Unified Multiclassing: BAB?

[Xeviat]

Hi everyone. I'm quite happy with the spellcaster multiclassing in this edition; since you continue to gain high level spell slots, theoretically you are only losing a bit of power (high level spells are often more powerful than low level spells in higher level slots) for a big boost of versatility (I'd be very tempted to pick my 18th, 19th, or 20th level of wizard as Cleric).

But, non-casters are having a little bit of trouble now. If you multiclass before 5th level, you're delaying your second attack. If you go 5/5/5/5 in 4 classes, you're never getting your level 11 or 17 damage boost.

Now, I think it's great that the different classes all get different kinds of damage boosts at 11 and 17; variety is great, and a perceived lack of variety was one of the problems with 4E. The fighter's 3rd attack matches up nicely with the paladin's Improved Divine Smite, for instance.

But, it does hurt multiclassers. Do you think it's possible to amend this? What would it take to bring back something akin to BAB, like "martial levels", to give out bonus attacks? I once thought that it may be possible to let "extra attack" stack, and I still think that may be possible, but only if a 0 level was introduced during multiclassing; then attacks would go out at 5/11/17 for optimal multiclassing; without a 0 level, you could get a 5/5/5/5 with 5 attacks, and that would most likely be bad.

"Extra attack" could be pulled out of the class progression and be given out by adding up martial class levels, but that would also require a bunch of other features be removed (improved divine smite, ranger level 11), and there aren't equivalent features in some classes (monk and barbarian don't have an easily recognizable level 11 feature akin of extra attack).

What are your thoughts? Do you not worry about multiclassing that much? Do you only see multiclassing for dips?

 

[transcendantviewer]

Multiclassing adds variability but takes away the majority of "Hard Hitting" features, like the Extra Attack. This is done for the sake of simplicity and balance. There's two ways to break the game; breaking the numbers, and breaking the meta. When you break the numbers, you get things like "+20 to damage" and the like. When you break the meta, you get things that put the DM at a loss, make encounters a joke, or make things that don't feel right. Your proposition isn't a bad one, but it feels unnecessary and overly complicated, which means it's breaking the meta of "Simplicity" and "Superfluousness". If something is already done better by something else, it's superfluous. If something overcomplicates the game, it's not following the 5e meta.

 

[delericho]

But, non-casters are having a little bit of trouble now. If you multiclass before 5th level, you're delaying your second attack. If you go 5/5/5/5 in 4 classes, you're never getting your level 11 or 17 damage boost.

Yep. Don't do that.

What are your thoughts? Do you not worry about multiclassing that much? Do you only see multiclassing for dips?

I'm afraid it's a feature rather than a bug - multiclassing is one of those areas of the game that has the potential to really unbalance things if it's not handled with care, and so WotC deliberately made it somewhat underpowered.

Personally, I wish they'd added a Mageblade class (actually, I wish they'd added it way back in the 3.0e PHB), and then removed multiclassing entirely. (And, yes, I'm aware of the Eldritch Knight. It's not really what I had in mind).

Of course, YMMV.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think it's a bad idea.

You are perhaps thinking that high-level features are a lot more useful/powerful than low-level features, but it's not true. In fact, many low-level features of the martial classes remain equally useful at all levels:

- some Fighting Styles bonuses remain equally good at every level (at least Archery, Defense, Protection); maybe the damage-boosting ones slightly decrease in relative importance, as you gain other damage boosts
- Action Surge is equally good at all levels (in fact, it gets better when your actions get more powerful)
- Second Wind keeps increasing, although definitely more slowly than your HP
- Improved Critical stays just as good as ever
- Rage is very good at all levels (although different aspects of it scale differently: damage resistance will be a lot more important than small damage bonuses at higher level)
- Unarmored Defense is just as good (unless magic armors are common)
- Reckless Attack and Danger Sense might be less relevant if high-level games offer many sources of (dis)advantage
- Paladin and Ranger spells depend on the effect... presumably healing and damage-dealing ones become less relevant, but other spells should be still useful

If you multiclass before 5th level, you're delaying your second attack.

IIRC at some point during the playtest you could get the first Extra Attack when your combined levels (in classes granting extra attacks) was 5. I think this house rule would still be somewhat safe, although this would be an advantage compared to single-classed PC, because at character level 5 you would also get the single-class feature.

I would certainly not let a multiclass get the second Extra Attack. That's one of the Fighter's unique privileges and it should stay so.

If you go 5/5/5/5 in 4 classes, you're never getting your level 11 or 17 damage boost.

But you have plenty of features from the 4 classes to compensate for that. The key is to capitalize on features that stack well without requiring the same action (for example, favor Paladin/Ranger spells that can be cast before combat and will last a few rounds, instead of spells that will require you to use your action i.e. forgo your attack).

I don't see why a 5/5/5/5 martial character should reach peak damage output necessarily. After all, a 5/5/5/5 spellcaster doesn't reach peak spells either.

Honestly, a Fighter 5/Paladin 5/Barbarian 5/Ranger 5 is a pretty cr4ppy character concept RP-wise. So clearly the player must be wanting to play such character for powergaming/optimization reasons. I am not criticizing this decision, but then I say that he should be looking out for the fun in finding the best optimization giving the current rules, not by changing them.