There is Multi-Classing but no Multi-Subclassing. Why?

[Spo]

Random thought here.

I see practically all areas of D&D discussed, but I have never heard anyone talk about multi-SUBclassing. Is the idea just that dumb?

What got me started on this was looking at the monk class and being torn between open hand and kensai. IF let's say you started one at lvl 3 then started the other at lvl 4 would that create too many OP builds? Not being an expert in the different classes, would it be too powerful to have two different subclasses of fighters in one character for instance? Maybe lvls 4 through 10ish would be easy, but after that would your two halves equal a whole?

Role playing-wise, different subclasses in one character might be hard to pull off (Different paladins and clerics come to mind).

I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. I am sure I am missing some/many big reason(s) here for not doing it, but just not seeing it at the moment.

Thanks

[LibraryOgre]

I suppose the problem becomes "How do you see this working?"

Like, I start as a Monk, and move forward, and become Open Hand. Do I then return to monk1, and build my way up? Do I take level 4 to pick up Kensai, and so I'm a level 4 monk, I consider my subclass levels only by what I invest in them?

If I'm a cleric, can I bop through the different domains, picking up domain spells and bonus proficiencies, even if I never get the higher level abilities?

[Man_Over_Game]

It's a balance concerned with how DND is, and generally how synergies work together.

Say you have a fighter, who attacks for 10 damage.

One Fighter subclass doubles his attack speed, and one Fighter subclass doubles his damage.

Doubling his damage would put him at 20 damage per round, then doubling his attack speed would double it again to 40.

See, each subclass was balanced around providing only a +10 damage increase, but combined results in a +30 increase. Now the fighter is too effective compared to other builds.

This is evident with something like Champion + Samurai, combining high rerolls with increased critical chance. A normal 5% critical chance turns into a 20% per attack due to a few, easily ignored synergies.

People do still enjoy these super-synergistic builds with what they call Gestalt rules.

[Keravath]

I think there is no multi-subclassing because the archetypes were designed to provide distinct abilities and features that could be overlaid on the same base class. Overlapping them removes the distinct qualities.

In addition, since you are progressing in the one base class, would you progress in both archetypes simultaneously? Consecutively? Since it wasn't considered during the design process from a balance perspective there would certainly be cases where combining the abilities of two subclasses or archetypes wouldn't be balanced.

There also would appear to be no benefit to playing just one subclass unless somehow progression was limited to one subclass at a time ... however, a lot of the best subclass features are front-loaded at 1st, 2nd or 3rd level. Consider a divine-soul/shadow/dragon sorcerer with 3 levels in sorcerer and 1 level in each archetype ... they would have the dragon AC and hit point bonus, the shadow 120' darkvision and save vs dying feature AND the divine soul ability to choose cleric spells plus the 2d4 bonus on attack roll or save 1/short rest. Lots of benefits and still just a 3rd level sorcerer.

The game was designed to allow for clear and distinct differences between classes as well as archetypes within classes so that each gives a different play experience. It was designed with multi-classing in mind but not multi-archetypes which is why most don't play that way.

[Chronos]

But on the other hand, you wouldn't be getting any new class features other than the subclass features. It does no good for a barbarian to get rage and then rage again. So you'd end up with characters that are badly overpowered in some ways, but underpowered and one-dimensional in others.

Alternately, the OP might have meant that you progress through the base class as normal, but at every level where you get a subclass feature, you can choose a subclass. But this is problematic because later subclass features are often based on improving the earlier ones. And it really blows up with the Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight.

[Zhorn]

Nerdarchy did a video on this a couple of years back

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9YUz4a6BaU


IF I were to allow it for my players, I'd impose the same rule that general multiclass rules would (PHB 164), where you can only benefit from gaining the same feature once, extending to features of the same name WITHOUT a choice element (example: stacking two fighter level sets of fighter doesn't double up on Action Surge, BUT they could benefit from gaining different fighting styles).

[Talionis]

The other problem not discussed is the subclass powers are spaced out differently for each class. Barbarian for example gets subclass piers at 3/6/10/14. So you could potentially you pick up your 3/6 in one subclass but then switch do you get your next subclass power at 9 or 14?


Next example is Rogue that tends to have its best subclass powers at 3 and 17 the middle powers are less good. Most people would be happy to get more of the level 3 abilities.

The game wasn’t balanced for sub class multiclassing which is actually a shame because for fluff reasons a thief that also is a little bit of an Assassin makes much more fluff sense than a Rogue who turns into a Sorcerer.

[KorvinStarmast]

I see practically all areas of D&D discussed, but I have never heard anyone talk about multi-SUBclassing. Is the idea just that dumb? Yes, it is.

Go to the PHB, and read through the entire cleric class.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, it is.

Go to the PHB, and read through the entire cleric class.

Yeah, Cleric really shuts this whole idea down. It has very powerful features at level 1. Let's go with a conservative level 5 Cleric.

Grave 2/Life 1/Order 1/Light 1
-Powerful healing
-The best at preventing death
-Action Path to the Grave into Bonus Action spell to have the party Barbarian hit a target with double damage using Voice of Authority
-Disadvantage to be hit on a reaction
-Heavy Armor
-2 Free cantrips
-Full Spell slot progression

It only gets worse the higher level you get.

[Monster Manuel]

Yeah, Cleric really shuts this whole idea down. It has very powerful features at level 1. Let's go with a conservative level 5 Cleric.

Grave 2/Life 1/Order 1/Light 1
-Powerful healing
-The best at preventing death
-Action Path to the Grave into Bonus Action spell to have the party Barbarian hit a target with double damage using Voice of Authority
-Disadvantage to be hit on a reaction
-Heavy Armor
-2 Free cantrips
-Full Spell slot progression

It only gets worse the higher level you get.

And yet, here you have this crazy collection of abilities, on a 5th level cleric that only knows 1st level cleric spells. So, you've got a prefect example of how this kind of multiclassing stacks too heavily on one aspect of the character, while having weird and unbalanced impacts on other elements.

I think a lot of the effect of multi-subclassing can be achieved through feats. Say you're a Champion fighter who wants to multisubclass into Battle master? Take the Martial Adept feat. Multiclassing into Eldritch Knight? Maybe you can get by with the Magic Initiate feat.

It would require the creation of a lot of new feats, which would duplicate some of the more desirable aspects of each subclass. Or, possibly, some guidelines around how to convert a subclass ability into a Feat. But, that way, you're still a single subclass, and not changing how that subclass progresses, but instead giving up an ASI or other feat-related power for a dip into another subclasses' toybox. Some combos of subclass + class-related feat would still be overpowered, but I think less so and no worse than some existing feats.

It would be kind of like how 4e did multiclassing, only not terrible.

[Trustypeaches]

The power boost offered by the subclasses of each class varies greatly.

Druids, Barbarians, and Sorcerers have far more powerful, defining subclasses with internal synergy (stacking Rage benefits, for example) than Monks or Paladins for example.

[Raynor007]

And yet, here you have this crazy collection of abilities, on a 5th level cleric that only knows 1st level cleric spells. So, you've got a prefect example of how this kind of multiclassing stacks too heavily on one aspect of the character, while having weird and unbalanced impacts on other elements.

Exactly. If a player is willing to sacrifice major abilities and improvements in their class by backtracking to level 1, there's no reason I can see why that couldn't be allowed.

[MilkmanDanimal]

What counts as a "subclass"? If I'm a Warlock, do I get multiple Patrons, or multiple Pacts? If I'm a Paladin, do I choose an aura, or have two auras going at once? If I'm a level 3 Battlemaster and I take another level in Fighter, am I just "plain Fighter" until 3 rolls around again?

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I've thought about introducing is a feat.


Cross-trained Specialization.

Prerequisite: 8 or more levels into any one class.
You gain the benefits of 4 levels into the class chosen for the prerequisite, but these levels only grant you benefits from a subclass that isn't the same used for the prerequisite.

You can take this feat multiple times, but the prerequisite for the same class increases by 4 levels each time you take it. You can choose different subclasses each time you choose this feat, or the same subclass to stack the level benefits.

So a level 12 Samurai could also have the subclass features of a level 4 Champion and a level 4 Battlemaster, OR the Samurai could have the benefits of a level 8 Champion. The Samurai would only gain the subclass benefits of those choices and wouldn't have additional hit dice or Action Surges or anything like that.

In the case of the Warlock, I'd say that every choice is a "subclass". So a level 16 Warlock can have every Pact Boon if he wanted and 3 Patrons. Popular guy, I hear.

Alternatively, a level 16 Wizard could double major with their 16 in Abjuration and 12 in Conjuration.

[ChildofLuthic]

The big problem is that some subclasses are designed to add a few moderate benefits to powerful classes, and some subclasses are meant to define the class playing them and thus offer a lot of power. This would unbalance the classes in a major way.

[CTurbo]

Multiple Paladin auras would be crazy

Here are some combos I'd like

Zealot Bearbarian
Assassin Scout Rogue
Gloom Stalker Hunter Ranger
Open Hand Long Death Monk
HexFiend BladeChain Warlock
Any two Paladins lol

[Talionis]

And yet, here you have this crazy collection of abilities, on a 5th level cleric that only knows 1st level cleric spells. So, you've got a prefect example of how this kind of multiclassing stacks too heavily on one aspect of the character, while having weird and unbalanced impacts on other elements.

I think a lot of the effect of multi-subclassing can be achieved through feats. Say you're a Champion fighter who wants to multisubclass into Battle master? Take the Martial Adept feat. Multiclassing into Eldritch Knight? Maybe you can get by with the Magic Initiate feat.

It would require the creation of a lot of new feats, which would duplicate some of the more desirable aspects of each subclass. Or, possibly, some guidelines around how to convert a subclass ability into a Feat. But, that way, you're still a single subclass, and not changing how that subclass progresses, but instead giving up an ASI or other feat-related power for a dip into another subclasses' toybox. Some combos of subclass + class-related feat would still be overpowered, but I think less so and no worse than some existing feats.

It would be kind of like how 4e did multiclassing, only not terrible.

But that's just it spellcasting a base class feature not a subclass feature. There is no reason for you not to progress in spell casting at each level because you are still a fifth level cleric. All of your different subclass levels would stack together.

You are artificially creating an issue where there shouldn't be an issue. This line of thinking would tend to nerf subclass multiclassing so much that it would make very little sense.

[Citan]

Random thought here.

I see practically all areas of D&D discussed, but I have never heard anyone talk about multi-SUBclassing. Is the idea just that dumb?

What got me started on this was looking at the monk class and being torn between open hand and kensai. IF let's say you started one at lvl 3 then started the other at lvl 4 would that create too many OP builds? Not being an expert in the different classes, would it be too powerful to have two different subclasses of fighters in one character for instance? Maybe lvls 4 through 10ish would be easy, but after that would your two halves equal a whole?

Role playing-wise, different subclasses in one character might be hard to pull off (Different paladins and clerics come to mind).

I would be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter. I am sure I am missing some/many big reason(s) here for not doing it, but just not seeing it at the moment.

Thanks


Yes, it is.

Go to the PHB, and read through the entire cleric class.
This is indeed the shortest illustration.
(quick example: Grave Cleric 2 + Tempest Cleric 6 + Tempest Sorcerer 3 = automaximum doubled damage on any thunder/lightning spell).

Second shortest is sorcerer:
Draconic Sorcerer 3 + Shadow Sorcerer 3 + Divine Soul Sorcerer X: at level 9 you know more metamagics than a lvl 20 Sorcerer, and not far from same number of spells.

Third one is Wizard: Bladesinger 2 / Abjurer 18. You trade a good capstone to be *extremely* sturdy from level 4 onwards.

Etc etc...
I would not be able to detail all overpowered things you may create with such system "as is" but there are certainly many. And keeping power balance in check would otherwise require some drastic restrictions.

There is also the particular case of Warlock, which is a mix of three different "stacks". I guess you could simply add up levels to know the number of Invocations and whichever slots...
But the ability to get Improved Familiar + Rituals + Blade Pact... Brrrr.

Honestly, if you feel the need or desire to combine several archetypes to achieve a particular concept, you may be better served by either saying player he can choose the one feature among *any* archetype each time he levels as a class, or homebrew your own archetype. :)

[gkathellar]

The consensus seems to be that it’d be super-awkward and confusing to implement. I agree with that consensus.

[LibraryOgre]

If you're familiar with other editions, it seems similar to the problem of Multi/Dual classing in AD&D where you've got similar abilities on the class... a Ranger/Thief may seem like a good idea, but gets really sticky when you're working out HIS/MS. A Bard/Thief has the same sort of issue.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

So something I allow but haven't seen mentioned is allowing multi subclass at the normal levels you can choose.

So to use the Cleric as an example since people point out its potential abuse.

At level 1 you pick a Domain. It must be a domain that fits your deity. At levels 2, 6, 8 and 17 you can choose the next step in your current domain or pick a new one and get the level 1 abilities, it must still be a domain of your god.

So a level 20 Cleric could have their full Domain power in one, be halfway advanced in two, or have a huge assortment of domain spells but no real special abilities, etc.


There is still some potential breakage there but DM Fiat/Role Play justification keeps it in check. Most deities only have 2-3 Domains. A Warlock needs some very good reason in game to get away with serving two masters.

[Citan]

So something I allow but haven't seen mentioned is allowing multi subclass at the normal levels you can choose.

So to use the Cleric as an example since people point out its potential abuse.

At level 1 you pick a Domain. It must be a domain that fits your deity. At levels 2, 6, 8 and 17 you can choose the next step in your current domain or pick a new one and get the level 1 abilities, it must still be a domain of your god.

So a level 20 Cleric could have their full Domain power in one, be halfway advanced in two, or have a huge assortment of domain spells but no real special abilities, etc.


There is still some potential breakage there but DM Fiat/Role Play justification keeps it in check. Most deities only have 2-3 Domains. A Warlock needs some very good reason in game to get away with serving two masters.

This is a very nice idea. I'm afraid there could still be some great abuses, but maybe the way WoTC designed the Pantheon would prevent that...

A few deadly combos (taking into account that Cleric gets several uses of Channel Divinity at level 6):
- Tempest + Trickery: you won't care that much about Duplicate taking your concentration when you can simply cast it while being hidden yourself, then make it walk among an enemy crowd to unleash a maximized Destructive Wave with no risk for either you or friends.
- Tempest + Grave: use Grave 'double damage" on your turn. Then either wait for enemy to hit you to use Maximized Wrath of the Storm (not that big a deal though, still just 4d8) OR learn Warcaster so you can unleash a Booming Blade (much more serious already) or Call Lightning (requires DM houseruling since a) technically you don't target any creature when casting, it's only "after" and b) you'd have to ensure you aim a point so as to hit only it)... So far powercreep in check. Don't dare you allow "normal multiclassing" with this though. Or that Cleric will just dip into Sorcerer for Chromatic Orb (or actually multiclass 3-4 levels into it so he can Quicken it). And let's just say an upcast Chromatic Orb as a 5th level (so 9d8), maximized ( so 72), doubled for vulnerability (so 146), before even considering the possibility you get a crit (fat chance and advantage + Lucky, Diviner pal with adequate Portent rolls), that IS a great deal imo. Or you could instead stack Thunderous Smite on Booming Blade.
- Grave + Zeal: latter is UA, for for theorycraft lets forget that: same idea, more options: Hellish Rebuke from Warlock dip to activate on reaction, GreenFlame Blade with Searing Smite on Warcaster, aforementioned Chromatic Orb, and I probably forget a few more options...

Obviously these woud not work until level 8 at very best, if multiclassing around level 10. Until then, really not a big deal.
When that comes online it's kinda a big deal though. No more than other things that are extremely good and totally RAW.
Not "overpowered" either for the same reason.

But the fact those are short-rest abilities are the main factor to make them still a much bigger power boost than what you can expect for those levels.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, I think the biggest reason it doesn't really get talked about is that (as has been mentioned) there's no way to do it gracefully. By the time you finished adapting each class to make it work you'd be looking at a drastically different system, one that's probably only a draft or two away from dropping classes and maybe levels altogether.

[Chronos]

OK, so a rogue takes Arcane Trickster at 3, and then goes with Assassin for all their other levels. Now they've got all the spells (which are the bulk of the Arcane Trickster's subclass features), plus most of the Assassin features.

[EggKookoo]

The consensus seems to be that it’d be super-awkward and confusing to implement. I agree with that consensus.

I agree that this is probably the rubber-meets-road reasoning. If they could have come up with a balanced and straightforward way to do it, they likely would have.

I also think there's something to be said for committing to a concept. As a DM I discourage multiclassing for this reason. Taking the good with the bad of a class forces you to sometimes play in ways you don't expect, or to learn how to deal with the aspects of your character you wouldn't necessarily have chosen if given the chance. It reminds you that to get the things you want, you have to sometimes pay a price. Choices matter. It's good for verisimilitude and it's good for roleplaying.

This reasoning would apply to multi-subclassing as well.

[Man_Over_Game]

I agree that this is probably the rubber-meets-road reasoning. If they could have come up with a balanced and straightforward way to do it, they likely would have.

I also think there's something to be said for committing to a concept. As a DM I discourage multiclassing for this reason. Taking the good with the bad of a class forces you to sometimes play in ways you don't expect, or to learn how to deal with the aspects of your character you wouldn't necessarily have chosen if given the chance. It reminds you that to get the things you want, you have to sometimes pay a price. Choices matter. It's good for verisimilitude and it's good for roleplaying.

This reasoning would apply to multi-subclassing as well.

On this note, can anyone think of any OP combinations from my Cross Training idea?


Prerequisite: 8 or more levels into any one class.
You gain the benefits of 4 levels into the class chosen for the prerequisite, but these levels only grant you benefits from a subclass that isn't the same used for the prerequisite.

You can take this feat multiple times, but the prerequisite for the same class increases by 4 levels each time you take it. You can choose different subclasses each time you choose this feat, or the same subclass to stack the level benefits.

I suppose Cleric would be really strong with it (like Grave 20/Life 16), but you'd be missing out on every ASI, and many of the benefits don't synergize with one another.