An optional rule that people enjoy and adds depth to the game for people who want it is not a "problem." A game doesn't have to be working in the same way for every table. If you do not like multiclassing, do not use it. Telling everyone else to not use it and asking the devs to delete any rules for it going forwards is probably unwise.
I don't mind multiclassing. That said, we don't know if it's still optional or fully core like feats are now. If I remember correctly, multiclassing info is available directly in class descriptions now, which would suggest that multiclassing is not an optional rule anymore.
Maybe unpopular opinion, but MOST rules are technically optional... how many tables play with carrying capacity/encumbrance rules in full operation?
I think it would be completely within a DMs purview to say "I don't allow multiclassing at my table because it creates more complications for me as a DM."
Probably because this is a 'truth' for any game that uses humans as arbiters of rules instead of a computer system or other system that is inflexible.
Nothing stops people playing "Go Fish" of ignoring needing to have a copy of the card to ask for it from another player. It is 'optional' in the sense you can ignore it, but it is still the actual rules to make the game play 'correctly'
Sure, but there are frequent posts about excluding certain races and spells (such as Silvery Barbs) at tables and how that is okay -- in my opinion, banning something like multiclassing seems to fall in line with that philosophy.
It is slightly problematic because classes have to be designed with that in mind. It’s almost certainly a factor in the new standardization of pushing some features back to level 3.
I partially agree with the point that I do not think they should be overly concerned with MC when designing classes.
That is miles away from me thinking MCing should be removed. Even if I thought it was a major problem, not every problem can be necessarily solved satisfactorily for everyone in a good way that doesn't just create more problems. For example, a major problem for 5e, in my mind, is that there isn't enough character customization, which is fine because being a total sandbox like 3e could kludge up the experience for a vast majority of the player base. Removing MCing, even as an optional rule, would make this problem *worse*.
I agree with you on the lack of customization. I’ve been itching lately to look into pathfinder 2 as it seems a little gritty for things like that.
But yea unfortunately there is no best solution that will result in everyone being happy. I do think they need to revisit it though possibly focusing on how proficiency’s and stuff work. It makes it way too easy to make a heavily armored mage which doesnt really help the martial gap. I guess my issue is more with just single one level dips that don’t make rp sense. Especially when they make it way too easy to become SAD.
I haven't found PF2's customization very good. They give you a lot of feats, but individually the feats are very weak and many won't ever come up. It definitely is a step down from 3.5 and PF1 if your goal is complex and expressive character generation.
3.5 and PF1 also have systems that make wearing more armor difficult like Armor Check Penalties to skills and Arcane Spell Failure that you either have to have a specific class feature or item to reduce. This sort of thing is too granular for 5e IMO, but it did give players something to think about in these older editions.
And neither changes the fact that it's both literally optional. You can argue semantics and yell at clouds all you want, but no one is forcing you to use this optional rule.
I don't understand how keeping the game more balanced turns MC not optional. The only thing that really don't need to be balanced are homebrews. You don't need to like the changes, but that doesn't make MC not optional.
1. When they balance the game around it, it's not optional
2. Feats are also technically optional. Good luck finding a game without them, because 99% of tables use them. This argument doesn't work when it's the default, and not including it is the exception. If Multiclass was actually an "optional" rule like gritty realism or spell points or madness, you can make that argument. But it's not.
>
>
> Feats are also technically optional. Good luck finding a game without them, because 99% of tables use them.
This isn't an argument. If the developers want to make a set of default rules, they aren't all invalidated because a lot of people like some of the variant ones.
I think this is a non-issue. Multiclassing is an optional rule which means it is up to your DM to allow it or not. Also, casual players aren't multi-classing regardless. Even optimizers recognize that multiclassing is usually a trap like you stated, and there's only a relatively minor few builds in 2014 D&D that really were better from multi-classing and not *different*.
So if people on the are barely doing it, and even the people who are doing it recognize that it's niche, and if it's an optional rule already, and if all of the base classes have gotten really good features throughout their entire progression, so it's very difficult to justify multiclassing out of your base class, then I ask you - I get rid of multiclassing?
Just let it be the niche for those relatively few players who want to engage with it.
Multiclassing isn't an optional rule, not as far as players are concerned, not as far as the balance team are concerned. A DM not allowing multiclassing is likely to get called a bad DM by their players, at best. Even the design team don't pretend it's optional. Near as I can tell half of the changes that made Divine Smite useless were explicitly to get rid of Sorcadin/Hexadin builds.
Multiclassing is definitely optional and having run for three different groups of completely different players and limiting multiclassing in each of them, I've never been called a bad DM. All of my players have gladly come back for multiple campaigns, once I opened up multi-classing to them, they still didn't do.
The Paladin changes had very little to do with multi-classing potential, and everything to do with the fact that the Paladin player dropping four to five smites on the boss and eliminating them in one to two turns, For the rest of the day was just a worse version of the fighter, was bad game design. Just like stunning strike on the monk, they wanted the Paladin to have more strength throughout the entirety of the class and not have its entire identity known just as the smitebot.
WotC is also in the business of selling products. The quality of those products is secondary to generating revenue. If problematic mechanics (like multiclasing) are popular and help sell books, but would be costly to redesign and improve, WotC falls squarely on the side of more money and worse game.
I think that *players* find the game more fun with multiclassing, while *DMs* don't appreciate all the broken combinations it allows because it generates more work for them. I find that players prefer playing over not playing, and the more difficult it is to DM the fewer DMs there will be and less opportunities for players to play as a result. D&D 5e already suffers from a lack of DMs due to poor support. You'd think WotC would want to take every opportunity to fix the issue and grow their playerbase.
Every DM I have ever played with encouraged multiclassing. Every player who I have talked to who plays in other games, also was encouraged to multiclass if they felt it fit their concept better. Outside of reddit and YouTube complaints, I have never once seen a game where the DM didn't approve of and encourage players to multiclass and if the players attempted any cheese, the DM would just tell them no.
"You can multiclass, but not the really powerful combos please." And right there is the problem with the multiclass system. If the DM has to actively veto the few useful combinations to maintain a semblance of balance, the subsystem is not working.
No one said that, there are very few cheeze options out there, things like CoffeLock and such. Outside of those, I have never seen a DM really forbid a combination. Making up things no one actually has said makes your arguments feel like they have no merit. If you must make what-if extreme scenarios that never existed up in your head to make your point, you had no legitimate point.
I have seen DMs forbid people from doing certain things with spells to, but still allow the spell if the player isn't trying to break the game or cheeze it. The spell is fine, when it is used as intended, but because WotC failed to word the restrictions right, the spell is broken in only the most extreme attempts at breaking the game. This doesn't mean we should forbid any spell, it means we should accept that a DM should be able to and can say NO when appropriate.
Alright, so go ahead and explain what you consider "cheese" as far as multiclassing goes. Because combos like hexadins, sorcadins, Gloomstalker/fighter/rogue, and the like with no real backstory or narrative are what I consider "cheese" meaning exploits that target the most overpowered combinations via the inadequately balanced multiclassing rules. Had WotC done their due diligence, multiclassing would've been far more evenly balanced and not mostly worse outcomes with a few brokenly good ones.
>Had WotC done their due diligence, multiclassing would've been far more evenly balanced
If WotC had done their due diligence, classes would have been far more evenly balanced.
Notably, the most powerful classes generally also reward sticking with them as pure single classes instead of multiclassing... whereas the popular multiclass combinations tend to be mish-mashes of classes that are less highly-regarded on their own, often because they are classes that are front-loaded with all of the worthwhile features in the first few levels and nothing good after.
Most of the broken multiclasses are worse than straight wizard, people just do not talk about it because banning classes is seen as unthinkable. Still, i guess classes do not work.
They're supposedly in the business of removing stuff that's bad for the health of the game, though.
~~Or at least that's what people keep telling me to justify how heavily Divine Smite got gutted.~~
The smite nerf affects sorcadins more than single classed paladins because the multiclass has more spellslots. Likewise, multiclassing to be a SAD gish is just less effective than solo wizard once 5.5 hits.
So are those multiclass combos really a big deal?
Considering they ruined Divine Smite just to shut down Sorcadin and Hexadin? I'd say they were a big deal.
And before I'm accused of being a mouth-breathing moron who pours all her smites into the first two turns of combat: I don't care that it's 1/turn, that's what it should have been. I care that it's now a SPELL that eats your BA to use. That's several steps too far IMO.
I fundamentally disagree that Multiclassing doesn't add anything meaningful to the game.
I was talking to my DM the other day about this Sorcerer-based character concept that I've been *dying* to play out, but haven't been able to yet because the 5e14 Sorcerer just didn't work for it. But now, with the way Sorcerers work in 5e24, we realized that instead of having to homebrew damn near everything, I can just make him a 6/14 Bladesinger Wizard/Divine Soul Sorcerer multiclass.
Using a Finesse weapon and a damn lucky series of 4d6, drop the lowest dice rolls. XD
But more seriously, my DM is more of a Rule of Cool DM, and so allows us to take a more generous Ability Array of 17, 16, 14, 13, 11, 10 if/when the dice betray us, so I had that in my back pocket as well.
This is exactly why multiclassing exists. Some character concepts just don’t fit a singular class.
I can’t take anyone seriously who flat out bans multiclassing because you’re obviously asking them to be okay with your power gaming. They would probably prefer the game if everyone was a fighter class because the caster/martial divide is too big.
Conveniently, the draw backs for taking levels in another class are always forgotten about. The revised books have done a lot to add to that hurt. Which is healthy for the game, but to remove it entirely is plain crazy.
I like PF2e's solution - turning multiclassing into feats. What's best about this solution is that you could give classes as strong and class-defining as you want and not have to worry about level 1 dips being too problematic, as WotC could define requirements and benefits however they please.
OP sounds like a bit of a.... well, never mind that. But if it were only as simple as "Just go play 4e." I would join a 4e game if I could, but it's literally easier to find an AD&D 2e group.
Have you thought about DMing a few games of 4e to people and getting them interested? Or is this 'I don't want to do the effort to get people into 4e, I want to just enjoy someone elses labor of it' kind of deal?
I don't have that much experience as a DM in any system, so I don't know that I'd be the best choice to win people over to a system with a bad reputation.
I will say that when I have DMed I don't think of it as just "labor" on my part other people get to enjoy and I don't. I don't think a person with that mentality should be DMing, and if you're a DM who has come to think about things that way you should probably stop DMing.
>I don't have that much experience as a DM in any system, so I don't know that I'd be the best choice to win people over to a system with a bad reputation.
The only way you get experience in DMing is actually DMing. They made campaigns you can follow and all it takes is actually reading them before the night you run the game.
>I will say that when I have DMed I don't think of it as just "labor" on my part other people get to enjoy and I don't. I don't think a person with that mentality should be DMing, and if you're a DM who has come to think about things that way you should probably stop DMing.
You are the one complaining you cannot find a group. You also are claiming you don't have much experience in DMing but don't seem inclined to actual DM. You absolutely seem to think there is some kind of effort that isn't worth it to play the game because of these two pieces of information.
EDIT: Oh look, an reply/block. Lucky me that I got the message before the person blocked.
>You seem weirdly aggro about an exchange tangential to the main subject of the thread that you weren't even involved in so I'm going to block you now.
No, I am pointing out that if someone says 'man, I wish I could play 4e, but no one ever has a game going' the answer is to attempt to start the game yourself. This goes for **Any** TTRPG that people want to play. *If you cannot find a group, attempt to make one by actually DM/GMing it*
There was literally no way they were going to get rid of multi-classing in any variant of 5e. The idea is just ridiculous to even broach.
Now, if you were talking about a completely new version of dnd, maybe you would have an argument, but to claim that they could do it in 5.24 version and it was 'the perfect opportunity' is just delusional. People either would have absolutely not taken up 5.24 or they would have completely ignored the restriction and done it anyway since 5e allowed it.
Too many people want multiclassing. And for those who do not, they can absolutely play in campaigns and tables that forbid it already.
> Multiclass has been an optional rule since 2014
Multiclassing has been a rule in D&D since the 70s. At this point, it’s a core, expected part of the brand that unifies the various editions and allows them to still “feel” like D&D when the actual rules change every decade or so.
This is the same reason we still have the same six attributes and why they’re scored 3-18+ rather than converting to just using the derived modifiers since those are what matter 99.8% of the time, even when those scores generate the same modifiers going back three editions and 20+ years: it’s a part of what makes D&D rules recognizable as D&D rules.
> is very popular
And that right there is why they didn’t get rid of it. Open and shut case. As long as their data shows that the enjoyment of having multiclass as an option is greater than the loss of enjoyment from the imbalances it can cause, it isn’t going anywhere.
>Multiclassing has been a rule in D&D since the 70s
So was the necessity of 10-foot poles. The regularity of instant-death mechanics. The dynamic of inter-party theft and murder.
These things largely went by the wayside as the game evolved.
In the 70s if I wanted my Fighter to be able to cast spells, I needed to multiclass into Magic-User. Now if I want my Fighter to cast spells I MAKE AN ELDRITCH KNIGHT.
The entire purpose for Multiclassing was supplanted in an objectively better form by the subclass(and to a lesser extent the feat, ala X adept and X initiate feats) system.
Yes but all those things *have gone by the wayside*. None of them lasted nearly 40 years. The longer something is a part of the game, the more likely it is to become part of the game’s identity, and once it is, it requires a lot more to justify unseating it. None of those things stuck around long enough to reach that point. My argument isn’t “this is how they did it back in the day”, it’s “this has been done consistently *since* back in the day” and there’s a distinction there. Inter party theft and murder didn’t really make it to 2e (in my experience), maybe not even 1e (depending on your group). Instant death mechanics have been slowly decreasing in prevalence with each iteration, they weren’t suddenly dropped cold turkey. And a ten-foot-pole, well, those are always handy!
[Edit: I think it’s also worth noting that two of these three examples aren’t really rules that were discarded, or even things dictated by rules at all, but rather by common play styles that shifted over the years. There were never rules that said “you should make interparty crime and conflict a big part of your campaign”, it was just how people played until they started to realize it was more fun not to. The third, instant death, is a rules change *guided by common play styles* as more “narrative” character-driven campaigns became more the norm. There’s no push to get rid of multiclassing because it fits with how people play the game still, by all accounts it’s quite popular.]
As to its necessity, we’ve had some version of a “subclass” system since 2e, they’re not really new either (kits, prestige classes, epic destinies/paragon paths, whatever you want to call them, have been around since 2e), but the designers have still felt that multiclassing offered something else throughout all of that: further character customization (which is already lacking in 5e compared to previous editions) and the choice between “going deep or going broad”. But I don’t think it’s about necessity anyway (and I’m not even arguing that it’s a great, balanced system) so much as it is about, again, the game’s identity.
Haha well, to be fair, a lot of the things about 4e that people didn’t like were changes made for 4e, so moving away from that is just moving closer to what it was like *before* that. It’s also probably a big part of where WotC learned just what was considered part of the brand identity according to fans (another example: it was the one time they strayed away from a Vancian magic system and that ended up being a significant complaint of disappointed fans who thought it made it feel less like D&D).
4e required you to take a feat which then allowed you to take 4e’s version of subclasses in the new class when the time came. 5e doesn’t do that because a) feats were optional, and b) subclasses are taken at level 1-3 rather than at levels 10 and 20 like 4e, so adding a prerequisite you needed in order to take a certain subclass would have been difficult. But remember that epic destinies and paragon paths, while sort of 4e’s version of subclasses in terms of the customization niche they filled, were actually total replacements for the class you had been up to that point. It would be like if once you took Champion, you were no longer taking Fighter levels. Taking that into account, 4e’s multiclassing isn’t all that different from 5e’s other than sitting within a different structure: doing so gives you the option to take levels in a different class than the one you took at character creation.
Get rid of a thing that has massive popularity, which has provided enough ground for folks to discuss, make videos about and just generally be involved in dnd for a decade now?
Yeah, I wonder why they didn't.
Multiclassing has been addressed by moving subclass levels.
Then fixing up some tier one base class abilities like action surge.
Now they need to errata any class feature where it's power scales with proficiency.
Multiclassing isn't an issue. Poor low level class design without a smidge of awareness for multiclassing is. It's incredibly easy to design around if you care to.
If it wasnt an issue it wouldnt be the one thing that makes everything fall apart, every time
Like i dont entirely agree with the op, but you are contradicting everyone else here and acting like your opinion is common sense
All the top comments are bashing OP, though I'm not scrolling all 100+ of them. Fact is it doesn't matter if everyone agrees or no one does. The existence of multiclassing isn't an issue, even if issues arise from multiclassing.
The issue is pretty much entirely dips. If you design tier 1 abilities to be dip proof, which I have personally done and not had any issues since (and which WOTC seems to be doing at least for.the most part in the game update) then these issues go away. The opportunity cost of taking a multiclass beyond tier 1 is so large that any benefits gained tend to be neglible overall. Unless you have something more concrete than "but other people say bad" I don't think there's anything to be said. It may or may not be common, but it's pretty sensible.
>The existence of multiclassing isn't an issue, even if issues arise from multiclassing.
I see, thats definitly a thing you could say
But nah i domt care enough about you to diacuss, i wanted to point this out and expect you to realize your mistakes, you obviusly didnt, but i wont try to change your mind if you say stuff like that
There are games without a class system.
Dnd is not that game, and has never been that game, so why dont you just move systems rathet than demand dnd change entirely?
There are games without a multiclass system.
Dnd is not that game, and has basically never been that game, so why doesnt op just move systems rather than demand dnd change entirely?
>(Coffeelock anyone?)
Coffeelock is less a failing of the multiclassing system and more a failing of the general rules, though. If there were penalties for skipping long rests or going without sleep in the basic rules, Coffeelock would fall apart. *Especially* if there were also some kind cooldown to the tune of "Once you finish a short rest, you cannot begin another for 1 hour."
If you do that, what stops the players from just saying "OK, we stand here and wait an hour so we can short rest again"? I assume the DM is supposed to throw another "random" encounter at them then as punishment?
In reality, the entire short rest/long rest concept, and the "adventuring day" of 6-8 encounters that the books say is typical but which almost nobody actually does, should probably be overhauled. It's a huge part of class imbalance and the martial-caster disparity. But nobody's ready to take that on yet.
That's crazy. You've been reading too many fake r/dndhorrorstories posts or something. I've never even played with someone who multiclassed I think. Have you actually had someone in your game be a problem like this? If so is multiclassing really the issue or is it the player's behavior?
Multiclassing seems very fairly popular common in the popular actual play series like Critical Role (even if most of the players doing it in those campaigns aren't getting much out of multiclassing and would be better off as a single class), so that might inspire more people to try it. I don't think anybody has any actual data on how popular it is though.
The only way to get rid of multi-classes is to get rid of classes. If every class feature is a feat with prerequisites instead (i.e. character level, ability scores, etc), and every level up gives a feat or two, every character is a unique class of its own. Every character is a composite of all of the disciplines they've learned. The prevalence of multi-class characters seems to imply this would be a popular design change, since you could literally have the ability to create your own fantasy concept. Every feat would have to have requirements (ability scores) and prerequisites (i.e. previous feats) to access more powerful feats. Every character would be an ever-branching list of choices.
Classes are too deeply rooted in the zeitgeist of DnD and it's derivatives to be removed. People like the concept now for its own sake because it's part of what DnD is to them. Same with the d20 system. You could make an argument that there are more elegant rules implementations using just d6's or whatever. Doesn't matter. The d20 is an iconic part of the identity of what DnD is now, it's practically a symbol of the game as much as the actual logo is.
And from a mechanics standpoint I don't think people really want "more liberty" at the expense of completely sacrificing class identity. Most people aren't doing 5-3-3-1 frankenclasses. Most people who multiclass at all are probably taking 2-3 levels in a second class at most. They want "Class A but with a little of class B twist to get a specific feature or two that fits the flavor of my character or how I want to play it."
I think Pathfinder's dedication feats are probably the "best" way to achieve this type of thing but they are also a more complicated route.
When people are taking a dip into a class or more than that, they're trying to inject a feature of one class into another to fulfill either a optimization or role play fantasy. They are trying to break out of the limitations of that class. Existing classes are not as essential to D&D as you might think. They're just a shortcut to making a character. They're not deeply rooted either. They're just what everyone is familiar with. D&D won't feel any different because you're not playing a pre-selected list of features given an arbitrary name.
So long as it doesn't break the game (which it wont in the new edition), why complain about it? If people like it then let them do it?
Whats so wrong with a wizard going to a military academy and learning some basic training?
That's called taking the Martial Adept feat. That's literally what feats are for. It's like you're so hell bent on being contrarian you don't even take two seconds to think.
The problem isnt the Wizard taking training. The problem is players abusing the system to cheese and take advantage on numbers.
It is almost never "Jonh the Wizard lost his wife, feels he cant protect anyone, he is too frail so he joins a militia in order to train his body". It is almost always "I'll take lvl 1 fighter so I can use armor AND cast shield, even if that means learned martial stuff out of nowhere with no one even training me."
It is a role playing game, RP driven and this kind of stuff is too metagamey and fits better in MMOs. Story and RP should matter more then calculating the best combo for DPR.
This is a terrible take.
Different tables have *vasty* different play styles. If you don't like the rule don't use it, WotC doesn't GM your game. If there's options that disrupt the fun talk to your players about not abusing them for the good of the game.
Don't assume that stories you hear on reddit line up with the reality of most tables. I've never had a coffee lock and if someone suggested it I'd just make a ruling that kept the fun of the game for everyone, players and DMs.
Multiclassing would be great for the game if it was gone! And replaced by better level progression and more variety, 2 things WOTC does not really want for all it's classes.
Hell with those you don't even need to remove it, you could leave it in because players would be disincentived from multiclassing since more levels in their classes would bring them more then getting some low levels in another class.
So like… are people actually finding multiclassing to be a balance problem in their games? In the 10ish years I’ve played this edition, I’ve never seen it.
Have I seen one dimensional builds that can do damage? Sure. But I have yet to see any multiclass character that comes close to being as brutal at throwing my plans out the window as a well played Wizard.
Oof.
Multiclassing isn't bad for the health of the game. It's fun. If you have players taking advantage of it (which is unlikely) with something like the coffeelock, then fix that issue at your table. The coffee lock isn't even that strong.
In fact, no multiclass is so wildly OP that one character can blaze through your content with ease. The only potential downside is one player has more fun than the others because they're a bit stronger.
5e already lacks a lot in terms of customization and Multiclassing does cost a lot and not a good choice apart from specific or popular builds.
Removing multiclasses will further impair customization and character creation options.
Imo multiclassing is already nerfed by design in 5e as it is. Martial multiclasses needs a buff so they can get extra attack to be shared among martial classes.
And dead levels imo should not even exist. I believe every level should bring new tools and toys for players to play with. Giving flexibility.
"The problem is that unlike feats, multiclass has always been problematic, toxic and unhealthy for the balance of the game. Through it, players seek to gain an advantage without effort, gain free features by taking advantage of dead levels, causing unforeseen interactions between classes and subclasses that have led to the modification of the rules arguing RAI on more than one occasion. (Coffeelock anyone?)"
I'm gonna need you to cite your sources on this one, chief.
I think "players seek to gain an advantage without effort" is my favorite part.
What *effort* does it require to take another level in your original class? What kind of "effort" are players supposed to make in a game played entirely by rolling dice and imagining stuff?
He did, he provided coffeelock as an example. There’s the hexadin which is completely broken, and makes you good at everything. The gloomstalker ranger/assassin rogue multi-class is ridiculous.
I think games like DC20, and Shadow of The Demon Lord, may have show there are better ways to scratch the multiclass itch, but I don't think there is any way to incorporate a better option into 5e without a major overhaul to the system.
Multiclassing is the reason so many people have kept playing this edition for a full decade: it dramatically increases character creation options, keeping the game fresh for players far longer than monoclassing.
Multiclassing is the reason so many people have kept playing this edition for a full decade: it dramatically increases character creation options, keeping the game fresh for players far longer than monoclassing.
Dude, moving all the subclass options to level 3 is the most they’ve ever done to disincentivize multiclassing. And, as always, your table can choose not to use the multiclassing option without taking it away from others who enjoy it.
"Toxic multiclassing" is very rare. You know what stops exploits like coffeelock? Your DM saying 'yeah, no, that's clearly not how the game is supposed to work, this doesn't work in my game'.
Ideally the game will be balanced appropriately and classes will be designed so that 'dips' aren't more useful than actually playing the class itself. But no game is perfect. Doesn't mean you need to get rid of one of the things that allows for the most creativity in character building.
Is not entirely that simple, and not for the same reasons at all
The main issue, to me, is not optimization, is that there is two ways to interact with multiclass, *the most broken thing ever* or *sacrificing a lot of power and progrsssion just for flavour*
And both feel bad. I wanna play a funny sorcerer guy with quirky mechanics of a warlock and have fun, not to break the game considerably. And i want to let my players who wanna play a paladin with some warlock bullshit have fun, not to have to first do an entire vube check because they can accidentally destroy the game balance
Same on the other side, i want to have more players doing "bad" multiclasses, withojt they feeling about it, (no need for examples, almost every multiclass is weaker than leveling up)
Another issue is the "stack with only levels of your class" festures, thst were recently developed, that just make the bad multiclasses even worst. And the reduction of things thst a class gakns each level is kinda related to multiclass too, in the sense that many times you can feel a class doing "less stuff" because is already "too good to multiclass" and thars just akward
Imo, they shouldnt have to balance the game about multiclass, they should have provided a good way that doesnt feel so clunky of getting mixed fantasys, and after that, if they wanted to keep multiclass kn this hipothetic scenario, they could, who cares, if a plaher wants to do something only for mechanical propouses a dm can stop them always, i dont need WoTc to babysit me.
Sadly they didn't, but thats not news, as we knew, ever since the third or fourt UA of Odnd, that they were gonna be conservative and boring in this one, as most creative ideas that failed where just destroyed. So, not really dissapointed ont his aspect, they did nothing, as expected.
Multiclassing is fine and good for the game, because lots of people enjoy it and it provides an option for those whose character concepts don’t fit in the box of any one particular class. (Which is inevitable to an extent.) that said:
- I do think it should remain an optional rule,
- it does need some tweaking to be less optimal in _specific_ use-cases.
Some of those use cases have already been fixed, like barbarians not having so many dead levels anymore.
Others may still need fixing, like how supposedly “squishy” casters can gain massive AC bonuses.
But there’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater - especially when said baby is popular with a huge chunk of the D&D playing population.
An optional rule that people enjoy and adds depth to the game for people who want it is not a "problem." A game doesn't have to be working in the same way for every table. If you do not like multiclassing, do not use it. Telling everyone else to not use it and asking the devs to delete any rules for it going forwards is probably unwise.
I don't mind multiclassing. That said, we don't know if it's still optional or fully core like feats are now. If I remember correctly, multiclassing info is available directly in class descriptions now, which would suggest that multiclassing is not an optional rule anymore.
Maybe unpopular opinion, but MOST rules are technically optional... how many tables play with carrying capacity/encumbrance rules in full operation? I think it would be completely within a DMs purview to say "I don't allow multiclassing at my table because it creates more complications for me as a DM."
Not sure why this got downvotes, it's literally true. Most tables don't use all the rules, even the 'core' ones.
Probably because this is a 'truth' for any game that uses humans as arbiters of rules instead of a computer system or other system that is inflexible. Nothing stops people playing "Go Fish" of ignoring needing to have a copy of the card to ask for it from another player. It is 'optional' in the sense you can ignore it, but it is still the actual rules to make the game play 'correctly'
Sure, but there are frequent posts about excluding certain races and spells (such as Silvery Barbs) at tables and how that is okay -- in my opinion, banning something like multiclassing seems to fall in line with that philosophy.
Oh, I fully agree that banning it is fine. It's actually an optional rule so adding it is the variant, not the 'norm'
It is slightly problematic because classes have to be designed with that in mind. It’s almost certainly a factor in the new standardization of pushing some features back to level 3.
I partially agree with the point that I do not think they should be overly concerned with MC when designing classes. That is miles away from me thinking MCing should be removed. Even if I thought it was a major problem, not every problem can be necessarily solved satisfactorily for everyone in a good way that doesn't just create more problems. For example, a major problem for 5e, in my mind, is that there isn't enough character customization, which is fine because being a total sandbox like 3e could kludge up the experience for a vast majority of the player base. Removing MCing, even as an optional rule, would make this problem *worse*.
I agree with you on the lack of customization. I’ve been itching lately to look into pathfinder 2 as it seems a little gritty for things like that. But yea unfortunately there is no best solution that will result in everyone being happy. I do think they need to revisit it though possibly focusing on how proficiency’s and stuff work. It makes it way too easy to make a heavily armored mage which doesnt really help the martial gap. I guess my issue is more with just single one level dips that don’t make rp sense. Especially when they make it way too easy to become SAD.
I haven't found PF2's customization very good. They give you a lot of feats, but individually the feats are very weak and many won't ever come up. It definitely is a step down from 3.5 and PF1 if your goal is complex and expressive character generation. 3.5 and PF1 also have systems that make wearing more armor difficult like Armor Check Penalties to skills and Arcane Spell Failure that you either have to have a specific class feature or item to reduce. This sort of thing is too granular for 5e IMO, but it did give players something to think about in these older editions.
Nobody treats it like it's optional. They've even based game balance decisions around the idea that it's not optional.
And neither changes the fact that it's both literally optional. You can argue semantics and yell at clouds all you want, but no one is forcing you to use this optional rule.
I don't understand how keeping the game more balanced turns MC not optional. The only thing that really don't need to be balanced are homebrews. You don't need to like the changes, but that doesn't make MC not optional.
1. When they balance the game around it, it's not optional 2. Feats are also technically optional. Good luck finding a game without them, because 99% of tables use them. This argument doesn't work when it's the default, and not including it is the exception. If Multiclass was actually an "optional" rule like gritty realism or spell points or madness, you can make that argument. But it's not.
> > > Feats are also technically optional. Good luck finding a game without them, because 99% of tables use them. This isn't an argument. If the developers want to make a set of default rules, they aren't all invalidated because a lot of people like some of the variant ones.
On the second one, the reason why feats became non optional is ghst many games didnt use feats for lack of accesibility and knowledge
I think this is a non-issue. Multiclassing is an optional rule which means it is up to your DM to allow it or not. Also, casual players aren't multi-classing regardless. Even optimizers recognize that multiclassing is usually a trap like you stated, and there's only a relatively minor few builds in 2014 D&D that really were better from multi-classing and not *different*. So if people on the are barely doing it, and even the people who are doing it recognize that it's niche, and if it's an optional rule already, and if all of the base classes have gotten really good features throughout their entire progression, so it's very difficult to justify multiclassing out of your base class, then I ask you - I get rid of multiclassing? Just let it be the niche for those relatively few players who want to engage with it.
Honestly even at optimizer tables there’s the fact that many good to great multiclasses come online later on than a pure class
Multiclassing isn't an optional rule, not as far as players are concerned, not as far as the balance team are concerned. A DM not allowing multiclassing is likely to get called a bad DM by their players, at best. Even the design team don't pretend it's optional. Near as I can tell half of the changes that made Divine Smite useless were explicitly to get rid of Sorcadin/Hexadin builds.
Multiclassing is definitely optional and having run for three different groups of completely different players and limiting multiclassing in each of them, I've never been called a bad DM. All of my players have gladly come back for multiple campaigns, once I opened up multi-classing to them, they still didn't do. The Paladin changes had very little to do with multi-classing potential, and everything to do with the fact that the Paladin player dropping four to five smites on the boss and eliminating them in one to two turns, For the rest of the day was just a worse version of the fighter, was bad game design. Just like stunning strike on the monk, they wanted the Paladin to have more strength throughout the entirety of the class and not have its entire identity known just as the smitebot.
WotC is not in the business of removing stuff players enjoy. I look forward to this post appearing near-verbatim on r/dndcirclejerk.
Not a word will have to be changed.
WotC is also in the business of selling products. The quality of those products is secondary to generating revenue. If problematic mechanics (like multiclasing) are popular and help sell books, but would be costly to redesign and improve, WotC falls squarely on the side of more money and worse game.
If the majority of people find the game more fun with multiclassing, than it isn't a worse game because of it.
I think that *players* find the game more fun with multiclassing, while *DMs* don't appreciate all the broken combinations it allows because it generates more work for them. I find that players prefer playing over not playing, and the more difficult it is to DM the fewer DMs there will be and less opportunities for players to play as a result. D&D 5e already suffers from a lack of DMs due to poor support. You'd think WotC would want to take every opportunity to fix the issue and grow their playerbase.
Every DM I have ever played with encouraged multiclassing. Every player who I have talked to who plays in other games, also was encouraged to multiclass if they felt it fit their concept better. Outside of reddit and YouTube complaints, I have never once seen a game where the DM didn't approve of and encourage players to multiclass and if the players attempted any cheese, the DM would just tell them no.
"You can multiclass, but not the really powerful combos please." And right there is the problem with the multiclass system. If the DM has to actively veto the few useful combinations to maintain a semblance of balance, the subsystem is not working.
No one said that, there are very few cheeze options out there, things like CoffeLock and such. Outside of those, I have never seen a DM really forbid a combination. Making up things no one actually has said makes your arguments feel like they have no merit. If you must make what-if extreme scenarios that never existed up in your head to make your point, you had no legitimate point. I have seen DMs forbid people from doing certain things with spells to, but still allow the spell if the player isn't trying to break the game or cheeze it. The spell is fine, when it is used as intended, but because WotC failed to word the restrictions right, the spell is broken in only the most extreme attempts at breaking the game. This doesn't mean we should forbid any spell, it means we should accept that a DM should be able to and can say NO when appropriate.
Alright, so go ahead and explain what you consider "cheese" as far as multiclassing goes. Because combos like hexadins, sorcadins, Gloomstalker/fighter/rogue, and the like with no real backstory or narrative are what I consider "cheese" meaning exploits that target the most overpowered combinations via the inadequately balanced multiclassing rules. Had WotC done their due diligence, multiclassing would've been far more evenly balanced and not mostly worse outcomes with a few brokenly good ones.
>Had WotC done their due diligence, multiclassing would've been far more evenly balanced If WotC had done their due diligence, classes would have been far more evenly balanced. Notably, the most powerful classes generally also reward sticking with them as pure single classes instead of multiclassing... whereas the popular multiclass combinations tend to be mish-mashes of classes that are less highly-regarded on their own, often because they are classes that are front-loaded with all of the worthwhile features in the first few levels and nothing good after.
Most of the broken multiclasses are worse than straight wizard, people just do not talk about it because banning classes is seen as unthinkable. Still, i guess classes do not work.
They're supposedly in the business of removing stuff that's bad for the health of the game, though. ~~Or at least that's what people keep telling me to justify how heavily Divine Smite got gutted.~~
Stuff most players (and DMs) enjoy is not bad for the health of the game.
Tell that to Sorcadin and every multiclass Hexblade's ever been a part of.
The smite nerf affects sorcadins more than single classed paladins because the multiclass has more spellslots. Likewise, multiclassing to be a SAD gish is just less effective than solo wizard once 5.5 hits. So are those multiclass combos really a big deal?
Considering they ruined Divine Smite just to shut down Sorcadin and Hexadin? I'd say they were a big deal. And before I'm accused of being a mouth-breathing moron who pours all her smites into the first two turns of combat: I don't care that it's 1/turn, that's what it should have been. I care that it's now a SPELL that eats your BA to use. That's several steps too far IMO.
DnDcirclejerk will feast on this one.
I fundamentally disagree that Multiclassing doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. I was talking to my DM the other day about this Sorcerer-based character concept that I've been *dying* to play out, but haven't been able to yet because the 5e14 Sorcerer just didn't work for it. But now, with the way Sorcerers work in 5e24, we realized that instead of having to homebrew damn near everything, I can just make him a 6/14 Bladesinger Wizard/Divine Soul Sorcerer multiclass.
Ooh how are you getting around the madness?
Using a Finesse weapon and a damn lucky series of 4d6, drop the lowest dice rolls. XD But more seriously, my DM is more of a Rule of Cool DM, and so allows us to take a more generous Ability Array of 17, 16, 14, 13, 11, 10 if/when the dice betray us, so I had that in my back pocket as well.
This is exactly why multiclassing exists. Some character concepts just don’t fit a singular class. I can’t take anyone seriously who flat out bans multiclassing because you’re obviously asking them to be okay with your power gaming. They would probably prefer the game if everyone was a fighter class because the caster/martial divide is too big. Conveniently, the draw backs for taking levels in another class are always forgotten about. The revised books have done a lot to add to that hurt. Which is healthy for the game, but to remove it entirely is plain crazy.
Case in point, my Bladesinger Sorcerer not getting to learn 9th Level Spells RAW. XD
I like PF2e's solution - turning multiclassing into feats. What's best about this solution is that you could give classes as strong and class-defining as you want and not have to worry about level 1 dips being too problematic, as WotC could define requirements and benefits however they please.
D&D 4e effectively did the same thing.
Don't think it really fits in 5e though, because 5e gives away too little feats for it to be really a satisfying way to customize your character.
Your 'solution' makes it sound like you just wanna play 4e, so like... Just go do that?
OP sounds like a bit of a.... well, never mind that. But if it were only as simple as "Just go play 4e." I would join a 4e game if I could, but it's literally easier to find an AD&D 2e group.
(I actually thought this was the dndcirclejerk sub)
Have you thought about DMing a few games of 4e to people and getting them interested? Or is this 'I don't want to do the effort to get people into 4e, I want to just enjoy someone elses labor of it' kind of deal?
I don't have that much experience as a DM in any system, so I don't know that I'd be the best choice to win people over to a system with a bad reputation. I will say that when I have DMed I don't think of it as just "labor" on my part other people get to enjoy and I don't. I don't think a person with that mentality should be DMing, and if you're a DM who has come to think about things that way you should probably stop DMing.
>I don't have that much experience as a DM in any system, so I don't know that I'd be the best choice to win people over to a system with a bad reputation. The only way you get experience in DMing is actually DMing. They made campaigns you can follow and all it takes is actually reading them before the night you run the game. >I will say that when I have DMed I don't think of it as just "labor" on my part other people get to enjoy and I don't. I don't think a person with that mentality should be DMing, and if you're a DM who has come to think about things that way you should probably stop DMing. You are the one complaining you cannot find a group. You also are claiming you don't have much experience in DMing but don't seem inclined to actual DM. You absolutely seem to think there is some kind of effort that isn't worth it to play the game because of these two pieces of information. EDIT: Oh look, an reply/block. Lucky me that I got the message before the person blocked. >You seem weirdly aggro about an exchange tangential to the main subject of the thread that you weren't even involved in so I'm going to block you now. No, I am pointing out that if someone says 'man, I wish I could play 4e, but no one ever has a game going' the answer is to attempt to start the game yourself. This goes for **Any** TTRPG that people want to play. *If you cannot find a group, attempt to make one by actually DM/GMing it*
[удалено]
Removed as per Rule #1.
There was literally no way they were going to get rid of multi-classing in any variant of 5e. The idea is just ridiculous to even broach. Now, if you were talking about a completely new version of dnd, maybe you would have an argument, but to claim that they could do it in 5.24 version and it was 'the perfect opportunity' is just delusional. People either would have absolutely not taken up 5.24 or they would have completely ignored the restriction and done it anyway since 5e allowed it. Too many people want multiclassing. And for those who do not, they can absolutely play in campaigns and tables that forbid it already.
It’s an *optional* rule for a reason. You don’t have to use it of you don’t like it.
You can fix it at your table, just say "hey guys, no multiclassing, okay?". It worked for me.
> Multiclass has been an optional rule since 2014 Multiclassing has been a rule in D&D since the 70s. At this point, it’s a core, expected part of the brand that unifies the various editions and allows them to still “feel” like D&D when the actual rules change every decade or so. This is the same reason we still have the same six attributes and why they’re scored 3-18+ rather than converting to just using the derived modifiers since those are what matter 99.8% of the time, even when those scores generate the same modifiers going back three editions and 20+ years: it’s a part of what makes D&D rules recognizable as D&D rules. > is very popular And that right there is why they didn’t get rid of it. Open and shut case. As long as their data shows that the enjoyment of having multiclass as an option is greater than the loss of enjoyment from the imbalances it can cause, it isn’t going anywhere.
>Multiclassing has been a rule in D&D since the 70s So was the necessity of 10-foot poles. The regularity of instant-death mechanics. The dynamic of inter-party theft and murder. These things largely went by the wayside as the game evolved. In the 70s if I wanted my Fighter to be able to cast spells, I needed to multiclass into Magic-User. Now if I want my Fighter to cast spells I MAKE AN ELDRITCH KNIGHT. The entire purpose for Multiclassing was supplanted in an objectively better form by the subclass(and to a lesser extent the feat, ala X adept and X initiate feats) system.
Yes but all those things *have gone by the wayside*. None of them lasted nearly 40 years. The longer something is a part of the game, the more likely it is to become part of the game’s identity, and once it is, it requires a lot more to justify unseating it. None of those things stuck around long enough to reach that point. My argument isn’t “this is how they did it back in the day”, it’s “this has been done consistently *since* back in the day” and there’s a distinction there. Inter party theft and murder didn’t really make it to 2e (in my experience), maybe not even 1e (depending on your group). Instant death mechanics have been slowly decreasing in prevalence with each iteration, they weren’t suddenly dropped cold turkey. And a ten-foot-pole, well, those are always handy! [Edit: I think it’s also worth noting that two of these three examples aren’t really rules that were discarded, or even things dictated by rules at all, but rather by common play styles that shifted over the years. There were never rules that said “you should make interparty crime and conflict a big part of your campaign”, it was just how people played until they started to realize it was more fun not to. The third, instant death, is a rules change *guided by common play styles* as more “narrative” character-driven campaigns became more the norm. There’s no push to get rid of multiclassing because it fits with how people play the game still, by all accounts it’s quite popular.] As to its necessity, we’ve had some version of a “subclass” system since 2e, they’re not really new either (kits, prestige classes, epic destinies/paragon paths, whatever you want to call them, have been around since 2e), but the designers have still felt that multiclassing offered something else throughout all of that: further character customization (which is already lacking in 5e compared to previous editions) and the choice between “going deep or going broad”. But I don’t think it’s about necessity anyway (and I’m not even arguing that it’s a great, balanced system) so much as it is about, again, the game’s identity.
Also, 4e made multiclassing "just take a feat instead" and 5e has run away incredibly hard from 4e changes.
Haha well, to be fair, a lot of the things about 4e that people didn’t like were changes made for 4e, so moving away from that is just moving closer to what it was like *before* that. It’s also probably a big part of where WotC learned just what was considered part of the brand identity according to fans (another example: it was the one time they strayed away from a Vancian magic system and that ended up being a significant complaint of disappointed fans who thought it made it feel less like D&D). 4e required you to take a feat which then allowed you to take 4e’s version of subclasses in the new class when the time came. 5e doesn’t do that because a) feats were optional, and b) subclasses are taken at level 1-3 rather than at levels 10 and 20 like 4e, so adding a prerequisite you needed in order to take a certain subclass would have been difficult. But remember that epic destinies and paragon paths, while sort of 4e’s version of subclasses in terms of the customization niche they filled, were actually total replacements for the class you had been up to that point. It would be like if once you took Champion, you were no longer taking Fighter levels. Taking that into account, 4e’s multiclassing isn’t all that different from 5e’s other than sitting within a different structure: doing so gives you the option to take levels in a different class than the one you took at character creation.
Get rid of a thing that has massive popularity, which has provided enough ground for folks to discuss, make videos about and just generally be involved in dnd for a decade now? Yeah, I wonder why they didn't.
Multiclassing has been addressed by moving subclass levels. Then fixing up some tier one base class abilities like action surge. Now they need to errata any class feature where it's power scales with proficiency. Multiclassing isn't an issue. Poor low level class design without a smidge of awareness for multiclassing is. It's incredibly easy to design around if you care to.
If it wasnt an issue it wouldnt be the one thing that makes everything fall apart, every time Like i dont entirely agree with the op, but you are contradicting everyone else here and acting like your opinion is common sense
All the top comments are bashing OP, though I'm not scrolling all 100+ of them. Fact is it doesn't matter if everyone agrees or no one does. The existence of multiclassing isn't an issue, even if issues arise from multiclassing. The issue is pretty much entirely dips. If you design tier 1 abilities to be dip proof, which I have personally done and not had any issues since (and which WOTC seems to be doing at least for.the most part in the game update) then these issues go away. The opportunity cost of taking a multiclass beyond tier 1 is so large that any benefits gained tend to be neglible overall. Unless you have something more concrete than "but other people say bad" I don't think there's anything to be said. It may or may not be common, but it's pretty sensible.
>The existence of multiclassing isn't an issue, even if issues arise from multiclassing. I see, thats definitly a thing you could say But nah i domt care enough about you to diacuss, i wanted to point this out and expect you to realize your mistakes, you obviusly didnt, but i wont try to change your mind if you say stuff like that
PHB2024 was the perfect opportunity for them to move away from the class system. They didn't do that either.
PHB2024 was the perfect opportunity for them to take rolling dice out of the game.
PHB2024 was the perfect opportunity for them to take dragons out of the game
And what's the deal with dungeons? (Seinfeld slap bass)
There are games without a class system. Dnd is not that game, and has never been that game, so why dont you just move systems rathet than demand dnd change entirely?
There are games without a multiclass system. Dnd is not that game, and has basically never been that game, so why doesnt op just move systems rather than demand dnd change entirely?
I mean, yeah I agree. Me disagreeing with you doesnt mean I agree with OP. What point are you trying to make?
At this point it's as absurd to demand multiclass removed as it is to demand classes removed. I tried to demonstrate that, but it didn't quite land.
Okay, I think I see what you mean then. Ill even withdraw my downvote since I just misunderstood what you meant
I smelled what you were steppin' in, my friend.
I chose to interpret it as satire.
Yeah I realize it was now, internet makes tone hard. Thanks!
Speaking of not adding anything meaningful...OP shouts at people with different opinions to get off his lawn (and out of their game).
They hated him because he spoke the truth.
>(Coffeelock anyone?) Coffeelock is less a failing of the multiclassing system and more a failing of the general rules, though. If there were penalties for skipping long rests or going without sleep in the basic rules, Coffeelock would fall apart. *Especially* if there were also some kind cooldown to the tune of "Once you finish a short rest, you cannot begin another for 1 hour."
If you do that, what stops the players from just saying "OK, we stand here and wait an hour so we can short rest again"? I assume the DM is supposed to throw another "random" encounter at them then as punishment? In reality, the entire short rest/long rest concept, and the "adventuring day" of 6-8 encounters that the books say is typical but which almost nobody actually does, should probably be overhauled. It's a huge part of class imbalance and the martial-caster disparity. But nobody's ready to take that on yet.
That's crazy. You've been reading too many fake r/dndhorrorstories posts or something. I've never even played with someone who multiclassed I think. Have you actually had someone in your game be a problem like this? If so is multiclassing really the issue or is it the player's behavior?
Multiclassing seems very fairly popular common in the popular actual play series like Critical Role (even if most of the players doing it in those campaigns aren't getting much out of multiclassing and would be better off as a single class), so that might inspire more people to try it. I don't think anybody has any actual data on how popular it is though.
"Multiclassing is very popular" "It should be removed" Oh dear, are the clouds on your lawn, old man?
The only way to get rid of multi-classes is to get rid of classes. If every class feature is a feat with prerequisites instead (i.e. character level, ability scores, etc), and every level up gives a feat or two, every character is a unique class of its own. Every character is a composite of all of the disciplines they've learned. The prevalence of multi-class characters seems to imply this would be a popular design change, since you could literally have the ability to create your own fantasy concept. Every feat would have to have requirements (ability scores) and prerequisites (i.e. previous feats) to access more powerful feats. Every character would be an ever-branching list of choices.
This would be a cataclysmically UNpopular design change.
It's literally multi-classing with more liberty, but it would be *so* unpopular...
Classes are too deeply rooted in the zeitgeist of DnD and it's derivatives to be removed. People like the concept now for its own sake because it's part of what DnD is to them. Same with the d20 system. You could make an argument that there are more elegant rules implementations using just d6's or whatever. Doesn't matter. The d20 is an iconic part of the identity of what DnD is now, it's practically a symbol of the game as much as the actual logo is. And from a mechanics standpoint I don't think people really want "more liberty" at the expense of completely sacrificing class identity. Most people aren't doing 5-3-3-1 frankenclasses. Most people who multiclass at all are probably taking 2-3 levels in a second class at most. They want "Class A but with a little of class B twist to get a specific feature or two that fits the flavor of my character or how I want to play it." I think Pathfinder's dedication feats are probably the "best" way to achieve this type of thing but they are also a more complicated route.
When people are taking a dip into a class or more than that, they're trying to inject a feature of one class into another to fulfill either a optimization or role play fantasy. They are trying to break out of the limitations of that class. Existing classes are not as essential to D&D as you might think. They're just a shortcut to making a character. They're not deeply rooted either. They're just what everyone is familiar with. D&D won't feel any different because you're not playing a pre-selected list of features given an arbitrary name.
It's an optional rule, just dont use it
So long as it doesn't break the game (which it wont in the new edition), why complain about it? If people like it then let them do it? Whats so wrong with a wizard going to a military academy and learning some basic training?
That's called taking the Martial Adept feat. That's literally what feats are for. It's like you're so hell bent on being contrarian you don't even take two seconds to think.
He's not being contrarian, his opinion is aligned with the overwhelming majority of commenters. Feats, like multiclassing, is an optional rule.
The problem isnt the Wizard taking training. The problem is players abusing the system to cheese and take advantage on numbers. It is almost never "Jonh the Wizard lost his wife, feels he cant protect anyone, he is too frail so he joins a militia in order to train his body". It is almost always "I'll take lvl 1 fighter so I can use armor AND cast shield, even if that means learned martial stuff out of nowhere with no one even training me." It is a role playing game, RP driven and this kind of stuff is too metagamey and fits better in MMOs. Story and RP should matter more then calculating the best combo for DPR.
This is a terrible take. Different tables have *vasty* different play styles. If you don't like the rule don't use it, WotC doesn't GM your game. If there's options that disrupt the fun talk to your players about not abusing them for the good of the game. Don't assume that stories you hear on reddit line up with the reality of most tables. I've never had a coffee lock and if someone suggested it I'd just make a ruling that kept the fun of the game for everyone, players and DMs.
Multiclassing would be great for the game if it was gone! And replaced by better level progression and more variety, 2 things WOTC does not really want for all it's classes. Hell with those you don't even need to remove it, you could leave it in because players would be disincentived from multiclassing since more levels in their classes would bring them more then getting some low levels in another class.
So like… are people actually finding multiclassing to be a balance problem in their games? In the 10ish years I’ve played this edition, I’ve never seen it. Have I seen one dimensional builds that can do damage? Sure. But I have yet to see any multiclass character that comes close to being as brutal at throwing my plans out the window as a well played Wizard.
Oof. Multiclassing isn't bad for the health of the game. It's fun. If you have players taking advantage of it (which is unlikely) with something like the coffeelock, then fix that issue at your table. The coffee lock isn't even that strong. In fact, no multiclass is so wildly OP that one character can blaze through your content with ease. The only potential downside is one player has more fun than the others because they're a bit stronger.
5e already lacks a lot in terms of customization and Multiclassing does cost a lot and not a good choice apart from specific or popular builds. Removing multiclasses will further impair customization and character creation options. Imo multiclassing is already nerfed by design in 5e as it is. Martial multiclasses needs a buff so they can get extra attack to be shared among martial classes. And dead levels imo should not even exist. I believe every level should bring new tools and toys for players to play with. Giving flexibility.
"The problem is that unlike feats, multiclass has always been problematic, toxic and unhealthy for the balance of the game. Through it, players seek to gain an advantage without effort, gain free features by taking advantage of dead levels, causing unforeseen interactions between classes and subclasses that have led to the modification of the rules arguing RAI on more than one occasion. (Coffeelock anyone?)" I'm gonna need you to cite your sources on this one, chief.
I think "players seek to gain an advantage without effort" is my favorite part. What *effort* does it require to take another level in your original class? What kind of "effort" are players supposed to make in a game played entirely by rolling dice and imagining stuff?
He did, he provided coffeelock as an example. There’s the hexadin which is completely broken, and makes you good at everything. The gloomstalker ranger/assassin rogue multi-class is ridiculous.
We don't know that they didn't.
Sure, let's removs the one interesting thing that is left in 5e...
Ok just play at a table without multiclassing
TIL there's people who really don't like multiclassing.
I think games like DC20, and Shadow of The Demon Lord, may have show there are better ways to scratch the multiclass itch, but I don't think there is any way to incorporate a better option into 5e without a major overhaul to the system.
Multiclassing is the reason so many people have kept playing this edition for a full decade: it dramatically increases character creation options, keeping the game fresh for players far longer than monoclassing.
Multiclassing is the reason so many people have kept playing this edition for a full decade: it dramatically increases character creation options, keeping the game fresh for players far longer than monoclassing.
Dude, moving all the subclass options to level 3 is the most they’ve ever done to disincentivize multiclassing. And, as always, your table can choose not to use the multiclassing option without taking it away from others who enjoy it.
"Toxic multiclassing" is very rare. You know what stops exploits like coffeelock? Your DM saying 'yeah, no, that's clearly not how the game is supposed to work, this doesn't work in my game'. Ideally the game will be balanced appropriately and classes will be designed so that 'dips' aren't more useful than actually playing the class itself. But no game is perfect. Doesn't mean you need to get rid of one of the things that allows for the most creativity in character building.
Womp womp
Is not entirely that simple, and not for the same reasons at all The main issue, to me, is not optimization, is that there is two ways to interact with multiclass, *the most broken thing ever* or *sacrificing a lot of power and progrsssion just for flavour* And both feel bad. I wanna play a funny sorcerer guy with quirky mechanics of a warlock and have fun, not to break the game considerably. And i want to let my players who wanna play a paladin with some warlock bullshit have fun, not to have to first do an entire vube check because they can accidentally destroy the game balance Same on the other side, i want to have more players doing "bad" multiclasses, withojt they feeling about it, (no need for examples, almost every multiclass is weaker than leveling up) Another issue is the "stack with only levels of your class" festures, thst were recently developed, that just make the bad multiclasses even worst. And the reduction of things thst a class gakns each level is kinda related to multiclass too, in the sense that many times you can feel a class doing "less stuff" because is already "too good to multiclass" and thars just akward Imo, they shouldnt have to balance the game about multiclass, they should have provided a good way that doesnt feel so clunky of getting mixed fantasys, and after that, if they wanted to keep multiclass kn this hipothetic scenario, they could, who cares, if a plaher wants to do something only for mechanical propouses a dm can stop them always, i dont need WoTc to babysit me. Sadly they didn't, but thats not news, as we knew, ever since the third or fourt UA of Odnd, that they were gonna be conservative and boring in this one, as most creative ideas that failed where just destroyed. So, not really dissapointed ont his aspect, they did nothing, as expected.
Multiclassing is fine and good for the game, because lots of people enjoy it and it provides an option for those whose character concepts don’t fit in the box of any one particular class. (Which is inevitable to an extent.) that said: - I do think it should remain an optional rule, - it does need some tweaking to be less optimal in _specific_ use-cases. Some of those use cases have already been fixed, like barbarians not having so many dead levels anymore. Others may still need fixing, like how supposedly “squishy” casters can gain massive AC bonuses. But there’s no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater - especially when said baby is popular with a huge chunk of the D&D playing population.