classic dip options. Hexblade, for example, isn't really that overwhelmingly powerful; you're just adding "attack with a weapon" to the most of spellcaster action options at expected accuracy. Given that it's an action cost vs. casting spells (and excludes clerics and wizards), I think it's honestly a better argument that "attack with int, wis or cha" should probably be a feat instead of requiring multiclassing.

Rogue gets ASI at 8th level vs as 1st level fighter:
Fighting style(wotc values this as full feats, but most will barely be enough for a half feat if that. but that is another topic)
medium armor proficiency+shields, that is half feat.
martial weapon proficiency, that is half feat.
second wind, that could be a half feat.

so in total(I will rank fighting style as half feat as it in not worth full feat. not even archery): that is 2 feats(more or less) vs rogues 8th level ASI.

 

[Pauln6]

Rogue gets ASI at 8th level vs as 1st level fighter:
Fighting style(wotc values this as full feats, but most will barely be enough for a half feat if that. but that is another topic)
medium armor proficiency+shields, that is half feat.
martial weapon proficiency, that is half feat.
second wind, that could be a half feat.

so in total(I will rank fighting style as half feat as it in not worth full feat. not even archery): that is 2 feats(more or less) vs rogues 8th level ASI.

That's interesting. I suppose they could reword the level 1 text: You gain the X class feature, usable (half as often) until you take a long rest. You can also choose one class feature from the following list: etc. In addition to the current stuff about skills.

Would you need to reduce the number of cantrips at level 1 as well? I guess you would slot back into standard cantrip progression at level 2.