What would you suggest to change multiclassing? [Archive]

Man_Over_Game

2020-08-27, 07:17 PM

I'm looking for different ideas to improve multiclassing. Right now, the general rule-of-thumb on competent multiclassing is:

Don't multiclass in/out of a Full Caster, unless it's for a feature that you're getting with 1-2 levels.
Don't have more than 5 levels into two different Martial Classes, unless one of those classes is a Rogue.

Now, part of Rule #1 is due to the fact that upcasting is terrible, and the big benefit of multiclassing spellcasters with one another is getting bigger spell slots (when power level is definitely defined by the natural spell level, not how big your spell slot is).
Part of Rule #2 is that Extra Attack levels are redundant, yet Martials all share the same strategy of stacking all of their value on the Attack Action. Theoretically, this could be fixed just by adding some kind of benefit for having a redundant Extra Attack (such as getting a +1 to a stat).

Those are fairly obvious options.

What are some more oddball ones? For example:

Changing Sneak Attack dice to work with spells somehow.
Changing Rage to cast a spell when initiating or leaving Rage.
Changing Ki points so they can convert into spell slots, or vice-versa.
Changing what stats a class can use, while adding some restrictions to prevent any OP shenanigans.

Do you guys have any ideas?

JNAProductions

2020-08-27, 08:05 PM

For me, I give a +1 ASI or half-feat without the stat bump if you get Extra Attack twice.

OldTrees1

2020-08-29, 12:42 AM

Eldariel

2020-08-29, 01:13 AM

Spellcasting progresses as Class level + (Other levels / 2) worked well for initiators in 3E. Maybe have it be 1/3 instead in 5E? Let spell slots scale as the higher of the new or old rule.

Duplicate features are replaced with an ASI. They lost a level's worth of features, return a level's worth of features.

Agreed. Though I actually wouldn't even mind full spellcasting progression for non-casting levels á la Ardent with Practiced Manifester: losing out on higher level spells alone is such a huge deal. Though then martials would need something similar such as initiating. Oh 5e ToB, you can't be published soon enough to save us from this dreadful state of affairs.

Yakmala

2020-08-29, 01:16 AM

The first step I'd take, which hopefully will be happening when Tasha's Cauldron of Everything releases, is to implement the new UA feats.

How will this change multi-classing? By allowing you to avoid it altogether for some builds. Being able to pick up a fighting style, shield training, invocation or metamagic option with a feat instead of dipping a level or two can allow you to realize your vision without sacrificing advancement, or in some cases, your capstone, in your primary class.

Talionis

2020-08-29, 01:36 AM

Duplicate features are replaced with an ASI. They lost a level's worth of features, return a level's worth of features.

This is important.

Fnissalot

2020-08-29, 01:50 AM

I would say you would need to work on making dipping less attractive. Most classes are front-loaded for levels 1-5 or so and then starts to taper of.

A crazy idea:
Have a separate list of features for level 1-5 for when you are multiclassing into a class.
For example: Warlock

Level
First-class
Multi-class

1st
Otherworldly Patron, Pact Magic
Pact Magic

2nd
Eldritch Invocations(2)
Otherworldly Patron,Eldritch Invocations (1)

3rd
Pact Boon
Pact Boon

4th
Ability Score Improvement
Ability Score Improvement, Eldritch Invocations (2)

5th
Eldritch Invocations (3)
Eldritch Invocations (2)

Hytheter

2020-08-29, 02:10 AM

Part of Rule #2 is that Extra Attack levels are redundant, yet Martials all share the same strategy of stacking all of their value on the Attack Action. Theoretically, this could be fixed just by adding some kind of benefit for having a redundant Extra Attack (such as getting a +1 to a stat).

I think it would be interesting if Extra Attack was just one of a number of choosable features. That would not only make martial/martial multiclasses more appealing but also open up a way to make martial characters who don't just make two attacks. What if whirlwind attack was instead an Extra Attack substitute? Some means of making really big attacks instead of multiple?

I would say you would need to work on making dipping less attractive. Most classes are front-loaded for levels 1-5 or so and then starts to taper of.

A crazy idea:
Have a separate list of features for level 1-5 for when you are multiclassing into a class.

The separate list could certainly work to make dipping less attractive but it would be a bit convoluted and add a lot of extra text to the multiclassing section of the book.

I'm of the opinion that level 1 should actually have more stuff; in that light, my approach to make dips less attractive would be to make it so that you don't get all the level 1 features by multiclassing, but only get one feature (or multiple weak bundled features) at a time. That'd require a lot of rewriting though...

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2020-08-29, 02:40 AM

Multiclassing to dip is too good, and multiclassing for even levels isn't good enough. Here's how I would do it:

Fixing Dips:

Once you've taken the first level of a class, you must continue taking future levels in that same class until you have four levels in it. Once you have at least four levels in each of your classes, you can freely decide which of those classes to gain your next levels in. This should be enough to cripple dip-centric builds, but see the next part.

Eldritch Adept, Martial Adept, Metamagic Adept is a good start to replacing dips, but it's not enough. Add more feats that emulate more class features that are often the target goal of dips, but for the better ones give them prerequisites. For example, a feat that grants a Rogue's Cunning Action may have Expertise as a prerequisite, making it available to Bards or to someone who takes Prodigy, etc. Make a feat that grants Hex Warrior, but requires you to already have the proficiencies it grants as well as knowing at least one invocation (i.e. Eldritch Adept).

Fixing more evenly leveled multiclassing:

I'm sure there's a more elegant way to do this, but something similar to: Add a feat that gives you +2 levels worth of class features (but not ASIs) for the class that granted the ASI which was used to gain the feat, able to be taken multiple times. It would require your effective level in that class to be at least four less than your current character level. This wouldn't increase your proficiency bonus or hit dice, nor would it allow you to exceed your character level -2 when determining the spell slots of a multiclass character.

So a build that goes X 4/ Y 16 could take it once with an ASI from Y to have the class features of X 4/ Y 18 at 20th. If you take Y at 1st level you could also take that feat with X's ASI and have the class features of a X 6/ Y 18 at 20th level. Or a build that goes X 8/ Y 12 could take it twice with each class if taking Y at 1st level, and have the class features of a X 12/ Y 16 at 20th level, or once with X and three times with Y if taking X at 1st level and have the features of a X 10/ Y 18 at 20th.

The balancing factor would be the ASI opportunity cost. Fighter would be better at using this than any other class, but I don't see a problem with that. It may be a bit too good when combining Warlock with another spellcasting class, so maybe say it doesn't apply to pact magic if the character also has the spellcasting class feature.

kazaryu

2020-08-29, 03:29 AM

Multiclassing to dip is too good, and multiclassing for even levels isn't good enough. Here's how I would do it:

Fixing Dips:

Once you've taken the first level of a class, you must continue taking future levels in that same class until you have four levels in it. Once you have at least four levels in each of your classes, you can freely decide which of those classes to gain your next levels in. This should be enough to cripple dip-centric builds, but see the next part.

Eldritch Adept, Martial Adept, Metamagic Adept is a good start to replacing dips, but it's not enough. Add more feats that emulate more class features that are often the target goal of dips, but for the better ones give them prerequisites. For example, a feat that grants a Rogue's Cunning Action may have Expertise as a prerequisite, making it available to Bards or to someone who takes Prodigy, etc. Make a feat that grants Hex Warrior, but requires you to already have the proficiencies it grants as well as knowing at least one invocation (i.e. Eldritch Adept).
the problem with making feats have another feat as a prerequisite is that feats aren't anywhere near as common as they used to be. doing that would just encourage the dip that you were trying to make obsolete. to use your rogue cunning action as an example. which is a bigger cost for a cahracter. 2 levels, or 1 feat? well, considering a 1 lvl dip gets you more than what the feat gives you...there's really no reason to not just do a 2 level dip into rogue. then, you lose 1 ASI but you gain 2 expertises, 1 skill proficiency, thieves tool proficiency, 1d6 sneak attack die and cunning action. which is more than you'd get from the 2 feats. the only benefit taking the 2 feats is is that it doesn't slow your class progression...and instead eats up almost half your ASI's.

Fnissalot

2020-08-29, 04:25 AM

The separate list could certainly work to make dipping less attractive but it would be a bit convoluted and add a lot of extra text to the multiclassing section of the book.

I'm of the opinion that level 1 should actually have more stuff; in that light, my approach to make dips less attractive would be to make it so that you don't get all the level 1 features by multiclassing, but only get one feature (or multiple weak bundled features) at a time. That'd require a lot of rewriting though...

Yeah, it would require a lot of changes.
Alternatively, you could get all the abilities but they would be worse. If you are multi-classing, the highest proficiency bonus you can use for any class feature, is the level in that class. So if you have a 19 paladin/1 hexblade, your proficiency bonus would be considered as 1 for all of your warlock features; if you use charisma for your attack roll modifier or to cast eldritch blast for example. You need 11/6 to get to use +6 for the second class's features.

BloodSnake'sCha

2020-08-29, 04:53 AM

I will remove the stat requirements to multiclassing.

Miele

2020-08-29, 06:34 AM

Dips are taken because some subclasses are designed badly and certain features just combo oh-so-well with other classes. I'd fully in favour of moving a lot of features to feats, add a feat progression table, separating it from the ASI progression and not allowing specific bonuses, but here there is a need to elaborate.

Let's take the most iconic caster aka the Wizard: it lacks armor, shields, and features that boost spells by a massive amount. Dip 1 into Hexblade or Fighter or Cleric and the issue is solved: aside from armor and shield (and martial weapons if you care about) you get for example Hexblade's Curse, Action Surge or say... Destructive Wrath to nova one or more targets.

We know also that having too many CHA based classes encourages dipping here and there to make use of specific features: the EB spam scaling from character levels instead of warlock levels means that a 2 dip in warlock is almost always a good idea, make it 3 if you want to obtain the pact boon.

Combinations are a dime a dozen and I'm impressed by what some of you can pull out of the proverbial cylinder (although often it makes little to no RP sense to swap classes like that, but everything is possible with some narrative creativity).

Aimeryan

2020-08-29, 06:40 AM

Dipping is fine; there is nothing wrong with the idea of taking a few levels in something else to grab the puzzle pieces to broaden your ability set or compound effectiveness. If a goal is that multiclassing for more levels is also an attractive option, then there needs to be more puzzle pieces added to the classes past the first few levels. I get why they front-loaded classes; you need those pieces in place for an interesting class - no point having the class come alive only once you reach level 10 or something. The issue is that they only front-loaded classes; features afterwards tend to be ribbons or minor enhancements - with the exception of spellcasting.

Spell Levels. The issue here is that you have to start all over again with a new class - there is no synergy, at all. Furthermore, few puzzle pieces can compete with higher level spells (this is a problem of balance). Spell slot progression still increases, however as noted, upcasting is (with a few exceptions) a poor substitute to higher level spells (again, possibly a balance problem). This means full casters rarely want to multiclass until they hit level 9 spells.

So my solutions would be thus;

Add more puzzle pieces to classes as they level up. Donot take away/move from early levels - those are there for a reason and also dips are not a negative.
Spell Levels need to be balanced with taking other puzzle pieces from other classes. This could happen by nerfing higher level spells, could happen by boosting upcasting, could happen by not outright losing spell levels, could happen by forming synergies (maybe you get to start spell levels in another class at a higher point).

cutlery

2020-08-29, 07:36 AM

Fewer charisma based caster classes, or fewer ways to mix them.:

(1) Eldritch Blast scaling should be a warlock class feature, like extra attack is for a fighter; make it an invocation (and give them a few more) if necessary, but I think making it default is best. Cantrip as primary damage source should remain a warlock thing, but a pure warlock should be better at it than a dipped warlock, much like a pure fighter is better at making multiple melee attacks than a fighter/something.
(2) Make divine smite require the use of paladin spell slots. A two level dip of paladin or 6pal/x with a full caster giving such a vast supply of smites is a mistake.
(3) Move some of the skills out of charisma (intimidate) or otherwise make other skills more useful in interaction by the rules.

The entirety of social interaction (save, perhaps, insight) governed by one stat that is also a primary caster stat for four classes (and a primary melee stat in some cases) is a mistake.

Extra attack can't stack without making Fighter 11-20 obsolete; but I agree if you get a second extra attack as a class or archetype feature, an ASI is probably a fair trade. Getting more granular than that for other abilities that won't stack would require some sort of point value system, as they may not all be worth a full ASI.

Tighten up the rules about athletics vs acrobatics - if not for PAM and GWM, str might be a dump stat. It is for a lot of characters already. It easier than ever before to build a dexterity fighter, and that's great, but dexterity doesn't need the help outside of making finesse weapons standard; it's a great stat for other things. Strength is not.

Kyutaru

2020-08-29, 08:08 AM

The biggest issues with multiclassing that I see are:

1) small dips to get core features that scale via ability scores instead of class
2) martials not requiring extensive progression due to how attack calculates
3) spellcasters requiring exclusive progression due to how spells progress

First thing I would do is destroy the class system. It doesn't work as it stands. Keywords and traits are nice and effective but they need to gain progressive strength through class investment, not ability scores. Those core features that people love to take at the lowest levels I would have level up periodically similar to how Wizard cantrips do, strictly on a class level basis though. If you're multiclassing out of your class then you're getting other bonuses and shouldn't keep benefiting from this one freely. All the class features would stack to keep them relevant but you have to choose the areas of focus.

Next I think martials are getting the short end of the stick here. Class investment is something that should be improving their abilities while also unlocking stackable options with other class abilities that affect similar areas. I could even, were I truly adventurous, see Cross-Class feats with a dual class requirement being a legitimate option for hybrids who wish to link two particularly synergistic abilities. But for most abilities the level of depth invested into the class should determine the strength of the core.

This should also come with the return of weapon proficiencies as class features, though not necessarily for singular weapons. Rather the more levels in martial mastery one has the more proficiency in that classes' weapons one obtains. Just as magic effectively has +1 Caster Level, Fighters may provide +1 Martial Weapons proficiency. I realize proficiency is already an existing mechanic and don't mean to conflate the terms but we can certainly introduce an alternate system for weapon proficiency that provides scaling benefits according to mastery level. I believe a character with a variety of martial classes mixed together can still obtain rudimentary knowledge in a few weapons, competent knowledge with most of them, and grandmaster skill with a core few purely based on how training they focused on each. This may be upsetting to those who dip a class purely to arm their rogue with a greatsword but I frankly think it's expected that you're not as good with it as a fighter.

Spellcasters meanwhile just need to go ham. Unifying spell slots under a single casting slot system was a good step. To do the same for spells themselves would be miraculous, tying magical expertise to the skill of the character rather than his knowledge of the classes, Stackable Features as it were. But I don't want to just reverse the problem and have casters homogenized as martials are already. People tend to find the spells to be the important features rather than any class abilities gained. So make spellcasting a feature with class investment unlocking new tiers of power.

Uniform spells known and spell book limits, sharing your mental capacity with all classes you've learned the magic of, with certain classes upgrading those limits more than others. A ranger/wizard has access to more spells known/learned because his time as a wizard has made him a prudent researcher. They can be ranger spells or they can be wizard spells, his class doesn't matter to determining how his memory functions. If he chooses to heavily invest in ranger spells using the wizard's extra spells feature then so be it, he specifically chose wizard to enhance his spellbook. But since spells have their power level gated by class level he can still not access the most powerful Ranger OR Wizard spells without investing the most class levels into them.

This allows for smoother caster progression while retaining the potent magic for the purists and simultaneously permits spellcasting Class Features to exist that other spellcasters can dip into (omg casters dipping into other casting classes?!) to access those features. This is already how Sorcerers function and they are a popular dip, especially since Metamagic works on any spell, even non-sorcerer spell lists. I can see numerous class features that function similarly in each spellcasting class that can be inherited by practitioners of a different kind of magic. Clerics and Paladins have Divinity and we can utilize that in new ways to enhance casting such as imbuing one's touch or aura with spells, changing their targeting requirements. Druids and Rangers may benefit from imbuing weapons or claws with their magic, changing the spells to fire on the next attack. Sorcerers and Warlocks may benefit from their unique flavors of casting, some of which already transfer to other classes.

These are merely thoughts based on my own research and goals. The system I'm constructing is primarily D6-oriented and I needed a better way to handle customization.

Edea

2020-08-29, 08:39 AM

There's also a sort-of 4e paradigm to consider: instead of getting your archetype, you could get multiclass benefits.

The problem with that one is that all the classes get their archetype bonuses at different levels, which I HATE, so things would need to be re-worked in a way that all the base classes have the same archetype progression (I vote "5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th").

There's also exchanging certain ASIs for certain class features (in the case of a feature like Spellcasting, exchanging ALL of them), but that can get just as sticky balance-wise as what we've got, now.

MrStabby

2020-08-29, 08:53 AM

I think to really make it work there needs to be a pretty huge se of changes. A few of the obstacles are:

1) big boosts in power at certain levels. If you are a multiclass fighter druid 2/3 then you suck compared to a character that has just got their extra attack or 3rd level spells. If you are playing a campaign accross levels 4 to 8 then trying to play a character with elements of both classes is frustrating - either you don't have both classes and you have a sudden shift in the character deep into the campaign or you play something pretty underpowered.

2) Spells scale too much in power at high levels. If you have 8th level sorcerer spells is it better to also get 1st level cleric spells or to get 9th level sorcerer spells? Lowering, just a little, the rate of increase in power would help.

3) The rewards of flexibility are too little and spell classes are too broad. Too many casters can do too much, such that a new class adds too little to the problems they can solve. A wizard has spells that does damage so doesnt need fighter levels for example. Making classes narrower would allow for more value to being able to do something from a different class. Making spells outside of the core role of the class weaker would encourage branching out. This could be as simple as saves: any good cleric spells tending to target strength and charisma saves, good wizard spells target constitution and intelligence and so on.

4) looser fluff on classes so multiclass just feels like a broad character not two separate ones joined together. If I want to play a cleric wizard I dont want it to feel like a cleric and a wizard - I probably want one or the other as a feel, but of a kind that has access to the composite spell list.

5) some thoughts into main action types and giving class related boosts. Martials multiclass more because the attack action is common... therefore any ability that interacts with this will have as much synergy outside of the class as in it. I think a few more abilities like War Magic, Magical Ambush etc. Would help some multiclassing between casters and martials. I think sorcerer is the most common caster MC I see arguably because metamagic interacts so well with abilities from other classes. I think the obvious addition is more things like grapples- a use skill action, such that different classes could give different types of boost that could interact with different skills available from different classes. Of course this might need some background revisions to be made to keep some exclusive and tied to more than just a low level dip.

Hytheter

2020-08-29, 09:04 AM

Oh yeah, a more realistic way to encourage deeper multiclasses would be to add feats that tie classes together. 3.5 had some feats like that IIRC. Something like if you have at least 4 levels in both Rogue and Monk you can sneak attack with your fists and get some extra SA dice.

Kyutaru

2020-08-29, 09:26 AM

There's also exchanging certain ASIs for certain class features (in the case of a feature like Spellcasting, exchanging ALL of them), but that can get just as sticky balance-wise as what we've got, now.
Could work if more ASIs are added, like every level grants ASIs, and you simply purchase whatever class features you want at each level up based on the class you are selecting. Higher tier class features would need more class levels as a prerequisite to purchase or maybe even more ASIs. Alternatively you can forego ASIs and just become a super-strong Herculean superhuman. It's an experiment worth trying.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-08-29, 09:55 AM

My grumpy and probably unpopular take:

I'd remove it entirely. And then add in a bunch more "multiclass" feats like Martial Adept and Magical Initiate. Letting you get some of the flavor without juggling builds. If you really want to be generous, give everyone their choice of one of those (plus some "pure class" feats) at first level.

And then also add in a bunch more archetypes. You want to be a "Paladin who made a Pact"? Here's a modified Oath for you (Oath of Obesence?). You want to be a sorcerer with an Oath? Here's a modified Origin for you. Etc.

A chunk of the time, multiclass builds are traps. Most of the rest of the time, they're very strong (especially dips). To me, that sounds like a feature that would be really hard to balance. And now you have to consider every single other class combination when making a new one, so your balance problems go exponential.

As for front-loading, I like it. I want people getting their "main", "class-defining" abilities early. By level 3 at the latest, and then continuing to build on them. Most games don't go to high levels. So if you don't get the "good stuff" by level 5 or so, you're likely not getting it or only getting it right at the end.

Edit: I'm not particularly fond of super granular class systems, because it kind of misses the point. If you want granular, you don't want a class/level system. The two work together poorly. This is a complaint I have about Pathfinder 2e--it's like they want a point-buy system but want to hide it under the cloak of a class/level system. Neither one is bad, but the design constraints are quite different and should be respected. I want classes that have a strong identity. A "class fiction" to which the players can lean into and focus their choices on personality and personalization within the world, not making a slew of mechanical picks, most of which will inevitably be poor choices. That's the lesson from a lot of MMOs that tried heavy talent trees--it turns out that information gets around and most of those talents end up being (relative) traps that no one (except naive newbies) ever picks. Which is both new-player unfriendly and a waste of developer effort.

Grod_The_Giant

2020-08-29, 10:02 AM

Maybe some theurge-type prestige option? Take X levels of class 1, x levels of class 2, and your remaining levels progress the base class features of both simultaneously?

Amechra

2020-08-29, 10:42 AM

One pretty ambitious idea I've been tinkering with lately is...

Strip classes down to 14 levels. Basically, delete levels 4, 5, 8, 12, 16, and 19 from all of the classes. In rare cases (like the Monk) where they have a feature other than Ability Score Increase at 4th level... I dunno, shove that somewhere else?
As you're leveling, you gain class features in whatever classes you want at levels 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20.
At the levels where you'd normally get an Ability Score Increase for a single-class character, you get an Ability Score Increase instead of more class features.
At 5th level, you gain the 5th level features of any class you have at least two levels in. You're a martial character? Congrats, you have Extra Attack, allowing you to actually participate in Tier 2 combat!
Spellcasting... eh, I'm still working on that.

Basically, the idea is that certain features (like, say, Extra Attack) are basically required by martial characters after a certain level, and that tying ability score increases to class level really punishes you for multiclassing "wrong". If I, for example, built a Barbarian 3/Fighter 5, I've delayed my first ASI and Extra Attack by 3 levels, meaning that I'm effectively still fighting like a slightly more versatile Tier 1 character until the middle of Tier 2.

It's pretty crude, though, and it really needs more fiddling to be workable. Spellcasting has a lot of "wait, do I want it to work that way?"

Tanarii

2020-08-29, 11:09 AM

Reintroduce the rule that your levels have to be within 1 of each other, or you take a -20% XP penalty. But without favored classes.

Warwick

2020-08-29, 11:41 AM

BloodSnake'sCha

2020-08-29, 12:09 PM

Reintroduce the rule that your levels have to be within 1 of each other, or you take a -20% XP penalty. But without favored classes.

Wasn't it one of the most hated rules in 3.5e that most of the tables ignore?

Tanarii

2020-08-29, 12:37 PM

Wasn't it one of the most hated rules in 3.5e that most of the tables ignore?
I definitely should have made that blue text :smallamused:

Yakk

2020-08-29, 12:49 PM

* The level of spells you have access to is determined by your class level plus 1/2 of other class levels. This can no more than double your class level, and cannot give you access to spells higher than you have slots.

* If you gain a 2nd or later extra attack(2) you simply gain features from 1 higher level in the class.

* When you gain a 5th level in *any* combination of extra attack(2) core classes, you gain an extra attack and that class features are delayed one level.

* Subclass extra attack instead bumps a main class feature, even if you got it later.

* EB is one blast (1d10/2d10/3d10/4d10 force).

* Warlocks gain the ability to split any spell attack cantrip as a class festure at 5/11/17 (2,3,4). Same total dice, more attacks.

* AB applies to all cantrip damage

* Pact of the Blade lets you convert ranged spell attacks to melee spell attacks when wielding the pact weapon. You add 1/2 str (or dex with finess weapon) rounded up to damage.

* Hexblade replaces cha-to-attack with +cha/2 (round up) to damage, and same to hit only if weapon not magical, on weapon attacks. If weapon already magical, +1 to hit.

* "Back 10" of every class given better features. No more phoning it in.

So a cleric 8/wizard 12 has 9th level wizard spells and 7th level cleric spells and full slots.

CTurbo

2020-08-29, 01:17 PM

I don't have the answer, but I feel like multiclassing should be HARDER not easier. As it stands, nearly everyone prefers multiclassing to staying in a single class and I really don't like that.

MrStabby

2020-08-29, 01:44 PM

I don't have the answer, but I feel like multiclassing should be HARDER not easier. As it stands, nearly everyone prefers multiclassing to staying in a single class and I really don't like that.

Wow. This is unexpected. I see about 80% of characters single classes.

Compared to other optional rules, I see feats used on about 80% of characters that get to level 4 or higher.

cutlery

2020-08-29, 01:48 PM

* When you gain a 5th level in *any* combination of extra attack(2) core classes, you gain an extra attack and that class features are delayed one level.

Not a terrible idea, but this opens the door to bizarre fighter2/pal2/ranger1 stuff for 3 2 fighting styles, action surge, and divine smite.

Wow. This is unexpected. I see about 80% of characters single classes.

I see it a bunch, with the caveat that it is far more rare for newer players.

If all multiclasses were as tricky as EK/wiz or monk/cleric there'd be less of it, but the pile of charisma casters just ruin everything.

Tanarii

2020-08-29, 02:05 PM

Wow. This is unexpected. I see about 80% of characters single classes.

Compared to other optional rules, I see feats used on about 80% of characters that get to level 4 or higher.
Do you play in AL? I remember mc 1 or 2 dips being extremely common, as well all the common switch after 5-7 builds, Paladin & Sorc/Lock, EK/AT & Wizard, Ranger & Druid, etc.

I couldn't really hazard a guess at a percentage, but in the hazy mists of my memory it seemed like more than 1 in 5. But that could just be perception bias.

--------

Speaking of level 5 or so then switch to secondary stat's primary class, I don't think I ever saw a Monk 5 -> Cleric N.

Amechra

2020-08-29, 02:09 PM

Not a terrible idea, but this opens the door to bizarre fighter2/pal2/ranger1 stuff for 3 2 fighting styles, action surge, and divine smite.

I mean, that would require you to have Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma at 13+, which is pretty harsh, especially when you're missing out on an ASI.

Speaking of level 5 or so then switch to secondary stat's primary class, I don't think I ever saw a Monk 5 -> Cleric N.

I think that's mostly because Monks are generally really thirsty for ki, especially if you're playing the stereotypical "use flurry of blows/stunning strike all the time" Monk. In general, a Monk multiclass is going to involve dipping other classes, not the other way around.

It does make me wish that there were fewer "unique" resources. It'd be interesting if, say, Sorcery Points and Ki were the same thing, because then you could multiclass between the two of them more easily, or design feats that care about you having "Ki" without making them class-specific.

cutlery

2020-08-29, 02:26 PM

I mean, that would require you to have Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma at 13+, which is pretty harsh, especially when you're missing out on an ASI.

It is, but reduced versions of that are fine; a pal2/fighter3, say - and that's a problem, especially if later extra attacks stack, And what would a fighter 5/paladin 5 get? Aura of Protection and the 6th fighter level ASI?

* "Back 10" of every class given better features. No more phoning it in.

This is what it would really take, but conflicts with the design goal of giving most classes their basic toolkits by level 3 or 4. Level 11, 14, and 18 abilities would all need to be pretty strong. They should be pretty strong since they fill the same space as level 5-level 9 spells - but that hasn't ever really been the case, without some rare exceptions (monks, paladins).

At least it isn't as bad as 11-20 was for a fighter in 3/3.5; man that was awful.

OldTrees1

2020-08-29, 02:28 PM

I don't have the answer, but I feel like multiclassing should be HARDER not easier. As it stands, nearly everyone prefers multiclassing to staying in a single class and I really don't like that.

Multiclassing is prefered because high level single class is lacking features. Making multiclassing harder will not solve the root of that problem. For me Paladin is the best designed 5E class (in that I value every level from 1-14) and it ends at 14th level. Having more fleshed out levels for 15-20 would encourage me to stick with the single class rather than multiclassing at 15th. Notice how the choice would be at 15th? Paladin, by having attractive features, competes with multiclassing for most of the 20 levels. That is why I don't think multiclassing should be made harder.

* EB is one blast (1d10/2d10/3d10/4d10 force).

* Warlocks gain the ability to split any spell attack cantrip as a class feature at 5/11/17 (2,3,4). Same total dice, more attacks.

* AB applies to all cantrip damage

Interesting refactoring. Perhaps change it to splitting any offensive cantrip. Create Bonfire would create 1-4 bonfires. Same total dice, more potential targets.

* "Back 10" of every class given better features. No more phoning it in.

YES. All the YES.
I think even casters get lackluster features due to the diminishing spell slots for high level. So you can get away with improving the back 10 on every class.

Dienekes

2020-08-29, 02:39 PM

I don't have the answer, but I feel like multiclassing should be HARDER not easier. As it stands, nearly everyone prefers multiclassing to staying in a single class and I really don't like that.

Personally, I prefer to look at it as: I wish there was more reason to want to take one class from 1 to 20 without being tempted to look to other classes.

The back half of a lot of classes are really dull.

TigerT20

2020-08-29, 02:46 PM

I mean, that would require you to have Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, and Charisma at 13+, which is pretty harsh, especially when you're missing out on an ASI.

I think that's mostly because Monks are generally really thirsty for ki, especially if you're playing the stereotypical "use flurry of blows/stunning strike all the time" Monk. In general, a Monk multiclass is going to involve dipping other classes, not the other way around.

It does make me wish that there were fewer "unique" resources. It'd be interesting if, say, Sorcery Points and Ki were the same thing, because then you could multiclass between the two of them more easily, or design feats that care about you having "Ki" without making them class-specific.

Well, then you'd have to sort the classes into groups to decide what the resources are. Do you match them by the amounts you get? Or thematics? If Bardic Inspiration, Pact Magic, Metamagic and Whizz Casting (ok, that actually sounds interesting) all used the same resource, you'd see everyone dipping Sorceror to get those yummy one point a level (unless Wizards got more per level), making warlock multiclassing even more insane.

Or, like you said, we could match Ki with Sorcery Points. This now leaves the question of 'why do people who sit on top of mountains and stick their hands in fire ant nests use the same energy source as people who have some form of blessing on their bloodline causing it to be magical (most often from being the great x5 grandson of a dragon)

cutlery

2020-08-29, 03:01 PM

Or, like you said, we could match Ki with Sorcery Points. This now leaves the question of 'why do people who sit on top of mountains and stick their hands in fire ant nests use the same energy source as people who have some form of blessing on their bloodline causing it to be magical (most often from being the great x5 grandson of a dragon)

Also, the question of why a person who spends half their time sitting on mountains playing with ants can cast about as many quickened spells per day as a person who spends all their time doing whatever it is people with dragon blood do.

Or; why a person who spends half their time thinking about dragon blood can flurry of blows as many times (or more times, they can convert slots to points!) per day as a person that devotes their whole career to focusing ki.

Amechra

2020-08-29, 03:16 PM

Well, then you'd have to sort the classes into groups to decide what the resources are. Do you match them by the amounts you get? Or thematics? If Bardic Inspiration, Pact Magic, Metamagic and Whizz Casting (ok, that actually sounds interesting) all used the same resource, you'd see everyone dipping Sorceror to get those yummy one point a level (unless Wizards got more per level), making warlock multiclassing even more insane.

Or, like you said, we could match Ki with Sorcery Points. This now leaves the question of 'why do people who sit on top of mountains and stick their hands in fire ant nests use the same energy source as people who have some form of blessing on their bloodline causing it to be magical (most often from being the great x5 grandson of a dragon)

Ki/Sorcery Points both represent internal mastery. It'd obviously have a different name, but the story of "my monastic training lets me draw additional potential from my magical blood" is pretty wuxia, honestly.

The idea is that you'd have, like, 3-4 types of simple resources that classes can potentially run off of. Maybe you'd have an "adrenaline" resource that Barbarians would burn to go into a Rage while Fighters turn it into Action Surges. Maybe you have a Faith resource that Clerics and Paladins use for Channel Divinity and Warlocks use for Pact Magic. Maybe Bards and Rogues use the Inspiration subsystem, but actually make it functional, instead of something that people forget about. Stuff like that.

I mean, we already have a set of classes that kinda-arbitrarily share a resource - there's no reason why, say, Clerics and Wizards have to use the same system while casting spells. However, that lets you make feats like Warcaster or Elemental Adept and have them work for any spellcaster.

...

This is obviously something you'd have to rewrite huge chunks of the classes for, so take this with a grain of salt.

Aimeryan

2020-08-29, 03:34 PM

Multiclassing is prefered because high level single class is lacking features. Making multiclassing harder will not solve the root of that problem. For me Paladin is the best designed 5E class (in that I value every level from 1-14) and it ends at 14th level. Having more fleshed out levels for 15-20 would encourage me to stick with the single class rather than multiclassing at 15th. Notice how the choice would be at 15th? Paladin, by having attractive features, competes with multiclassing for most of the 20 levels. That is why I don't think multiclassing should be made harder.

...

YES. All the YES.
I think even casters get lackluster features due to the diminishing spell slots for high level. So you can get away with improving the back 10 on every class.

Agreed. I love multiclassing and dips; they are fun and then engage me far more greatly in what the game has to offer - I would probably never pick 5e up again if multiclassing was out. Dips are very important too; I don't want to have a dead area of 5 or so levels before interesting things happen again - there has to be interesting stuff on offer in the first few levels.

If single class had a lot more of interest to offer I wouldn't say no. I will say no to taking away multiclass, though - which is what 90% of this thread has been about.

Tanarii

2020-08-29, 04:01 PM

I think that's mostly because Monks are generally really thirsty for ki, especially if you're playing the stereotypical "use flurry of blows/stunning strike all the time" Monk. In general, a Monk multiclass is going to involve dipping other classes, not the other way around.
Yup. More to the point, it's the only one I listed that doesn't start with 1/2 or 1/3 casting, then stack full casting on top of that.

Amechra

2020-08-29, 04:57 PM

Yup. More to the point, it's the only one I listed that doesn't start with 1/2 or 1/3 casting, then stack full casting on top of that.

It'd be so much better if Monks had a third-caster subclass.

Tanarii

2020-08-29, 05:04 PM

It'd be so much better if Monks had a third-caster subclass.
Eh. They totally could have done it. But this way, the monk can choose to be up to 2/3 caster depending on their needs. And it refreshes in a more or less balanced way on a short rest.

Not to say there isn't room for improvement. At the very least, replacing Elemental Attunement with a elemental cantrip and letting them pick up a new one each time they pick a new ability. Giving them more Ki or reducing the cost wouldn't be balanced at all though. If you're determined to give them moar magic on top of Ki, it pretty much would have to come from a separate pool.

Pex

2020-08-29, 06:27 PM

Step 1) Get over it people like to dip. It's their character, not yours, even if you're the DM. Enjoying game mechanics is of equal value to everything else that makes the game fun to play.

Step 2) Improve high level features so that players want them. Make it a tough choice to multiclass or stay single class, but once the decision is made the player doesn't regret it because he gets cool stuff.

Step 3) Realize there are spells that do well when upcast, and you don't absolutely need high level spells when multiclassing spellcasters. Casting Force Cage is excellent, but you are not The Suck might as well go home if you can never cast it due to multiclassing. Your fun for this character is in the multiclassing. If you really want to cast Force Cage next time stay single class. You are never wrong no matter which way you go.

Step 4) Let Extra Attack stack. Since you're improving high level features Fighters are getting something cool. A Martial 5/Fighter 5 gets three attacks, but he doesn't have Level 10 Cool Martial Feature or Level 10 Cool Fighter Feature. Level 11 Fighter will sting the other character got a third attack a level sooner, so he can have something Cool in addition to his third attack or maybe not and just suck it up because his Level 10 Feature was Cool Enough.

Step 5) Realize Steps 2 and 4 require 5.5E or 6E, so homebrew your own and/or wait and hope giving input when WOTC asks for feedback.

Tanarii

2020-08-29, 06:51 PM

Step 2) Improve high level features so that players want them. Make it a tough choice to multiclass or stay single class, but once the decision is made the player doesn't regret it because he gets cool stuff.

Yeah. The problem as it stands now is some classes are a tough choice (mostly but not exclusively full casters), but others are loaded with low level goodies (mostly but not exclusively martials).

One thing they did right initially is put Extra Attack 5 (or six for Valor Bards) levels deep. Unfortunately then they released the SCAG cantrips.

Even though I'm not a fan of multiclassing in general, 5 to get extra attack, maybe 6 for the next thing, then starting caster for the rest just doesnt trigger my Tyrannical DM(TM) instincts the way others do.

Aimeryan

2020-08-30, 06:21 AM

Yeah. The problem as it stands now is some classes are a tough choice (mostly but not exclusively full casters), but others are loaded with low level goodies (mostly but not exclusively martials).

The front-loading is not the problem with only taking a few levels in a class; it is the lack of stuff afterwards. If you take away the low-level stuff the class becomes much duller. You can give it back later, but that just means you play a duller class until then. Why do this? If, instead, you give more (interesting) stuff at higher levels as well, then the class become more interesting.

The reason classes are not that exciting after the first few levels is either '5e SimplicityTM' or lazy devs - personally, I find those two things to be the same thing.

Man_Over_Game

2020-08-31, 10:24 AM

I think dipping should be fine - there is an initial cost to it from multiclassing requirements - but I do think that the scaling of multiclassed features does need to be addressed.

Dipping generates a power spike with a few short levels, due to the shear power of things like the Shield spell, Eldritch Blast with two invocations, or Divine Smite. But it's not like taking more Paladin levels is really going to improve Divine Smite all that much.

One thing I really like about the Sorcerer is how the Sorcery Point and Metamagic system makes for a very organic multiclass foundation:

Can't cast a spell and attack in the same turn? No problem, Quicken Spell.
Want to spice up your Spy's shenanigans? Just cast it without needing any components or words.
Need to reorganize your spell slots? Convert them into Sorcery Points and back again.

What's better about it than something like Divine Smite is that Divine Smite isn't improved with Paladin levels, while Sorcery Points/Metamagics are. This means that you feel like you're specializing into your multiclass with more Sorcerer levels, while more Paladin levels just make you feel more like a...Paladin.

Sure, the Paladin is a stronger dip from an optimization perspective, but the Sorcerer was much better designed for the sake of multiclassing and consistency.

Something similar could be done with other classes, using something like a Multiclass Feature system, where you gain a boon based on the lowest level being referenced for those multiclass bonuses. Just some ideas of what I mean:
Barbarian + Caster = Cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action at the same time that you initiate or end your Rage on your turn. You have Advantage on Concentration Checks while you Rage. The spell slot spent for the spell can be no higher than your total Caster levels or your Barbarian level.
Rogue + Caster = When you would deal Sneak Attack damage, you may instead cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action as a Bonus Action on that same target, or the space they are occupying, as long as the spell slot is no greater than the number of dice for your Sneak Attack.

These specific examples might be too strong, but it's just meant to showcase what could be done to make it so that you feel justified when doing something crazy like a Barbarian/Cleric hybrid.

Kyutaru

2020-08-31, 12:06 PM

I think dipping should be fine - there is an initial cost to it from multiclassing requirements - but I do think that the scaling of multiclassed features does need to be addressed.I recently looked into the Pathfinder 2 rulebook and found they have scaling features by proficiency level, something that is mostly tied to class advancement. So Weapon Specialization isn't just +2 but improves to +4 or +6 as you invest class levels. This all in a system that only permits single classes in the first place.

As for initial class investments, it's always struck me as odd that a few days killing bats is the equivalent of years of training to get that 1st class level. If you go nuts taking 1 level in every class then your character is somehow mastering the basics of every vocation in the span of a few years. Multiclassing truly lacks that initial hump that serves as a detriment for people looking to become versatile. Imagine if you could become a doctor 4/lawyer 1 without having to go back to college for a new round of training and debt. If nothing else, it should require a heavy investment in capital and the seeking of a trainer but ideally it costs you some sort of build resource because attribute requirements are too overlapping.

Something similar could be done with other classes, using something like a Multiclass Feature system, where you gain a boon based on the lowest level being referenced for those multiclass bonuses.
Pathfinder 2 has something like this with archetype feats since multiclassing isn't permitted. I'm not a fan but it's another way to add depth to single class systems.

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-31, 12:29 PM

Telwar

2020-08-31, 01:30 PM

I truly enjoyed 4e's multiclassing; a feat expenditure gave you a feature of that class, and you counted as that class for feats and paragon paths/epic destinies. It and PF2 are in the same basic vein; I suspect there will be more people taking PF2 archetypes, proportionately, than took the extra feats to swap out class powers from 4e.

For 5e, a lot of the problem is that you have more class levels to spend than feats, RAW. So between the paucity of feats and lots of class levels, it makes more sense to slap on another class sometimes rather than use a feat, since you're probably going to get more out of the other class level than a feat.

Now, the DM can give out more feats, and can make more up, but given the vase 5e design, and needing to have stuff front loaded into a class so it feels like a class, it's going to be very hard to discourage multiclassing without a DM fiat.

Man_Over_Game

2020-08-31, 02:00 PM

I'm no game designer, but the most important point for me is that "dipping" shouldn't be a thing. I really hate the very concept to my core. In my ideal, a "multiclass" character would be half one thing, half the other.

I've always been a little confused. Why is there so much hate for Dipping?

Does it feel like cheating? Like it's a powergaming move? That you should only level into something when it fits your concept thematically?

Does it make a difference when a Paladin takes a level into Hexblade, compared to a Barbarian taking a level into Rogue? Does Sorcerer/Warlock have the same concerns?

Kyutaru

2020-08-31, 02:13 PM

KorvinStarmast

2020-08-31, 02:22 PM

I'm looking for different ideas to improve multiclassing.
You looking for a hard rule?
Make Warlock an INT based caster.

Xervous

2020-08-31, 02:23 PM

I've always been a little confused. Why is there so much hate for Dipping?

Does it feel like cheating? Like it's a powergaming move? That you should only level into something when it fits your concept thematically?

Does it make a difference when a Paladin takes a level into Hexblade, compared to a Barbarian taking a level into Rogue? Does Sorcerer/Warlock have the same concerns?

It’s the non obvious improvement that can drastically shift the scope and playing field of a system. Some people might deem those unintended mechanics like Source bunny hopping, clever use of dark souls animation priority, smash bros wave dashing, brood war mutalisk stacking, etc. They have their vision of how the game should be, generally a lens of how it is superficially presented, and anything to the contrary may find its way to the reject bin.

Dips that present themselves as overwhelmingly beneficial can shift the baseline of power in ways that some GMs just don’t want to deal with. It may not be the mindset that dippers are all filthy munchkins, but the very presence of dipping means they have to consider a lot more combinations. It may be the fact that it asks them to expend more effort to gauge and handle the character that they resent.

Kyutaru

2020-08-31, 02:34 PM

I'll be honest, that reasoning seems a bit silly, when 5e is open about theming things towards your preference. You could have your Wizard spells be alchemical explosives, or a Barbarian be some kind of Werewolf.
You realize my argument had nothing to do with theming right? It's purely about the math and mechanics. Or as you put it "Paladins dipping into Hexblade for some cheesewhiz Charisma stacking and constant Divine Smites and moar and moar damage."

Paladin 18/Warlock 2 isn't a Paladin/Warlock. It's just a Paladin with charisma abuse from a non-class feature.

Man_Over_Game

2020-08-31, 02:40 PM

You realize my argument had nothing to do with theming right? It's purely about the math and mechanics. Or as you put it "Paladins dipping into Hexblade for some cheesewhiz Charisma stacking and constant Divine Smites and moar and moar damage."

Paladin 18/Warlock 2 isn't a Paladin/Warlock. It's just a Paladin with charisma abuse from a non-class feature.

Sorry about that, was in the middle of a PM with someone else on the topic, must have gotten my tabs swapped around!

Thinking about it, you guys are right. There are a lot of examples of dipping abuse:

Take 1 level of Rogue to be just as good at skills as that Rogue.
Take 1 level into Cleric for their Domain powers and excellent proficiencies.
Take 1 level of Barbarian for most of the Rages you'd need for a day that scale into any level.
Etc.

It's a weird problem of making sure your early features are as relevant as your old ones, that your early features define what your playstyle will be for all later levels (so it will eventually need to scale), trying to keep things simple (as doing something like "half damage" is easier to work with than "reduce damage equal to your level"), and making sure those low level features don't scale on their own.

If I were to put the solution simply, it'd mean making Shield grant THP instead of AC. Still usable at later levels, but its usefulness scales with how expensive it is (so it's less useful the smaller level 1 spell slots feel).

clash

2020-08-31, 03:46 PM

I would make multi-classing cost more but be more effective than it currently is to make dips harder and 10/10 level builds more viable. To that end my suggested changes:
* You can only multi-class 2 classes. Anything else feels like exploiting mechanics rather than building a theme.
* Stats are not required to multiclass. Instead each class requires the following to multiclass into:
* Each class with weapon or armor proficiencies requires at least 1 proficiency below what you gain from multiclassing into it. Fighter for example requires light armor proficiency and proficiency in simple weapons to enter it.
* Each full caster class requires the ability to cast at least one spell of first level or higher available to that class's spell list to multiclass into it.
* Rogue requires thieves tool proficiencies or at least 5 skill proficiencies
* Monks required improved unarmed strike to multi into
* In return though when multiclassing you get:
* If you get unarmored defense from more than 1 source you can choose which combination of 2 stats applies from the given 3
* If you gain extra attack when you already have it you instead get an additional +1d8 damage on all attacks or 4 superiority dice/short rest and 3 manuevers known
* Each time a multiclass spellcaster levels up they can choose which class to advance the spells known/prepared in. This can result in multiclass spellcasters gaining spells of a higher level than they have class levels in that particular class at the cost of being lower than normal spell levels known in the other class.

Just some ideas off the top of my head

Dienekes

2020-08-31, 04:00 PM

Sorry about that, was in the middle of a PM with someone else on the topic, must have gotten my tabs swapped around!

Thinking about it, you guys are right. There are a lot of examples of dipping abuse:

Take 1 level of Rogue to be just as good at skills as that Rogue.
Take 1 level into Cleric for their Domain powers and excellent proficiencies.
Take 1 level of Barbarian for most of the Rages you'd need for a day that scale into any level.
Etc.

It's a weird problem of making sure your early features are as relevant as your old ones, that your early features define what your playstyle will be for all later levels (so it will eventually need to scale), trying to keep things simple (as doing something like "half damage" is easier to work with than "reduce damage equal to your level"), and making sure those low level features don't scale on their own.

If I were to put the solution simply, it'd mean making Shield grant THP instead of AC. Still usable at later levels, but its usefulness scales with how expensive it is (so it's less useful the smaller level 1 spell slots feel).

I’m curious if it would have been possible to design so percentage based scaling features are not handed out at levels 1-3.

To take the Barbarian example, what if Rage level 1 reduced damage by 2. It’s simple, easy. Actually still really good at early levels but by about 4ish starts to be insignificant.
Then when we reach Tier 2 with 5 or 6 we get the Rage Upgrade that gives Resistance to damage. Then it becomes an investment. And would still be seen as a really powerful upgrade because it still is.

But the designers would have to keep a decently strict curtail on these scaling abilities. Though that does bring up the thought that you could have scaling unlock at 5.

For example take something like Expertise. At level 1 it’s just a +2 to a skill. At 5th level, when it would naturally increase to a +3, having Improved Expertise: Your Expertise bonus now scales with your proficiency bonus.

It doesn’t fix everything, but it’s a start. And a pretty decent guide to identifying and altering problem abilities. At least ones that aren’t overtuned spells. Those will probably need to be solved on an individual basis.

Man_Over_Game

2020-08-31, 04:17 PM

I’m curious if it would have been possible to design so percentage based scaling features are not handed out at levels 1-3.

To take the Barbarian example, what if Rage level 1 reduced damage by 2. It’s simple, easy. Actually still really good at early levels but by about 4ish starts to be insignificant.
Then when we reach Tier 2 with 5 or 6 we get the Rage Upgrade that gives Resistance to damage. Then it becomes an investment. And would still be seen as a really powerful upgrade because it still is.

But the designers would have to keep a decently strict curtail on these scaling abilities. Though that does bring up the thought that you could have scaling unlock at 5.

For example take something like Expertise. At level 1 it’s just a +2 to a skill. At 5th level, when it would naturally increase to a +3, having Improved Expertise: Your Expertise bonus now scales with your proficiency bonus.

It doesn’t fix everything, but it’s a start. And a pretty decent guide to identifying and altering problem abilities. At least ones that aren’t overtuned spells. Those will probably need to be solved on an individual basis.

It's not a bad idea, although I'd push the percentage-based powers out to level 8 or so, and mostly only apply them to Martials. Casters already have a major scaling power that counts for their combat and utility prowess through spells; you already have a reason to pump more levels into your Sorcerer half as a Paladin, as either direction results in a trade-off.

Martials, however, start to quickly plateau after level 5 or so, and some percentage-based powers shortly after that would probably see a bit more straight-leveled characters.

Edea

2020-08-31, 04:23 PM

Should it be easier for some classes to multiclass than others?

Not even sure how that would be implemented, but I can see a pure martial having a much easier time of it than a full spellcaster.

Man_Over_Game

2020-08-31, 04:32 PM

Should it be easier for some classes to multiclass than others?

Not even sure how that would be implemented, but I can see a pure martial having a much easier time of it than a full spellcaster.

I mean, that's basically what we have now, it just happens to be by accident. Martials can pretty much level however the hell they want together, as long as two non-Rogue classes don't have more than 5 levels into each other.

For example:

Ranger 4, Fighter 10, Rogue 6. That'd be a perfectly acceptable character. "Optimizing" it wouldn't really necessitate changing much of anything.

CTurbo

2020-08-31, 04:35 PM

Wow. This is unexpected. I see about 80% of characters single classes.

Compared to other optional rules, I see feats used on about 80% of characters that get to level 4 or higher.

It seems to me that the older 5e gets, the more prevalent multiclassing is. In my real life groups, I'd say around 80-90% of characters played are multiclassed. Yeah most of them are just dips but still. Also, when I'm looking online on here when somebody asks for help with a character idea, nearly every single response is some multiclass concoction, and I'm guilty of it myself.

Multiclassing is prefered because high level single class is lacking features. Making multiclassing harder will not solve the root of that problem. For me Paladin is the best designed 5E class (in that I value every level from 1-14) and it ends at 14th level. Having more fleshed out levels for 15-20 would encourage me to stick with the single class rather than multiclassing at 15th. Notice how the choice would be at 15th? Paladin, by having attractive features, competes with multiclassing for most of the 20 levels. That is why I don't think multiclassing should be made harder.

I actually think that Paladins are the best designs class in 5e as well as the most powerful from top to bottom, and unlike most other classes, I do believe that Paladin had very "interesting" features from 15-20. The level 15 and 20 Oath features vary of course, but they're pretty much all interesting and powerful IMO. ASIs/feats and level 16 and 19 are generic, but for a MAD class like the Paladin, are very strong. Improved Auras at level 18 takes possibly the strongest single class feature in the entire game and makes it much MUCH better.

Personally, I prefer to look at it as: I wish there was more reason to want to take one class from 1 to 20 without being tempted to look to other classes.

The back half of a lot of classes are really dull.

I do agree that in most cases, the back half of the class features should be stronger and more interesting. As it is, most classes are way front loaded so it makes more since from a power gaming standpoint to multiclass. There SHOULD be more reason to stay single class.

I know that a lot of multiclassing comes from people who have played a lot and from the start. Myself included. I've already played so many single class character, I'm guilty of looking for some fun combination in my next character just to try to keep things fresh.

OldTrees1

2020-08-31, 05:18 PM

I'm no game designer, but the most important point for me is that "dipping" shouldn't be a thing. I really hate the very concept to my core. In my ideal, a "multiclass" character would be half one thing, half the other.

A 1:1 split? Why only that ratio? Why not a 2:1 split? or a 3:2 split?

What about low levels? At 5th level multiclassing 2 levels is a 3:2 split and multiclassing 1 level is a 4:1 split.

What about character growth? A guild thief that gave up that life to become a paladin could be a Criminal Paladin or a Criminal Rogue 3 / Paladin X depending on how long before their life changing decision. Or what about a Eldritch Knight that decided to devote themselves even further to their magical studies. They might go Eldritch Knight 5 / Wizard X.

I believe a good game design principle here would be to make the options comparably attractive. This means you will see less "dips" because even splits and single classes would both be quite attractive. Even if someone tries to do a 1 level dip, they will have the temptation to grow it to 2 levels, 3, 4, 6, 10. This can easily cause an intended "dip" to become a 2:1 multiclass.

Strangely enough Warlock is well designed at this, if you take 1 level it is quite tempting to take the 2nd, and 3rd, and 4th, and 5th levels. Before you know it you are ____ 13 / Warlock 7.

I actually think that Paladins are the best designs class in 5e as well as the most powerful from top to bottom, and unlike most other classes, I do believe that Paladin had very "interesting" features from 15-20. The level 15 and 20 Oath features vary of course, but they're pretty much all interesting and powerful IMO. ASIs/feats and level 16 and 19 are generic, but for a MAD class like the Paladin, are very strong. Improved Auras at level 18 takes possibly the strongest single class feature in the entire game and makes it much MUCH better.

I am glad you find 15-20 interesting. Here are my views on those features. This is not meant to contradict or detract from your perspective. Merely an explanation for the difference in perspective.

In descending order:
Level 17 gives 5th level spells. This has potential, but I did not see any that struck my fancy. I can make due with Revivify rather than pick Raise Dead. I was hoping for Greater Restoration, despite that being many levels late. But the 14th level Cleansing Touch covers some of that. Holy Weapon is the favorite child of the 5th level Paladin spells, but it is just not my style.
The ASI at 16th and 19th is the last ASIs. ASIs have diminishing returns so I cannot view the 4th ASI as more than a Tier 2 feature. A Tier 3-4 level would need more to have a level's worth of features. Alternatively some higher tier feats could be designed this level restrictions (this would reset the diminishing returns).
The 15th and 20th Oath features bore me consistently. Especially when I remember they are at 15th and 20th level. Even if there were comparable abilities that I did find interesting I would need there to be a tier 3 level's worth of features, and these are not level appropriate features by my estimate.
The 18th level expanded aura never came up when I ran my Paladin. This might be Ancients Paladin only, or even my playgroup only, but people were fine huddling close to the Paladin. I do know, from dealing with a 30ft radius magic item, that a 30ft radius effortlessly covers the entire party. I just found a 10ft radius to do the same job with a bit of effort.

Nagog

2020-08-31, 05:19 PM

Remove the spellcasting restriction on Rage, but adjust the Rage rules to being hit by an attack or hitting somebody with a Str-based attack. While this would shut the door on ranged Barbarians (Do they even exist?), it would allow for some great Sampson/Elijah vibes with a Raging Cleric or a Skald type who can buff themselves and then Rage.

Beyond that, I'd love for a way to MC a spellcaster without losing spell progression, though that would have to be a very, very delicate adjustment.

Dienekes

2020-08-31, 05:31 PM

It's not a bad idea, although I'd push the percentage-based powers out to level 8 or so, and mostly only apply them to Martials. Casters already have a major scaling power that counts for their combat and utility prowess through spells; you already have a reason to pump more levels into your Sorcerer half as a Paladin, as either direction results in a trade-off.

Martials, however, start to quickly plateau after level 5 or so, and some percentage-based powers shortly after that would probably see a bit more straight-leveled characters.

The exact level % abilities are gained are of course free to be changed in a write up. I do worry about nerfing Barbs though. They kind of rely on that damage mitigation to fuel reckless attack and just generally tanking with their usually lower AC.

I do agree that in most cases, the back half of the class features should be stronger and more interesting. As it is, most classes are way front loaded so it makes more since from a power gaming standpoint to multiclass. There SHOULD be more reason to stay single class.

I know that a lot of multiclassing comes from people who have played a lot and from the start. Myself included. I've already played so many single class character, I'm guilty of looking for some fun combination in my next character just to try to keep things fresh.

I am very probably projecting here. But I think part of the problem is not just late martial abilities are bad. But martials suffer from a lack of meaningful build choice.

What I mean is, while eventual burn out of single classes is inevitable for some people it happens slower when there are meaningful differences in builds that directly alter play patterns. A player can play a wizard a fair few times picking different subclasses and spells and they could play completely different with each build. And they could feel completely different from levels 5 to 11 because they decided to focus on different types of spells. For them it isn’t until they recognize and take the select best spells that the play becomes predictable and stale.

Whereas most martials do the same thing from 3 to 20. With almost no playstyle defining choices. It becomes predictable, stale. And they will look for those choices in other classes. Frequently dipping 1-3 levels deep to get those interesting choices for themselves.

Man_Over_Game

2020-08-31, 07:04 PM

The exact level % abilities are gained are of course free to be changed in a write up. I do worry about nerfing Barbs though. They kind of rely on that damage mitigation to fuel reckless attack and just generally tanking with their usually lower AC.

I'm not a fan of giving flat damage resistance, as it directly pushes back against Bounded Accuracy, and keeping the Monster Manual growing instead of just shifting levels.

What you could do is lose HP equal to your Barbarian level each turn and gain x3 that value as THP. Since THP doesn't stack, the Barbarian has incentive to be both aggressive (to make sure the THP doesn't stack) and cautious (since taking damage past the THP value will be bypassing Rage).

Obviously, something like this doesn't work with Bear Totem's Rage change, but it's a good example of something that could have worked.

Pex

2020-08-31, 08:27 PM

I'm not a fan of giving flat damage resistance, as it directly pushes back against Bounded Accuracy, and keeping the Monster Manual growing instead of just shifting levels.

What you could do is lose HP equal to your Barbarian level each turn and gain x3 that value as THP. Since THP doesn't stack, the Barbarian has incentive to be both aggressive (to make sure the THP doesn't stack) and cautious (since taking damage past the THP value will be bypassing Rage).

Obviously, something like this doesn't work with Bear Totem's Rage change, but it's a good example of something that could have worked.

I don't see that working. The barbarian gets a net loss of hit points. By the 4th round he lost more hit points in total than he gets in temporary hit points just for existing doing his thing plus the additional damage the enemy deals that goes beyond the THP threshold. Let's say the barbarian never gets hit. He has 15 hit points at level 1. Round 1: 14 HP 3 THP, total 17. Round 2: 13 HP 3 THP total 16. Round 3: 12 HP 3 THP , total 15. Round 4: 11 HP 3 THP, total 14. Now an orc does 9 damage each round. Doesn't have to be the same orc, but an orc. He does net 6 damage. Round 1: ends with 11 HP. Round 2 ends with 4 HP (11 hp - 1 hp + 3 thp - 9 damage). Round 3: Making death saves. Normal rage, Orc does net 4 damage. Round 1 ends with 11 HPs. Round 2: 7 hit points. Round 3: 3 hit points. Round 4: Making death saves. Your way the barbarian lost a round.

Amechra

2020-08-31, 08:53 PM

Honestly, I feel like d&d-style vancian spellcasting is an elephant in the room here. It's too much of a package deal for it to multiclass elegantly.

Compare it to, say, battlemaster maneuvers. In a vacuum, the maneuvers scale terribly. You never unlock any stronger powers - over 20 levels, you get two more uses per short rest, bump the die from a d8 to a d12, and become more versatile by picking up powers that are inherently less interesting than the ones you picked at 3rd (because if they were more interesting, you would have picked them instead). It's a recipe for a snorefest.

In actual play, however, your battlemaster definitely scales in power. Any feature you get that gives you extra attacks or more accurate attacks indirectly boosts your maneuvers, and there are a lot of them out there. Precision Strike gets better if you pick up a non-maneuver rider for your attacks (like, say, Stunning Strike or Sneak Attack). And so on and so forth.

Vancian casting... doesn't do that. If you want to get better at magic, nothing will improve your abilities more than taking two more levels in a class that gives you spellcasting. Outside of a few rare features like Action Surge or Cutting Words, any feature that improves spellcasting specifically boosts spellcasting. This is basically the opposite of how you want a feature to work if you want to enable multiclassing. A spellcaster built around multiclassing would probably look more like the Mystic or the Psi-Die than a traditional Wizard.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-08-31, 09:20 PM

Yakk

2020-08-31, 09:46 PM

Multiclassing is prefered because high level single class is lacking features. Making multiclassing harder will not solve the root of that problem. For me Paladin is the best designed 5E class (in that I value every level from 1-14) and it ends at 14th level. Having more fleshed out levels for 15-20 would encourage me to stick with the single class rather than multiclassing at 15th. Notice how the choice would be at 15th? Paladin, by having attractive features, competes with multiclassing for most of the 20 levels. That is why I don't think multiclassing should be made harder.
To be fair, Paladin 7-14 is less exciting than Paladin 1-6.

Interesting refactoring. Perhaps change it to splitting any offensive cantrip. Create Bonfire would create 1-4 bonfires. Same total dice, more potential targets.
I'd want to limit it for save spells to be 1 save per target at most.

No "I use vicious mockery 4 times on the dragon, make 4 will saves".

Twisted Magic
At 5th level, when you cast a cantrip that involves a spell attack that uses at least 2 damage dice, you can split the damage dice into 2 attacks. This increases to 3 dice/3 attacks at 11th and 4 dice/4 attacks at 17. These attacks can target the same creature more than once. When cast a cantrip that involves a saving throw, you can add additional targets (but not the same target twice) and split dice in a similar manner; 2 at level 5, 3 at level 11 and 4 at level 17. This cannot cause a creature to make two saving throws on the same turn.

Agonizing Cantrip (Invocation)
When you cast a cantrip that involves a spell attack or saving throw and it deals damage, and you aren't already adding an attribute to the damage, you can add your charisma modifier.

(Actually, just hand that out as a class feature at level 2).

OldTrees1

2020-08-31, 10:21 PM

One thing I STRONGLY want to avoid is setting the expectation for new players that multiclassing and/or "planning a build" are necessary or expected. Ideally, a new player could sit down each level up and simply choose the option that "looks good" for their broad character concept/class and be just fine, if not 100% optimal. Even if they never look ahead at all. Never think "oh, this is more powerful, but I have to prepare by..." Ideally, multiclassing should be exactly the same in spirit as it is now--a completely optional variant that you can completely disregard unless you want very particular things and are willing to put in some legwork. Not an expectation, not a standard feature of guides. In fact, I'd rather that guides be relegated to niche cases, not be a staple of character building.

I detest trap options with a burning passion. And making multiclassing more powerful and more tempting exponentially (ok, power law) increases the potential for trap options to arise--if taking level N of class X is always inferior to taking level M of class Y, then X.N is a trap. Even if it's a "no brainer" or is better only the majority of the time. And that's horrible game design. Fix class X instead of encouraging people to route around the damage.

This was the case in either 3e or 4e. 3e because there were tons of trap options and multiclassing (if only into prestige classes) was basically assumed for a large chunk of the base classes. And you had to carefully plan out your builds from level 1 to make sure you met the prereqs later on. 4e because there were so many powers and feats that weren't exactly transparent and varied wildly. For instance the Weapon Focus (IIRC that was the name) feats that were basically required to make the math work. But unless you read a guide, you'd never know that. Not so much because of multiclassing in this case however.

I think most would agree, which is why most of the suggestions are about:
1) Buffing the later levels of classes to rebalance staying in a class. Staying in a class should not be a trap option.
2) Making multiclassing more accessible to casters. Multiclassing out of a class should not be a trap option either.

However I will applaud 5E for making even the worst designed base class completely viable, in combat, from 1-20. I may see it as having dead levels but I could randomly pick a class and run it 1-20 with no look ahead and the character would do fine. Under your definition that would still be a trap option currently, however it is still a viable character regardless. I must applaud 5E for succeeding on that. Especially since that alone would greatly help or even cause us to "avoid is setting the expectation for new players that multiclassing and/or "planning a build" are necessary or expected".

To be fair, Paladin 7-14 is less exciting than Paladin 1-6.
Hmm. Let me double check that. I prefer Ancients Paladins and a support role, so my preferences may differ.
Paladin 6 > Paladin 7 or Paladin 10. These are the core of what I see in the Ancients Paladin
Paladin 9 or Paladin 13 > Paladin 5.
2nd level spells gives Lesser Restoration (covered a bit by Lay on Hands), Aid, and Locate Object.
3rd level spells gives Revivify, Remove Curse, and Aura of Vitality. I prefer the 3rd level benefits here despite coming in at twice the level.
4th level spells give Flying Find Greater Steed, Aura of Life, and Death Ward. Find Greater Steed has a lot of merit for a melee based martial class.
Paladin 4 vs Paladin 8 and Paladin 12. 2 of the 1st 3 ASI are likely to buff your primary stat. That is one place where ASIs don't have diminishing returns.
Paladin 2 > Paladin 11 for me. I prefer Improved Divine Smite over Divine Smite but Paladin 2 is overloaded with goodies. A better design might swap Fighting Style and Divine Health.
Paladin 1 > Paladin 14. Both give access to a nerfed version of a restorative spell. But Lay on Hands can also help prevent a TPK.
Paladin 3 vs ??? (ran out of comparisons so I guess compared to the average?) Honestly I find Paladin 3 a bit under par as an Ancients Paladin (Devotion love it)

So yeah I also think levels 1-6 are more interesting than 7-14, but not by much. They both have strong contenders for me. The top third would be 6, 7, 10, 9, 13, 5, 4. So levels 4-7, 9-10, and 13

Twisted Magic
Yeah that looks good.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-08-31, 10:44 PM

I think most would agree, which is why most of the suggestions are about:
1) Buffing the later levels of classes to rebalance staying in a class. Staying in a class should not be a trap option.
2) Making multiclassing more accessible to casters. Multiclassing out of a class should not be a trap option either.

However I will applaud 5E for making even the worst designed base class completely viable, in combat, from 1-20. I may see it as having dead levels but I could randomly pick a class and run it 1-20 with no look ahead and the character would do fine. Under your definition that would still be a trap option currently, however it is still a viable character regardless. I must applaud 5E for succeeding on that. Especially since that alone would greatly help or even cause us to "avoid is setting the expectation for new players that multiclassing and/or "planning a build" are necessary or expected".

I completely agree that classes are all viable the way they are. And that's a good thing. Honestly, I'd prefer to reinforce that (by shoring up the weak points within the classes themselves) rather than try to enable more multiclassing. Because once multiclassing is a widely accepted thing, the existing balance of the pure classes (especially when taken naively) starts going away fast. It's the curse of the internet era--all it takes is one person finding a "broken"[0] build and then it becomes something of a meta.

I'd prefer multiclassing (even dips) to always be a net tradeoff--giving up raw vertical power for horizontal power. Right now, I think that mostly[1] this is the case. But most of the suggestions I've seen here would strongly tip the balance in favor of multiclassing.

On top of that, I find any discussion that mainly focuses on the high levels to be somewhat missing the point. For whatever reasons, those higher levels just really don't matter to the majority of players. With most of the gaming happening in T2, before most multiclass builds really come online very well (again, outside of a few dip builds), level-for-level multiclassing is always going to be disfavored. Unless it's so heavily unbalanced as to be almost mandatory.

And back-loading classes just doesn't work--you can promise the moon at level 20, but if you only play 1 session out of a multi-year campaign at level 20, it just doesn't matter. At the standard leveling pace, T4 is a grand total of 9-12 sessions. And T3 is actually only just about as long, despite being a couple levels longer due to the speedup there. Whereas T2 is something like 20+ sessions. So T3 + T4 is only about as long as T2. Classes should be fully online by level 8-9 IMO. After that, they can fill in the gaps and bump up to flashier (but not really much more effective) abilities. But if you delay the fundamental parts of the concept until T3 (or even the last few levels of T2), the majority of players will never see them. It brings to mind lessons learned from early MMOs--they put most of the heavy story and fanciest fights into the raids. Which a majority of the gaming population never saw, and which became fully obsolete and never played much after new content was released. The moral being that spending lots of developer time on things that most people will never see is a waste. And makes the game feel incomplete by gatekeeping the "fun stuff" behind insuperable (for most non-obsessive players) time commitment barriers. It's not exactly the same here, but practicality (and, from what I read, hard data from the developers' research) suggests that there's a similar effect in play here.

[0] not in the sense of actually breaking the rules, but in the sense of setting a new benchmark for power by clever use of the build system.

[1] a few warlock dips, mostly, especially where paladins are concerned.

OldTrees1

2020-08-31, 11:17 PM

I'd prefer multiclassing (even dips) to always be a net tradeoff--giving up raw vertical power for horizontal power. Right now, I think that mostly[1] this is the case. But most of the suggestions I've seen here would strongly tip the balance in favor of multiclassing.

Yes, a tradeoff in vertical -> horizontal makes sense.

Currently an 11/9 caster multiclass gives up 3 spell levels for a very limited amount of horizontal power. That kinda makes multiclassing a trap for casters, even if you want multiclassing to have some V -> H tradeoff.

On top of that, I find any discussion that mainly focuses on the high levels to be somewhat missing the point. For whatever reasons, those higher levels just really don't matter to the majority of players. With most of the gaming happening in T2, before most multiclass builds really come online very well (again, outside of a few dip builds), level-for-level multiclassing is always going to be disfavored. Unless it's so heavily unbalanced as to be almost mandatory.

And back-loading classes just doesn't work

Most of the discussion focuses on high level because multiclassing does not really have any problems before 10th level. Single classes have plenty of strong incentives to keep going in the first half (unlike 3E dead levels). Multiclassing is optional and also viable during that range. Even a theruge Cleric 5 / Wizard 5 only loses 2 spell levels so while that could be improved to 1 spell level (a fair price for the V -> H for a 5/5 split), it is not as big a deal as higher levels.

Agreed backloading doesn't work, but nobody in this thread has suggested "backloading". There is a difference between "backloading" and realizing the latter levels have insufficient features. For example, I find Paladin levels 1-14 to each have a level's worth of features but I find levels 15-20 to not be worthwhile. I suggest 15th-20th level should be similarly worthwhile.

Tvtyrant

2020-08-31, 11:46 PM

Make classes 7 levels long, then 7 level long prestige classes or another vase class, then repeat. Most classes have their features stacked levels 1-7, then just repeat at higher levels anyway.

Witty Username

2020-09-01, 01:00 AM

I'm no game designer, but the most important point for me is that "dipping" shouldn't be a thing. I really hate the very concept to my core. In my ideal, a "multiclass" character would be half one thing, half the other.

Maybe take a page from Ad&d, multiclass as part of character creation and split exp evenly? also means you play the character you want to out of the gate.

Kyutaru

2020-09-01, 02:44 AM

Maybe take a page from Ad&d, multiclass as part of character creation and split exp evenly? also means you play the character you want to out of the gate.

Doing that would mean you'd be a Fighter 15/Wizard 15 with 20 levels of experience. AD&D also reduced HP and Thac0 gains so you aren't actually level 30. For 5e we would need to do the same for Proficiency.

But 8 casting levels and all the best fighter perks is kind of gish nuts.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-09-01, 08:22 AM

Make classes 7 levels long, then 7 level long prestige classes or another vase class, then repeat. Most classes have their features stacked levels 1-7, then just repeat at higher levels anyway.

That's something that I've considered as well (that would require a complete edition overhaul): lean into the tier system and do what 4e claimed to do. But instead of basically getting 3 small features over a span of levels, have it overhaul and deepen the classes. Allow some cross-class choices, but enforce opportunity costs. Lock a lot of the high-level versatility of casters into particular choices, so an evoker-specialized wizard isn't also getting the summoning and polymorph, etc stuff, but is getting better at doing his specialty in new and different ways.

Tier 1: Base classes, mostly grounded, pretty generic. Really only 4 base classes.
Tier 2: Class choice, more specialized. Evoker, not wizard. Crusader, not warrior. Ninja, not rogue.
Tier 3: Amplification of class choice or widening. "Martials" go all anime by this point, casters get their big guns.
Tier 4: ??? (if necessary, or re-adjust tier boundaries).

cutlery

2020-09-01, 08:32 AM

2) Making multiclassing more accessible to casters. Multiclassing out of a class should not be a trap option either.

Given the world-bending powers available with 6th+ level spells, why do they need this?

Replace all the higher level spells with things like meteor swarm and horrid wiling and sure. Keep in true resurrection, foresight, wish, simulacrum? no way.

Hell, even a number of 5th level spells start to be a problem in that regard (magic jar, teleportation circle, geas, animate objects, commune, modify memory, creation, scrying).

That stuff is so game-bending that it should require sacrifices to get it.

Hytheter

2020-09-01, 08:38 AM

That's something that I've considered as well (that would require a complete edition overhaul): lean into the tier system and do what 4e claimed to do. But instead of basically getting 3 small features over a span of levels, have it overhaul and deepen the classes. Allow some cross-class choices, but enforce opportunity costs. Lock a lot of the high-level versatility of casters into particular choices, so an evoker-specialized wizard isn't also getting the summoning and polymorph, etc stuff, but is getting better at doing his specialty in new and different ways.

Tier 1: Base classes, mostly grounded, pretty generic. Really only 4 base classes.
Tier 2: Class choice, more specialized. Evoker, not wizard. Crusader, not warrior. Ninja, not rogue.
Tier 3: Amplification of class choice or widening. "Martials" go all anime by this point, casters get their big guns.
Tier 4: ??? (if necessary, or re-adjust tier boundaries).

An idea in a similar vein I've thought about is that higher tier "epic" classes would operate kind of like a prestige class in that you could get them at any time once and level in them instead of your base class. But you only get epic levels when the DM allows it, and generally everyone would get them at the same time or at least at the same rate. Basically, it would be a way to raise a character into a new tier of power as the needs of the game require.

Kyutaru

2020-09-01, 10:12 AM

Going along with class destruction again, perhaps build points would work better. Pathfinder 2 has some abilities standard to the class that are primarily proficiency upgrades and basic common assets but most of your build options come from Class Feats, Ancestry Feats, or Archetype Feats. A little too convoluted for my taste with lots of confusing paths for players to try to navigate for optimization.

What if instead you simply assigned point costs to certain abilities and allowed players to select up to their level in build points? Or perhaps higher level characters acquire more build points per level and can afford to slot truly high tier abilities. Suddenly there may actually be a point to full classing because you can get more feature selections as a lvl 13 Fighter as opposed to a lvl 7 Fighter. The problem we have currently is that the game decides at what levels you acquire certain things and many levels are just dead weight and missing options. Providing a base for players to create their own Fighter can lead to interesting themes if they're carefully costed with pros and cons. If they want to pick up spellcasting with levels in another class they can but they have to invest a sufficient amount of build to get much out of it, like a per spell level investment. Meanwhile abilities that scale off stats may improve depending on how much build you devote instead. In essence this means you can choose to forego Lay on Hands and you don't even need subclasses to do this as it's baked into the level progression.

While it would lead to even more cookie cutter optimizers it would also give players more freedom in selecting what they want -- at an appropriate cost. Abuse can be curbed with prereqs and higher build costs. You can't take this upgrade unless you have lvl 8+ and 18 Strength, or your Weapon Specialization an only be improved to 4 until later. The system remains fairly similar to how it already is but with less limitations, more incentive to invest in classes for access to more build points, and still promotes dipping/multiclass theming as much or as little as you want. Want to take 1 level of Wizard just for access to lvl 1 spells and cantrips? Easy to do and affordable but it may mean your cantrips don't scale. To make them scale you need to invest more build which means either more wizard levels or sacrificing those lvl 1 spells. Promoting choices should be the goal of character generation rather than encouraging players to take the obvious routes. If they want to make a min-maxed hyper specialized sword saint that has almost no other features then they can't rightly complain if they're useless outside of combat.

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-01, 10:17 AM

I don't see that working. The barbarian gets a net loss of hit points. By the 4th round he lost more hit points in total than he gets in temporary hit points just for existing doing his thing plus the additional damage the enemy deals that goes beyond the THP threshold. Let's say the barbarian never gets hit. He has 15 hit points at level 1. Round 1: 14 HP 3 THP, total 17. Round 2: 13 HP 3 THP total 16. Round 3: 12 HP 3 THP , total 15. Round 4: 11 HP 3 THP, total 14. Now an orc does 9 damage each round. Doesn't have to be the same orc, but an orc. He does net 6 damage. Round 1: ends with 11 HP. Round 2 ends with 4 HP (11 hp - 1 hp + 3 thp - 9 damage). Round 3: Making death saves. Normal rage, Orc does net 4 damage. Round 1 ends with 11 HPs. Round 2: 7 hit points. Round 3: 3 hit points. Round 4: Making death saves. Your way the barbarian lost a round.

That's a very specific problem, though. You could just bump the points up to 5x, or 10x, to the point where it becomes too strong. It was just meant as an example of what could be done for a static Rage defense bonus could be, without the problems that come with damage resistance.

Dienekes

2020-09-01, 11:33 AM

I'm not a fan of giving flat damage resistance, as it directly pushes back against Bounded Accuracy, and keeping the Monster Manual growing instead of just shifting levels.

What you could do is lose HP equal to your Barbarian level each turn and gain x3 that value as THP. Since THP doesn't stack, the Barbarian has incentive to be both aggressive (to make sure the THP doesn't stack) and cautious (since taking damage past the THP value will be bypassing Rage).

Obviously, something like this doesn't work with Bear Totem's Rage change, but it's a good example of something that could have worked.

Eh, you’re not wrong but a -2 won’t ruin things and similar effects are already in the game with HAM.

But I’m not opposed to the Temp HP route. Though I do think we might benefit from simplifying it a bit.

Enter rage: gain 10 THP lose it once rage ends.

Simple, effective, we can make it scale if we want. Since it’s going to leave when Rage ends if you don’t take damage it’s wasted so you’re free to be a bit more aggressive.

And at later levels we can make effects that play off it. The obvious one being trade it for more damage

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 11:44 AM

Given the world-bending powers available with 6th+ level spells, why do they need this?

Replace all the higher level spells with things like meteor swarm and horrid wiling and sure. Keep in true resurrection, foresight, wish, simulacrum? no way.

Hell, even a number of 5th level spells start to be a problem in that regard (magic jar, teleportation circle, geas, animate objects, commune, modify memory, creation, scrying).

That stuff is so game-bending that it should require sacrifices to get it.

Um, that sacrifice you say "should" exist does exist either way. It is just a bit miscalibrated right now. When is the last time you saw a Wizard 9/Cleric 8 in 5E?

If the game is balanced around* Magic Jar at Wizard 9 and Wish at Wizard 17, then I see no reason why a Wizard 9/Cleric 8 might not have 7th level Wiz spells. That is a sacrifice of 2 spell levels.

If the game is balanced around* Cone of Cold at Wizard 9 and Meteor Storm at Wizard 17, then I see no reason why a Wizard 9/Cleric 8 might not have 7th level Wiz spells. That is a sacrifice of 2 spell levels.

Getting the highest level spells requires the sacrifice of single class. But currently the cost is too high for multiclassing casters. Tome of Battle got the math right for multiclassing. You still sacrifice either way. Multiclassing gives horizontal growth at the cost of some vertical growth.

* Obviously whichever balance standard you use should influence the other half. As I said single class should not be a trap option. So if the game is balanced around Wish at 17th, then other classes should have level appropriate Tier 4 features.
1) Buffing the later levels of classes to rebalance staying in a class. Staying in a class should not be a trap option.

cutlery

2020-09-01, 11:55 AM

Um, that sacrifice you say "should" exist does exist either way. It is just a bit miscalibrated right now. When is the last time you saw a Wizard 9/Cleric 8 in 5E?

If the game is balanced around* Magic Jar at Wizard 9 and Wish at Wizard 17, then I see no reason why a Wizard 9/Cleric 8 might not have 7th level Wiz spells.

That would give a pal 6/sor14 8th or 9th level spells and two attacks and smites.

You can already upcast spells to higher slots; why do you need the reality-bending effects of 7th level spells for a class that only ever took 8 or 9 levels in a class that can access that spell list?

If an 8 wiz/9 cleric had access to 7th level spells from both lists, why would anyone single class cleric?

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 12:15 PM

That would give a pal 6/sor14 8th or 9th level spells and two attacks and smites.
True, 3 levels after the Sorcerer 17 got them. I will admit this multiclassing math works a tad bit better if there were 10th level spells at 19th.

You can already upcast spells to higher slots; why do you need the reality-bending effects of 7th level spells for a class that only ever took 8 or 9 levels in a class that can access that spell list?
Based upon years of playtesting, apparently upcasting is not enough to encourage / enable caster multiclass ratios. It was a good idea, but did not achieve the desired result.

If an 8 wiz/9 cleric had access to 7th level spells from both lists, why would anyone single class cleric?
I would. 8th-9th level spells have nice features and I be 1-2+ spell levels ahead of the theruge. Personally I like Revivify at 5th rather than at 7th.

Edit: Also if you see my post in this vein, I am a bit more conservative with Other/3 instead of Other/2. However most of the suggestions in this vein did adopt the Other/2 model, so I had been addressing that with you.

Spellcasting progresses as Class level + (Other levels / 2) worked well for initiators in 3E. Maybe have it be 1/3 instead in 5E? Let spell slots scale as the higher of the new or old rule.

Duplicate features are replaced with an ASI. They lost a level's worth of features, return a level's worth of features.

Paladin 6 / Sorcerer 14 would only have 8th level spells.
Wiz 10 / Cleric 10 would have 7th level spells at 19-20th instead of 17-18th

cutlery

2020-09-01, 12:25 PM

Go 10 wiz and 10 cleric and you get 5th level spells from each list, and all the slots.

As discussed, 5th level already opens up some gamebreaking stuff.

Want more list-specific gamebreaking stuff? Pick a list and specialize; 15Wiz/5Cleric gets you 8th level gamebreaking wizard spells, at the cost of only 3rd level cleric spells; the same number of slots per day (arcane recovery aside) for both.

Too much more of this list-merging makes magical secrets useless for bards.

I don't see how you can really make this argument without essentially saying you want a multiclass character to have total access to both lists. That was broken as hell in 3/3.5, and I am glad it is gone. Full spellcasters remain very powerful, no matter what combination of class levels (and school restrictions) they take to get there.

You wouldn't think a 5 wiz/5 cleric/5 druid/5 bard should have access to 6th or 7th level spells from each list. If you do think that, I don't know on earth you'd balance that sort of power with noncasters, or even half casters.

Edea

2020-09-01, 01:04 PM

I -do- understand/support not being able to multiclass more than once, whatever form "multiclassing" would take.

A lot of the dipping issues would be curtailed if each class's features had "you get this form of the ability if multiclassing" notation, and then have it be spelled out that if said notation's missing from an ability you don't get that ability at all from a multiclass.

Like, multiclassing Warlock might only let you get Pact Magic up to a certain point and just the expanded spell list from the Otherworldly Patron, or multiclassing Paladin would only let you get Spellcasting up to a certain point and then you'd only be able to Divine Smite once or twice per long rest, etc..

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 01:46 PM

Go 10 wiz and 10 cleric and you get 5th level spells from each list, and all the slots.

As discussed, 5th level already opens up some gamebreaking stuff.
Remember the premise about balance calibration? 5th level does not open any gamebreaking stuff. Any stuff that is literally gamebreaking is not level appropriate. It sounds like Cone of Cold is closer to accurate calibration for your intuitions.

Want more list-specific gamebreaking stuff? Pick a list and specialize; 15Wiz/5Cleric gets you 8th level gamebreaking wizard spells, at the cost of only 3rd level cleric spells; the same number of slots per day (arcane recovery aside) for both.
Have you seen a 15/5? Why didn't they go as a 17/3? And if they were a 15/5, did they go in a 3:1 ratio or did they rush to 15?

The only caster multiclass I have seen in the wild at a respectable ratio was Warlock / Halfcaster at a 1:2 ratio to make a short rest Thirdcaster.

Too much more of this list-merging makes magical secrets useless for bards.
List merging from multiclassing comes at the cost of higher level spells. We are just quibbling over how many spell levels should be lost.

However you are right that Magical Secrets is in a similar niche. It lets the bard mix and match without losing spell levels. Just like the Divine Soul Sorcerer can mix 2 lists without losing spell levels. If this change were implemented, Bard and Divine Soul would still have their advantage, but we could increase the number of spells learned if playtesting indicates that is needed.

I don't see how you can really make this argument without essentially saying you want a multiclass character to have total access to both lists. That was broken as hell in 3/3.5, and I am glad it is gone. Full spellcasters remain very powerful, no matter what combination of class levels (and school restrictions) they take to get there.

Multiclassing between two casters gives you horizontal growth at the cost of some vertical growth. You and I are just quibbling about how much vertical sacrifice should be required.

You wouldn't think a 5 wiz/5 cleric/5 druid/5 bard should have access to 6th or 7th level spells from each list. If you do think that, I don't know on earth you'd balance that sort of power with noncasters, or even half casters.
Well under the Other/2 idea the 5/5/5/5 is only at 6th level spells (1st 6th level spell at 18th level) and under the Other/3 idea that is only 5th level spells (1st 5th level spell at 17th level).

Did you notice my comment about noncasters and half casters? How they are excessively incentivized to multiclass because their higher level features are boring AND not level appropriate? Did you notice that of the 2 common suggestions, I mentioned buffing the higher level features 1st and caster/caster multiclassing 2nd?

If I can balance a Wizard vs a Fighter then I can balance Wizard vs a Theruge vs a Fighter. We already need to deal with balancing a 17th level Fighter against a 17th level Wizard that knows multiple 9th level spells. Balancing them against a 17th level theruge that knows more 7th level spells is not that big a deal.

5eNeedsDarksun

2020-09-01, 01:56 PM

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 02:11 PM

This has been largely covered, but the 5th level multiattack is a big obstacle to a more balanced split of levels, not just for multi weapon based types, but for gish as well. My current character was going to be a relatively even split between Sorcerer and Fighter, but with cantrips like Green Flame Blade being so good, multiattack is largely useless. By the time I would be 6th Sorcerer and 5th fighter, a cantrip cast at 11th level is better. So I still basically have the flavor I want, but 4th level Fighter is absolute max.

Well for Barbarian 5 / Fighter 5 (not the meat of your post) the thread has mentioned 2 good ideas.
1) Gain half or a full ASI/Feat in place of the lost level.
2) Let them stack and give Fighters more stuff.

However Green Flame Blade multiclassing with Extra Attack is an odd case, and would run into the tricky situation of single classed Eldritch Knights too. Thanks for mentioning it.

king_steve

2020-09-01, 02:27 PM

Just spitballing here, but what if we removed 'Extra Attack' and instead made the standard 'Attack' action scaled like a cantrip? That would require a re-work of many of the martials to accommodate... but that would free up martials to have different ratios of multi-classes (e.g. If I was playing a fighter / rogue I could be 50/50 or maybe 2/3-1/3 as appropriate for my character) without the hard breakpoints in the martial classes.

This would very much depend on a rebalancing of the martial classes if it scaled all the way up to 4 attacks... And I would worry it would make 'Attack' and some of the basic attack cantrips (e.g. Firebolt) feel a bit samey... but I think that would help alleviate the power cliffs when multiclassing. This is clearly not a fully thought out idea either.

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 02:56 PM

cutlery

2020-09-01, 03:16 PM

List merging from multiclassing comes at the cost of higher level spells. We are just quibbling over how many spell levels should be lost.

The person I was responding to wanted to sidestep that limitation; look a few posts upthread.

Just spitballing here, but what if we removed 'Extra Attack' and instead made the standard 'Attack' action scaled like a cantrip? That would require a re-work of many of the martials to accommodate..

Fighters would need something special to avoid people dipping just to get "fighter attack" like people dip warlock for eldritch blast/agonizing blast.

king_steve

2020-09-01, 03:22 PM

Hmm, I am not sure how Sneak Attack would look in that world, but for all the other martials that sounds like a viable approach (as long as we add features to fighter and do some rebalancing).

It sounds like it has merit.

Fighters would need something special to avoid people dipping just to get "fighter attack" like people dip warlock for eldritch blast/agonizing blast.

For Sneak Attack, it's already once per turn, but now they would have up to 4 attempts to pull it off. It would still have its conditions for applying it. So I don't think it would change things to much. Although that makes crit fishing a lot easier.

What if each class that currently got extra attack instead picked a maneuver when they get 'Extra Attack' currently. For all classes it would be a d6 (short rest?), but then for the Battle Master they get extra maneuvers and a scaling dice?

I do wonder how to balance the damage. Maybe it would require not adding stats to attacks? Maybe the Weapon Master feat lets you add your modifier? I haven't looked at the math yet.

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 03:25 PM

The person I was responding to wanted to sidestep that limitation; look a few posts upthread.

Um, what was their name or their post? I thought I was responding to your replies to me. Since I know what I want, I thought I knew what the person you were responding to wanted.

For Sneak Attack, it's already once per turn, but now they would have up to 4 attempts to pull it off. It would still have its conditions for applying it. So I don't think it would change things to much. Although that makes crit fishing a lot easier.

It is a buff to the Rogue, but you are right that it is diminishing in significance. Technically a Rogue can dual wield shortswords, but currently I attack once with a dagger / bow. Using the full damage capability, and buffing the full damage capability is a buff, but the SA dice still are the dominant factor.

What if each class that currently got extra attack instead picked a maneuver when they get 'Extra Attack' currently. For all classes it would be a d6 (short rest?), but then for the Battle Master they get extra maneuvers and a scaling dice?

I do wonder how to balance the damage. Maybe it would require not adding stats to attacks? Maybe the Weapon Master feat lets you add your modifier? I haven't looked at the math yet.

I am personally biased against Battle Master "maneuvers" because that feel like unfaithful adaptations so I definitely would prefer not. (Also remember this bias when evaluating my words on the subject)

However I will mention that Battle Master "maneuvers" are limited use abilities and thus don't map well as replacements for static effects. I think that would be a debuff to most classes.

cutlery

2020-09-01, 03:42 PM

Um, what was their name or their post?

I guess it was you, in which case this seems inconsistent.

Because, most importantly:

If the game is balanced around* Cone of Cold at Wizard 9 and Meteor Storm at Wizard 17

That's a pretty big caveat.

The game is not balanced around this, and is not likely to ever be. Even if it were, you'd need special text in all spells for "when cast with a 9th level slot" to match that power.

People like all that fantastically broken stuff. There would be an uproar over removing it entirely.

If you did allow spells to scale to that level, or a 10wiz/10cleric to have 9th level wizard spells, again, I ask you: why would anyone bother finishing out any caster class?

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 04:04 PM

I guess it was you, in which case this seems inconsistent.

Perhaps there was a miscommunication? Because I can read my own mind and I feel I have taken the consistent stance of:
Currently casters multiclassing is a trap option. So clearly the current amount of spell levels lost is too high. Why not look at prior innovations (Initiator level) and try to adapt it. That became the Class Level + Other Levels / 3 idea. That idea still costs spell levels if you want to multiclass. To repeat, multiclass still comes at the cost of higher level spells. The only difference is how much. It is also why I said Others / 2 was what 3E used but Others / 3 might be better for 5E.

Because, most importantly:

That's a pretty big caveat.

The game is not balanced around this, and is not likely to ever be. Even if it were, you'd need special text in all spells for "when cast with a 9th level slot" to match that power.

People like all that fantastically broken stuff. There would be an uproar over removing it entirely.

I feel like there was a miscommunication right here.

It sounded to me like you were saying you felt Magic Jar was not level appropriate and thus casters were overpowered and thus any framework change to multiclassing would need to answer to the crimes of Magic Jar. So I said, "well let's adopt the premise that, for whatever standard of level appropriate is in your head, level appropriate spells are level appropriate and only level appropriate spells exist, that way we can evaluate this pair of changes on their own merits". It also felt like you had missed the change to Tier 3-4 features for non casters and partial casters, which would go a long way to addressing any disparity.

Aka that section was: If you feel a spell is unbalanced, we are ignoring that spell right now. I am not going to rebalance every spell just to get back on topic.

If you did allow spells to scale to that level, or a 10wiz/10cleric to have 9th level wizard spells, again, I ask you: why would anyone bother finishing out any caster class?

Huh? Nobody here mentioned anything close to a 10/10 split knowing 9th level spells. 10 + 10/3 = 13.3 aka 7th level spells.
So why would someone finish out a caster class? Because they don't want to lose spell levels? Same reason as right now, but it would be more of a choice rather than an obvious answer to avoid a trap?

Again, I am assuming you have not seen a 10/10 split under the current system. Everything I can see points to a 10/10 split being a trap option under the current system. A class that must not multiclass and a class that must multiclass are both example of traps that could be solved. (<- The point of the post you initially replied to)

cutlery

2020-09-01, 04:12 PM

Huh? Nobody here mentioned anything close to a 10/10 split knowing 9th level spells. 10 + 10/3 = 13.3 aka 7th level spells.
So why would someone finish out a caster class? Because they don't want to lose spell levels? Same reason as right now, but it would be more of a choice rather than an obvious answer to avoid a trap?

Access to 7th level spells from both lists is still too much as the spells currently exist; and rebalancing the spells table so that isn't a problem is a lot more work than leaving things as they are.

So, as the spell lists stand, 10 cleric/10 wizard having access to 7th level spells from both schools is too much.

As for whether it is a trap or not - what's the problem? Players make choices, and they can choose to roll a single classes fighter with low dex and strength. They can also choose to dip into a variety of classes.

If you make it easier for them not to make a "mistake", I suspect all you'll do is make everything play effectively the same.

But: I don't see how multiclassing out of a caster class is a mistake, or how multiclassing into another caster class is a mistake. It's a choice. Choices have consequences.

Spells known and knowable functioning as if they were a single-classed character in that class is a fine system, and one of the least punishing; broken 3/3.5 PrCs aside. Especially when things like Arcane Cleric and Favored Soul sorcerer are in the game, as well as Lore bards.

Put another way: what is the wizard without their spell list?

OldTrees1

2020-09-01, 04:16 PM

Access to 7th level spells from both lists is still too much as the spells currently exist; and rebalancing the spells table so that isn't a problem is a lot more work than leaving things as they are.

Fair. I disagree, but that might be because my 1st item in the list of 2 items addressed that issue.

king_steve

2020-09-01, 05:03 PM

I am personally biased against Battle Master "maneuvers" because that feel like unfaithful adaptations so I definitely would prefer not. (Also remember this bias when evaluating my words on the subject)

However I will mention that Battle Master "maneuvers" are limited use abilities and thus don't map well as replacements for static effects. I think that would be a debuff to most classes.

Right, it was more of an idea to give classes something at that level. Many martials around lvl 5 expect some sort of power boost and if attack was reworked to scale off of total level instead of class level (e.g. it scaled like a cantrip) then that would be a level without a solid improvement for a number of classes.

For example, compare straight (A) Rogue lvl 5 vs (B) Fighter lvl 5 vs say (C) Fighter/Rogue 3/2.

If Attack scaled like a cantrip, all three would have two attacks when they take the attack action. (A) would have 3d6 sneak attack once per turn. (B) Wouldn't get any new feature at lvl 5 and (C) would be picking up new skills from either Rogue 2 or Fighter 3.

By changing the 'Attack' action into something that scales with overall level instead of class level it smooths out the power cliffs when multiclassing between martials. But I do think you'd need to add something to the classes that lost Extra Attack as a feature.

I'm not sure what to put in place of the Extra Attack feature for martials though. I suppose each class could have a unique something new. That's just more work than something like building on the maneuver system (being honest, that was a lazily quick fix suggestion). Again, I haven't done the math to full spec this out as an alternative. It's more just speculating about a way to make multiclassing work more reliably without the power cliffs from Fighter (or other classes with Extra Attack).

5eNeedsDarksun

2020-09-01, 05:39 PM

Well for Barbarian 5 / Fighter 5 (not the meat of your post) the thread has mentioned 2 good ideas.
1) Gain half or a full ASI/Feat in place of the lost level.
2) Let them stack and give Fighters more stuff.

However Green Flame Blade multiclassing with Extra Attack is an odd case, and would run into the tricky situation of single classed Eldritch Knights too. Thanks for mentioning it.
So if I were to continue as Fighter I'd get 4th: Feat, 5th: part Feat, 6th Feat... then at 7th get a Fighter Subclass feature. Better than current, but I'd be committing a lot of levels to get to 7th and something more 'Fightery'.
Part of this, particularly since you mentioned EK is the strength of cantrips, particularly BB and GFB. Somehow it ought to be better to take 2 attacks than a cantrip, but it just isn't.

Edea

2020-09-01, 05:57 PM

Well, for Spellcasting slots different class levels count different amounts, maybe it would be the same for getting the additional attack?

Like, "If you have a combined total of at least 5 levels in any of the following classes, you gain the Extra Attack feature if you don't already have it: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger." Then, make the Fighter's "Additional Extra Attacks" a completely separate Fighter-specific class feature you get at Fighter 11th (and then AEA improves at 20th), rather than tying that to the base Extra Attack.

Snails

2020-09-01, 06:10 PM

I'm not sure what to put in place of the Extra Attack feature for martials though. I suppose each class could have a unique something new.

Powerwise, it has to be something good, on the power level of a Feat. So, if we are going to be lazy, just give them one.

There is something to be said for having the moral equivalent of the Precision Maneuver baked into the Fighter class. If we are decoupling extra attacks from this class, they need a boost. Precision is a nice way of topping up DPR within while not skyrocketing the potential damage with more hits per round.

Aimeryan

2020-09-01, 09:24 PM

Right, it was more of an idea to give classes something at that level. Many martials around lvl 5 expect some sort of power boost and if attack was reworked to scale off of total level instead of class level (e.g. it scaled like a cantrip) then that would be a level without a solid improvement for a number of classes.

For example, compare straight (A) Rogue lvl 5 vs (B) Fighter lvl 5 vs say (C) Fighter/Rogue 3/2.

If Attack scaled like a cantrip, all three would have two attacks when they take the attack action. (A) would have 3d6 sneak attack once per turn. (B) Wouldn't get any new feature at lvl 5 and (C) would be picking up new skills from either Rogue 2 or Fighter 3.

By changing the 'Attack' action into something that scales with overall level instead of class level it smooths out the power cliffs when multiclassing between martials. But I do think you'd need to add something to the classes that lost Extra Attack as a feature.

I'm not sure what to put in place of the Extra Attack feature for martials though. I suppose each class could have a unique something new. That's just more work than something like building on the maneuver system (being honest, that was a lazily quick fix suggestion). Again, I haven't done the math to full spec this out as an alternative. It's more just speculating about a way to make multiclassing work more reliably without the power cliffs from Fighter (or other classes with Extra Attack).

It amuses me how much I prefer 3.5e's way of doing this, which is essentially class progression at different rates (BAB).

Look, the issue here is that 5e sacrificed complexity for speed. The reason Extra Attack does not play well is because they only really wanted one class even looking at 3 attacks, nevermind 4; the simple simple class that would have nothing else to do and thus could spare its 'allotment' of time on making extra attacks.

Personally, really hoping for a 6e that uses apps to allow for complexity without sacrificing speed.

JNAProductions

2020-09-01, 09:25 PM

It amuses me how much I prefer 3.5e's way of doing this, which is essentially class progression at different rates (BAB).

Look, the issue here is that 5e sacrificed complexity for speed. The reason Extra Attack does not play well is because they only really wanted one class even looking at 3 attacks, nevermind 4; the simple simple class that would have nothing else to do and thus could spare its 'allotment' of time on making extra attacks.

If you want a better system, ignoring speed, look at 3.5e. Personally, really hoping for a 6e that uses apps to allow for complexity without sacrificing speed.

Better is very subjective.

Aimeryan

2020-09-01, 09:27 PM

Better is very subjective.

I agree; I edited the post (sadly not fast enough). There is a word that does fit here, however its late and I can't think of it right now.

JNAProductions

2020-09-01, 09:43 PM

I agree; I edited the post (sadly not fast enough). There is a word that does fit here, however its late and I can't think of it right now.

More granular, maybe?

Yakk

2020-09-01, 11:11 PM

Hmm. Let me double check that. I prefer Ancients Paladins and a support role, so my preferences may differ.
Paladin 6 > Paladin 7 or Paladin 10. These are the core of what I see in the Ancients Paladin
Paladin 6 is one of the best abilities in 5e hands down. It even blows away totem bear 3.

Paladin 9 or Paladin 13 > Paladin 5.
Paladin5 gives 2nd level spells and extra attack.

Extra atrack doubles your damage output, including smite burn rate.

I mean, imagine if paladin 9 gave 2 more attacks; it would be a must. Treating 5 as under any other level is gonzo to me. Even a support paladin needs to help drop foes.

Paladin 4 vs Paladin 8 and Paladin 12. 2 of the 1st 3 ASI are likely to buff your primary stat. That is one place where ASIs don't have diminishing returns.
They do, because 16-18 is bigger than 18-20 in percentage terms. If only slightly. Plus with starting 16, you cap after 2 ASIs and start on 2nd most important stat.

Paladin 2 > Paladin 11 for me. I prefer Improved Divine Smite over Divine Smite but Paladin 2 is overloaded with goodies. A better design might swap Fighting Style and Divine Health.
Divine smite means a Paladin can break the 5e action economy.

Also note improved divine smite is sort od dependent on extra attack. ;)

Paladin 1 > Paladin 14. Both give access to a nerfed version of a restorative spell. But Lay on Hands can also help prevent a TPK.
One nice thing about LOH is that more paladin levels can make it more action efficient. Keep a few back for "pop up from 0", and a Pal 14 can drop a 60 pointer, wortg the action. A Pal 6/other 8 can only afford a 20, often not worth the action.

Paladin 3 vs ??? (ran out of comparisons so I guess compared to the average?) Honestly I find Paladin 3 a bit under par as an Ancients Paladin (Devotion love it)
Here you have to compare the best 3 oath to the average features of multiple oath levels. The point being, a 3 dip lets you cherry pick, while going longer locks you in so your yield per level is the average.

And Pal 7-14 competes with Hex 1 (cha-to-attack, hexcurse), Hex 2/3 (EB+AB, Invocation, 2H cha to atrack), or lore bard 8 (4th level bard spells, pick 2 up to 3rd level spells from any class, inspiration + cutting words), and unlocks bard 10 (pick 2 up to 5th level spells) and bard 14 (pick 2 up to 7th level spells).

cutlery

2020-09-02, 09:34 AM

Fair. I disagree, but that might be because my 1st item in the list of 2 items addressed that issue.

It's a taller ask than changing the multiclass rules, though. Spells like simulacrum aren't going away. Multicasters gaining access to it without specializing has gone away with the move away from 3/3.5e.

Some classes, Wizard in particular, are entirely balanced around their spell list. You'd need to redesign the entire class to change this; as well as change the total set of spell lists in the game above 5th level.

And, while you do this, somehow strike a balance where someone would actually take a wizard to 20 even if they well understood their multiclass options.

I don't think you can do this without making the system unrecognizable. So, if your proposal is "just make DnD not be like DnD", that's nice. Not realistic, but nice.

By changing the 'Attack' action into something that scales with overall level instead of class level it smooths out the power cliffs when multiclassing between martials. But I do think you'd need to add something to the classes that lost Extra Attack as a feature.

I'm not sure what to put in place of the Extra Attack feature for martials though. I suppose each class could have a unique something new. That's just more work than something like building on the maneuver system (being honest, that was a lazily quick fix suggestion). Again, I haven't done the math to full spec this out as an alternative. It's more just speculating about a way to make multiclassing work more reliably without the power cliffs from Fighter (or other classes with Extra Attack).

It's hard enough to justify the back half of fighter as it is, and 3-4 attacks is the bulk of it. If other martials could get scaling extra attacks; why be a fighter at all? The archetypes would need some serious pumping up to keep pace. Also - a barbarian with 3 and later 4 attacks? You'd have take away the handful of fun things they get after 10, and even then they'd probably still outpace all the other martials based on how strong they are from 5-10.

I don't really see what either of these thoughts do to improve things: the game only lightly incentivizes single classing as it is, many multiclass builds are quite strong (which is why it is an optional rule).

(Some) single classes have decent reasons to reach for 20 (not that it happens in every campaign, or even many campaigns). Lots of character builds greatly benefit from a dip or a multiclass. The system works fine.

The biggest change I might suggest is some way for EKs and ATs to advance max spell level known differently when they multiclass with wizard. This would be clunky, and still result in characters that don't get played that much relative to the bard/paladin/warlock/sorcerer smoothie, with fighter dip topping.

It could easily be too strong, too, and it is simpler to just leave them as they are and for a player that wants to avoid what feel like "dead" levels to simply sprinkle wizard levels throughout their leveling progression. This slows down extra attack and sneak attack - that's probably appropriate as it speeds up spell level progression.

Multiclassing ain't broke, unless by broke we mean in many if not most cases stronger than the pure classes, in all pillars of the game the pure class was already decent at.

OldTrees1

2020-09-02, 12:33 PM

It's a taller ask than changing the multiclass rules, though. Spells like simulacrum aren't going away. Multicasters gaining access to it without specializing has gone away with the move away from 3/3.5e.

If spells like magic jar are not going away, you would not care if they were level appropriate. Since they are not going away, let's use them as the standard for level appropriate.

Non casters and half casters demonstrate the other imperfection in the current state of multiclassing. Their later levels are not only not level appropriate, but are worse than the Tier 1 levels of other classes.

So you have one category of classes with Tier 4 abilities that "are not going away" and which struggles to justify multiclassing because it costs them too much. And you have another category of classes with Tier 3 abilities that are not level appropriate which struggles to justify not multiclassing because staying in their class is worse than taking some Tier 1 abilities from another class.

So, you address both issues. Yes this is a tall ask. However changing multiclassing is not taller than changing multiclassing because A is not not A. You add more and actually level appropriate features to the higher levels of the non caster / half casters (aka the levels that don't have level appropriate features) and you increase the incentive for casters to sacrifice some spell levels, by reducing it from 3 to 2.

But you do not like this solution, that is okay. I see it as the obvious consequence of "make the features at character level X, level appropriate for character level X while taking into account the advantages of vertical and horizontal growth".

PS: From your "representation" of my position, I can see some miscommunication still exists. All in all, despite our disagreement, I wish your initially reply was to both elements of the list rather than just the lesser element. That omission was one of the root causes of your confusion.

However in the end we did reach a conclusion, you and I, despite having very similar positions, just happen to disagree.

cutlery

2020-09-02, 01:15 PM

If spells like magic jar are not going away, you would not care if they were level appropriate. Since they are not going away, let's use them as the standard for level appropriate.

They're level appropriate for wizards.

Requiring 11 levels in wizard to access it is part of the balance equation.

The Wizard list is full of exclusives like this, that are allowed to exist in some way because of how anemic the class is otherwise.

That's part and parcel of these spells. Stuff like Magic Jar and Simulacrum can do things Cleric spells can't. They're Wizard spells.

Non casters and half casters demonstrate the other imperfection in the current state of multiclassing. Their later levels are not only not level appropriate, but are worse than the Tier 1 levels of other classes.

Paladins have excellent uses for their spell slots; but that aside Geas and Raise Dead are pretty nice. Rangers aren't in a great place, but that's not news. Swift quivers isn't bad, and Steel Wind Strike is pretty nice, too.

PS: From your "representation" of my position, I can see some miscommunication still exists. All in all, despite our disagreement, I wish your initially reply was to both elements of the list rather than just the lesser element. That omission was one of the root causes of your confusion.

You're assuming that wizard exclusive spells are simply different than other spells, rather than more powerful, or that if that isn't the case it could be made to be the case.

I don't think that's possible without a massive redesign, lacking that, access to higher level wizard spells needs to be curtailed as it currently is.

You add more and actually level appropriate features to the higher levels of the non caster / half casters (aka the levels that don't have level appropriate features) and you increase the incentive for casters to sacrifice some spell levels, by reducing it from 3 to 2.

Better to cut the spells and give wizards something else then to increase the power of all the other classes to match the current wizard's level. The problem with that is how many people like the reality-bending options those spells offer.

(1) Nerf wizard spell lists in core rules - people won't like that
(2) Give other classes similarly broken spells - other people won't like that

I still don't think the current system is that bad. Access to 5th level spells from both lists, or 6th from one list and 5th from the other is still pretty great. Greater than access to 9th level spells from the wizard list? That likely depends on the specific problems the player is trying to solve.

There have to be tradeoffs when multiclassing; and the current system works pretty well without the kludge of prestige classes.

A 20th level caster with up to 7th level spells from two lists available won't work when the lists themselves are part of class feature balance.

If lists are no longer part of class feature balance, we end up with too many full caster classes and not much left to differentiate them; they might as well be distilled to archetypes for a "spellcaster" class, like the sidekick rules: https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

At which point, the selection really is down to which list to pick.

Porcupinata

2020-09-02, 04:05 PM

I'd take a step back and look at the whole concept of multiclassing afresh.

And after doing so, I'd ditch the idea of doing multiclassing by choosing a different class each level.

The reason most people want to multiclass is because they want their character to be able to do the things that two (or more, but we'll stick to two for the moment) classes do. This generally results in one of two things.

Either the rest of the party are level 10 and you're level 5/5 in two classes. Everyone else has up to level 10 abilities and spell progressions and the like, but you're lagging behind. Sure you've got two sets of abilities, but each set is only at level 5 and you're basically outclassed at whatever you do. The rest of the party have had Raise Dead, Cloudkill, and Wall of Force for two levels now, and you've only just learned Fireball.

Or the rest of the party are level 10 and you're level 9/1 or 8/2 in two classes. Your main class is a little behind everyone else when it comes to abilities, and your second class - in which you only took a "dip" - is basically non-existent. The odds are that you didn't take the second class because you wanted to actually do what the second class does; the odds are that you basically want to be the first class but there's a single ability that the second class gets at low level that's sufficiently level-independent (or which combines with the abilities of your main class in an unexpectedly powerful way) that it's worth losing a level in your primary class in order to get it.

Neither of those is satisfactory.

If you actually want people to be able to multiclass and have the abilities of two classes, and still keep up with the rest of the party, but without limiting multiclassing to a small handful of well-known synergies (e.g. a charisma based caster with a warlock dip) you don't want to be splitting up your competence between the two classes like in the above examples. What you actually need to be doing is splitting up your time between the two classes.

If the party are level 10 and I want to play (for example) a Cleric/Rogue, the trick isn't to let be be a level 5 cleric and a level 5 rogue at the same time. The trick is to let me be a level 10 cleric some of the time and a level 10 rogue the rest of the time.

The way to do this is to have a "half class" version for each of the classes. These would give you some of the class abilities, but not all of them; and anything resource based would give you the same power of resource but a lower number of them. For example a 10th level "half cleric" would still get 5th level cleric spells so they could still do the high level stuff, but they'd get fewer spell slots of all levels for casting cleric spells with so they'd not be able to do it all the time. Similarly they'd still get Channel Divinity and be able to turn undead as if a 10th level cleric, but fewer times per rest; and so forth. You'd need to have a half-class like that for each class.

Then, rather than multiclassing by starting with one class and picking up one or more levels of a different class as you increase in level, you'd start with two half-classes and continue to level up in both of them together.

So on the one hand, they'd still be able to do what a full 10th level character of each of their classes can do so they wouldn't be left behind by the rest of the party, but during the normal adventuring day they'd need to switch between doing things from one half-class to doing things from the other half-class as the situation demanded. The cleric/rogue would be able to spend some of the time casting cleric spells and some of the time using rogue abilities.

This would have the added advantage that because each half-class would be seperate from the full class, any "problematic" abilities from the full class that might interact weirdly with abilities from other classes can have their half-class version rebalanced to be more multi-class friendly without this rebalance breaking the full-class version of the ability.

JNAProductions

2020-09-02, 04:07 PM

OldTrees1

2020-09-02, 04:17 PM

Kyutaru

2020-09-02, 04:27 PM

Do you trust WotC to know what features people want in those half classes? Will the half Rogue waste levels on Sneak Attack instead of on Expertise, Cunning Action, & Reliable Talent? Or if the half Rogue is tailored to my tastes, then about about those that wanted Sneak Attack, Uncanny Dodge, and Cunning Action?

One of the great advantages of level by level multiclassing is, I don't need to know your preferences in order to design classes you can want to multiclass. That bottom up customization has advantages. Although it does have its own disadvantages as you mentioned.

The fusion of these two trains of thought would be each level each character gets a level's worth of features but then it is not a class based system anymore.
The fusion could be what LARPs already do. Providing a class system that includes electable features within it. Much like taking your college courses for whatever your major happens to be there will be spots that are somewhat electable and don't need to be taken in a specific order. You can fill those spots with the knowledge you want rather than the knowledge you're expected to have. If you want Sneak Attack and he wants Cunning Action and I give you one feature selection then you're still within the Rogue class but with the freedom to choose. LARPs generally use Build Points and prereqs to limit shenanigans but it otherwise looks like a Feat list. If we see Feat as short for Feature then you can just build your own Rogue from a list of available options. We're already basically doing that with subclasses and ASIs anyway.

cutlery

2020-09-02, 04:34 PM

If we see Feat as short for Feature then you can just build your own Rogue from a list of available options. We're already basically doing that with subclasses and ASIs anyway.

I suspect that eventually becomes something of a balance nightmare as more content gets added - which is why I completely understand the "multiclassing is optional" approach. Things really got out of hand in 3/3.5 and they would be wise to tread carefully.

At my (virtual) table; if a player sees some particular class feature or thinks of one that isn't written, I can make an already existing class work; there's usually a feature they don't care too much about and it can be swapped.

Say a player really wants a fighter but liked the ethereal step feature of the Horizon Walker, swapping it out for a 7th or 10th level feature isn't so bad.

Keeping the default rules simple is important, and I think a good goal. But, I still think Warlocks should have been Int casters (think of what that would do to multiclassing!).

Kyutaru

2020-09-02, 04:48 PM

But, I still think Warlocks should have been Int casters (think of what that would do to multiclassing!).
The devs did too! They were! Changed due to player feedback... players ruining the game is known to DMs. :smallwink:

OldTrees1

2020-09-02, 06:06 PM

The fusion could be what LARPs already do. Providing a class system that includes electable features within it. Much like taking your college courses for whatever your major happens to be there will be spots that are somewhat electable and don't need to be taken in a specific order. You can fill those spots with the knowledge you want rather than the knowledge you're expected to have. If you want Sneak Attack and he wants Cunning Action and I give you one feature selection then you're still within the Rogue class but with the freedom to choose. LARPs generally use Build Points and prereqs to limit shenanigans but it otherwise looks like a Feat list. If we see Feat as short for Feature then you can just build your own Rogue from a list of available options. We're already basically doing that with subclasses and ASIs anyway.

I do indeed see Feat as short for Feature.

Yes, this is sort of where I drifted to at the end of 3.5E both as a DM and as a Player.

I will note the other players in my 3.5 group did not take me up on this excessive freeform, nor did they take me up on my openness to working out homebrew with them. They preferred the level by level multiclassing, or even single classing. So I do think we want to support multiple degrees of complexity.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-09-02, 07:18 PM

I suspect that eventually becomes something of a balance nightmare as more content gets added - which is why I completely understand the "multiclassing is optional" approach. Things really got out of hand in 3/3.5 and they would be wise to tread carefully.

Agreed. You get exponentially-increasing complexity.

There's a basic truth--you can't make a class/level system into a point-buy system (which is what people seem to want here) just by increasing the granularity of the options. The two have fundamentally different assumptions about what it means to be a character in the system.

I'd just say
* remove multiclassing entirely.
* make more feats that evoke particular features of other classes (but weakened and with level prereqs) or strengthen the features of your own class.
* give these "multiclass feats" out on a different cadence than "regular" feats, but make them a variant (so DMs can opt in).
* Profit.

You want to be a skillful fighter? Pick Fighter as your class, then pick up some of the Rogue "talents".

You want to be a armored wizard? Pick Wizard and then pick up some of the Fighter "talents".

Etc.

cutlery

2020-09-03, 07:26 AM

I'd just say
* remove multiclassing entirely.
* make more feats that evoke particular features of other classes (but weakened and with level prereqs) or strengthen the features of your own class.
* give these "multiclass feats" out on a different cadence than "regular" feats, but make them a variant (so DMs can opt in).
* Profit.

The most recent set of UA feats seems to be going down this road; at least with the current feat system.

A feat for fighting styles, a feat for invocations (carefully worded so that feating your way to agonizing blast is impossible without two warlock levels), feats for a few archetype features (tactician and tracker), and some pumped up casting feats (Metamagic, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched)

All they really need is a few 3rd level spell feats (and precedent already exists with the racial feats) for you to be able to radically change how a 1/2 or 1/3 caster with known spells plays via feats rather than multiclassing.

I think that and fixing how easy it is to either dip warlock (make eldritch blast a scaling class feature) or mix essentially any of the charisma casters with paladin (smite with paladin slots only, or give paladins a different casting stat) would go a long way. Mixing fighter and wizard would still be on the table, and require all the tradeoffs it currently does.

deljzc

2020-09-03, 04:01 PM

In my DM group, mutliclassing is restricted to one of the classes has to be one of the "basic" original classes:

Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard

No more than two classes.

I'm just not a big fan of all the optimization and splash multiclassing for one specific ability or trait (armor/weapon proficiency among them).

I'm just too old school/first edition player so multiclassing is hard. But then again, I play a much more gritty game where I power down classes, but power up ability scores and magic items.

Amechra

2020-09-03, 11:30 PM

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-04, 10:16 AM

So, getting off the topic of getting spell progressions to play nice with multiclassing, are there any small tweaks to classes that you'd like to see?

Personally, I'd like it if Monk/Rogue hybrids could sneak attack with their unarmed strikes. That would be pretty sweet.

I agree.

I see the biggest limiting factors being Rogues not working with caster levels, and Monks not really working well with much of anything.

To fix Rogues, I'd just make it so that any saving throw that could be eligible for Sneak Attack allows you to use your number of Sneak Attack dice to increase your spell DC by. So if you have 2 dice, they get a -2 penalty to their Save. Only works on single-target spells, though. Sure, that does mean you're looking at a potential -9 to save, but that's a -9 to save against Tasha's Hideous Laughter at level 20. In a way, you can spend a caster level to increase the potency of your debuffs, which is an interesting tradeoff that I don't think is terrible (especially when compared to the previous situation of Rogue + Caster hybrids).

To fix Monks, I'd probably reduce the amount of Ki you get by the amount of AC your armor gives you compared to your Unarmored Defense, but still give you all of the powers that normally are stripped away from wearing armor. So you can still get your Martial Arts dice and punches while wearing Medium Armor, but you might suffer a -2 to your Ki point total for doing so. Seems like a fair price for power. Coincidentally, this basically translates to "The more Wisdom you have, the more Ki you have", which makes a lot of sense.

zinycor

2020-09-04, 01:49 PM

I have enjoyed Multiclassing so far. I don't think it needs fixing.

Man_Over_Game

2020-09-04, 02:00 PM

I have enjoyed Multiclassing so far. I don't think it needs fixing.

I think it's enjoyable, if it already does the things you're looking for.

Want a Paladin that spams more and more Divine Smites? Sure, you can easily do that. Add more healing? More death? More versatility? All of the above? Why not?
Want a Rogue that uses Battlemaster Maneuvers to cripple his targets as a ranged support sniper? Sure, it can do that well, too.

But without Divine Smite or Sorcerer Metamagics, multiclassing into full-caster classes start to get really awkward.

You also can't multiclass more than 5 levels into two Martial classes, unless one of those is a Rogue, and the number of options that change how you fight are actually fairly low (A Bear Totem or Zealot Barbarian plays almost identically to a Cavalier or a melee Samurai).

Not to mention that Wisdom classes don't really multiclass well into anything.

The number of opportunities ruined by poor planning is pretty huge.

People like you are already getting what you want out of the system, but the rest of us want to enjoy it the same way too.

zinycor

2020-09-04, 06:44 PM

Aimeryan

2020-09-04, 08:16 PM

I think my main problem with these fixes is that they add complexity to multiclassing, which is the main reason I never multiclassed on previous gmes, it was just too hard. On this edition is easy to understand and only care to go with fun gimmicks with it.

But,you re right, to each their own, if some people want more complexitiy and want to expand their game, am all for they getting their fun.

Multiclassing is optional, so you could argue that no matter how complex it was it would not make 5e more complex. On the other hand, I don't see why you could not have Simplified Multiclassing and Traditional Multiclassing.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-09-04, 08:35 PM

Multiclassing is optional, so you could argue that no matter how complex it was it would not make 5e more complex. On the other hand, I don't see why you could not have Simplified Multiclassing and Traditional Multiclassing.

As long as it didn't become functionally required due to power creep. If a straight character and a new-style multiclassed character can happily adventure together without issue (ie the power ceiling really doesn't rise at all from new-style multiclassing), then it's still optional. If not, then you've basically split the player-base and made a bunch of people less happy--either they have to do something they don't like or they'll find it much harder to get games.

Aimeryan

2020-09-04, 08:50 PM

If a straight character and a new-style multiclassed character can happily adventure together without issue (ie the power ceiling really doesn't rise at all from new-style multiclassing), then it's still optional.

I both understand what you are saying here and yet find it similar to polishing a car that has just been through a crash - technically the car looks better, but you really have to ignore all the holes and bent pieces of metal to appreciate that.

The problem I have with the statement is that two classes can have wildly different power ceilings (Ranger and Wizard, for example), yet still happily adventure together without issue. Or, not. It really ends up being on the players. I could have a Simplified and a Traditional in the same party just the same way - some players it would work for, others it will not.

To be fair, I think any player that demanded the simplicity of a Champion and yet got annoyed that my Wizard was overshadowing them would end up being a player I would not play with - as is my right.

Tanarii

2020-09-04, 09:13 PM

As long as it didn't become functionally required due to power creep. If a straight character and a new-style multiclassed character can happily adventure together without issue (ie the power ceiling really doesn't rise at all from new-style multiclassing), then it's still optional. If not, then you've basically split the player-base and made a bunch of people less happy--either they have to do something they don't like or they'll find it much harder to get games.
Generally speaking, agreed. No classes wildly break inter-class balance except the Hexblade. Several specific spells and Feats do, but DMs can fix the former by house ruling and the latter by not allowing them as an optional rule. Most multiclassing also does not currently, with the possible exception of a coffeelock.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-09-04, 09:22 PM

I both understand what you are saying here and yet find it similar to polishing a car that has just been through a crash - technically the car looks better, but you really have to ignore all the holes and bent pieces of metal to appreciate that.

The problem I have with the statement is that two classes can have wildly different power ceilings (Ranger and Wizard, for example), yet still happily adventure together without issue. Or, not. It really ends up being on the players. I could have a Simplified and a Traditional in the same party just the same way - some players it would work for, others it will not.

To be fair, I think any player that demanded the simplicity of a Champion and yet got annoyed that my Wizard was overshadowing them would end up being a player I would not play with - as is my right.

At the present time, the differences between classes are in the noise as played. Not as char-op'd, but then people rarely play that way. I had a group made of a Monk, Druid, Warlock (GOO), and AT rogue. The rogue and warlock drove that campaign all the way to 20--the least effective player was the druid. Not due to his class, but because of the player. All were at similar levels of optimization (ie not very high). That's what I mean by "in the noise as played"--the player has much more influence than the class.

And I strongly disfavor anything that would break that balance. And some of the proposals here have strongly bent, if not broken that balance. Making it so that you get everything you'd get from staying single-classed and then a bunch of other stuff. If I had my way, multiclassing would always be a net power loss as a tradeoff for widened versatility. And it's mostly that way now, except for some paladin/sorcerer or sorcerer/warlock builds.

Generally speaking, agreed. No classes wildly break inter-class balance except the Hexblade. Several specific spells and Feats do, but DMs can fix the former by house ruling and the latter by not allowing them as an optional rule. Most multiclassing also does not currently, with the possible exception of a coffeelock.

And even the Hexblade isn't so bad if single-classed. And for spells and feats to break it requires people to double-down on those or use shenanigans (anything involving multiple simulacrums as an example). Which is why I'm ok with the system as it stands. Is it a multiclasser's (or optimizer's) preferred solution? No. But that would come with tradeoffs of its own that I'm not willing to pay.

More fundamentally, I'm opposed to more granular multiclassing because it breaks the class fiction and tries to implement a poor-man's version of a point-buy system. And class/level systems are incompatible with point-buy. The fundamental abstractions and assumptions are too different. All you get when you try to mix them is bland mush spiked with random shards of broken builds.

Frogreaver

2020-09-04, 09:36 PM

Yakk

2020-09-04, 11:08 PM

OldTrees1

2020-09-05, 12:30 AM

Hence a fourfold approach.

Make the evocative trap options - say 10/10 full/full caster, the level 5 extra attack trap, etc -- not garbage. Make the badly written.dip bait -- I am looking at you hexblade -- not as ridiculous. Fix the back 10 to ensure classes curve upward.

Then adjust encounter budgets for 11+ to both reflect these changes, and the existing charop power levels of 11+ PCs.

Yes, yet another voice mentioning the required balancing domains. This would work.
A multiclass is avoided for being a trap? Make it not garbage.
A single class after Nth level is avoided for being a trap? Make it not garbage.
A dip is excessive and makes everything else look like a trap? Make it less excessive without it becoming a trap for single class OR multiclass.

Kyutaru

2020-09-05, 07:38 AM

Yes, yet another voice mentioning the required balancing domains. This would work.
A multiclass is avoided for being a trap? Make it not garbage.
A single class after Nth level is avoided for being a trap? Make it not garbage.
A dip is excessive and makes everything else look like a trap? Make it less excessive without it becoming a trap for single class OR multiclass.
Truly that is the Platonic ideal. But it's akin to acknowledging that the solution to cancer is to cure it.

How should we meet all three of these goals?

cutlery

2020-09-05, 07:47 AM

A multiclass is avoided for being a trap? Make it not garbage.

How do you make 5wiz/5bard/5cleric/5sorcerer not garbage, by that standard without making it overpowered?

Similarly, how do you make 5pal/5fighter/5ranger/5barbarian not overpowered relative to a pure version of any of those?

And, then how does that interact with, say, 11ek/9wiz - I'd think very carefully before any sort of change that meant a 11ek/9wiz had 3 attacks and access to 6th level spells; or a 12ek/8wiz for that matter, which rescues an ASI with potentially no loss in highest spell slot.

You can't just handwave "balance the spells" because that is a nontrivial task; particularly when class balance is, in part, related to different spell lists above 5th (but also some key lower level spells, like animate dead not being a Warlock spell).

Because if you could, you could just as easily handwave "make multiclassing suck less".

Spells are very much the problem, and it would take a detailed breakdown and set of list changes to make higher level spell access via multiclassing not broken.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-09-05, 08:16 AM

How do you make 5wiz/5bard/5cleric/5sorcerer not garbage, by that standard without making it overpowered?

Similarly, how do you make 5pal/5fighter/5ranger/5barbarian not overpowered relative to a pure version of any of those?

And, then how does that interact with, say, 11ek/9wiz - I'd think very carefully before any sort of change that meant a 11ek/9wiz had 3 attacks and access to 6th level spells; or a 12ek/8wiz for that matter, which rescues an ASI with potentially no loss in highest spell slot.

You can't just handwave "balance the spells" because that is a nontrivial task; particularly when class balance is, in part, related to different spell lists above 5th (but also some key lower level spells, like animate dead not being a Warlock spell).

Because if you could, you could just as easily handwave "make multiclassing suck less".

Spells are very much the problem, and it would take a detailed breakdown and set of list changes to make higher level spell access via multiclassing not broken.

Agreed.

No one has defined what "making things not garbage" even means in this discussion. If it means that any possible multiclass should be at least as strong as a pure class, while having the widened versatility of the multiclass, that's broken. The issue is very multidimensional and can't simply be reduced to a single parameter (or worse, a single binary garbage/not garbage indicator). And it's also largely subjective.

People want to be able to mix and match freely. I get it. But that's horrible from a balance perspective--now you have to balance all possible combinations, which explodes combinatorially. And the opportunity for edge cases is huge. Not only that, it completely devalues the class fiction, turning classes into substance-less bags of mechanics. As I've said before, don't try to do point buy with class/level systems. It doesn't work and you get the worst of both worlds.

Aimeryan

2020-09-05, 08:59 AM

Selling "more power" in exchange for build or cgaracter complexity is a bad plan.

When I want to play a complex character, I am _not_ paying some kind of price that I deserve to be rewarded for. I enjoy playing complex character sometimes, other times I like playing simple characters.

People who only want to play simple characters don't deserve to be overshadowed by people who like playing complex characters. This isn't some nerd size measuring contest.

Complexity in of itself should not result in more power, of course. However, competently putting various parts together to make more than the sum of their parts is very much a draw for many people. For people who just want to enjoy a campaign and care little for how capable their character is, simplicity needs to exist while being viable. For people who want depth of mastery in the game, reasonable complexity needs to exist while not breaking the system.

If the game is not meant to reward game mastery then I would rather be told straight up so I can choose whether to go into such a game - it would affect my expected outcomes and that matters a lot to how much I enjoy such a game, which is the goal of any game.

For example, if we took the Total War series, looking at the battle side of the game; You could have a player that just makes an army up of anything and then charges it en masse at the enemy - simple. Should this player be as effective as a player that builds an army to mitigate weaknesses, emphasis strengths, offer different options when different situations arise? A player who flanks, snipes glass cannon units, uses chequerboard formations, uses terrain?

If you say yes, then we are just not going to agree; a chasm of opinion divides us. Now, does every game need such degrees of game mastery? No, however, a game without much at all is not going to be of interest to me - and I would like to know that is meant to be the case. As neither you, I, nor anyone else in this thread is a developer at WotC, I don't think any of us can say what is meant for this game. What I can say is that 5e does show a fair degree of game mastery, which for me is a good good thing.

Tanarii

2020-09-05, 09:22 AM

How do you make 5wiz/5bard/5cleric/5sorcerer not garbage, by that standard without making it overpowered?

Similarly, how do you make 5pal/5fighter/5ranger/5barbarian not overpowered relative to a pure version of any of those?
The solution is to make the value of all levels equal. Then if you want some variety of features to allow something like scaling up spellcasting power to higher level spells, rate the value of features.

Basically a point system for character generation. But that's not D&D.

For that matter, most point generation systems aren't very well balanced in actual implementation anyway.

Multiclassing has been broken since 3e introduced the concept of pick a new level each time you level. Because in D&D, levels aren't equal in value, nor will they ever be.

Pex

2020-09-05, 10:10 AM

How do you make 5wiz/5bard/5cleric/5sorcerer not garbage, by that standard without making it overpowered?

Similarly, how do you make 5pal/5fighter/5ranger/5barbarian not overpowered relative to a pure version of any of those?

And, then how does that interact with, say, 11ek/9wiz - I'd think very carefully before any sort of change that meant a 11ek/9wiz had 3 attacks and access to 6th level spells; or a 12ek/8wiz for that matter, which rescues an ASI with potentially no loss in highest spell slot.

You can't just handwave "balance the spells" because that is a nontrivial task; particularly when class balance is, in part, related to different spell lists above 5th (but also some key lower level spells, like animate dead not being a Warlock spell).

Because if you could, you could just as easily handwave "make multiclassing suck less".

Spells are very much the problem, and it would take a detailed breakdown and set of list changes to make higher level spell access via multiclassing not broken.

The question then is should every possible multiclass option be not garbage? All classes should be worth taking single class from level 1 to 20. That's a given by virtue of being a class-based game. It's nice that Paladin/Sorcerer can work well together, but should that mean Barbarian/Wizard must also? To fix Barbarian/Spellcaster means changing Rage to allow casting and concentration of spells while raging and Rage doesn't end if you don't attack or take damage to allow for buffing yourself and the enemy missed you that round. Are people willing to go that far? Double Extra Attack is an easy problem to fix. Not all multiclass problems are, but do they need to be?

zinycor

2020-09-05, 11:27 AM

cutlery

2020-09-05, 01:31 PM

I guess I could see half an ASI for getting an unstackable extra attack as a fair buff to multiclassing into a secondary martial class.

Edit: oh and getting rid of stats requirements for multiclassing is something I played with and worked pretty well.

Well, getting rid of those requirements would mean that someone could go pal2/bladesinger X and be probably even more broke than pal2/sorcerer X

Which they can already essentially do if they use rolled stats; I think the pointbuy system and multiclass stat prerequisites serve as a minor limiter on those sorts of multiclass combinations - the biggest problem there is there are a few too many full caster classes for how many mental stats are in the game.

Xetheral

2020-09-05, 01:57 PM

People want to be able to mix and match freely. I get it. But that's horrible from a balance perspective--now you have to balance all possible combinations, which explodes combinatorially. And the opportunity for edge cases is huge. Not only that, it completely devalues the class fiction, turning classes into substance-less bags of mechanics. As I've said before, don't try to do point buy with class/level systems. It doesn't work and you get the worst of both worlds.

Personally, I'm fine with devaluing class fiction--so long as the character fiction is supported by a class's mechanics, it doesn't matter to me if the character fiction matches the class fiction. Of course, that's entirely a question of personal taste and your opinion to the contrary is just as important as mine.

Where I disagree, however, is with your claim that devaluing class fiction turns classes into "substance-less bags of mechanics". The classes still have substantial themes that group their mechanics, even when the fiction that corresponds to those themes is being ignored. I would thus argue that devaluing class fiction instead turns classes into "packages of themed mechanics".

From my standpoint, creating characters via mixing and matching packages of themed mechanics is an entirely different exercise than creating characters via point buy. In particular, the requirement to choose between the themed bags forces trade-offs that aren't present in a more granular point-buy system.

For example, in a point-buy system it will often be the case that one particular approach to defense is the most efficient point-wise and another is the most effective, albeit less efficient. Just about every optimized character built in that system will have one of those two approaches to defense, despite the presence of a theoretically huge number of possible combinations of defensive abilities.

By contrast, when abilities come in themed packages, selecting a package to get one ability automatically gives you easier access to other abilities in the same package. So if you pick the Barbarian package to get Reckless Attack to fit your character concept, the defensive options of Unarmored Defense and Rage-based damage mitigation come along for the ride. This changes the efficiency/power calculations when looking at defensive abilities: heavy armor, although potentially the most efficient defensive option in 5e in the abstract, is now much less efficient for that particular character. This phenomenon tends to increase the variety of abilities seen in play in a mix/match system.

Ultimately, I don't see mix-and-match multiclassing as trying to do point-buy with a class/level system. Instead, I see mix-and-match as an approach in its own right with advantages and disadvantages when compared to both point buy and single-class systems.

cutlery

2020-09-05, 02:03 PM

Where I disagree, however, is with your claim that devaluing class fiction turns classes into "substance-less bags of mechanics". The classes still have substantial themes that group their mechanics, even when the fiction that corresponds to those themes is being ignored. I would thus argue that devaluing class fiction instead turns classes into "packages of themed mechanics".

I think that's right - look to the sorcerer vs wizard debate or nearly any discussion of paladin. Folks tend to have a certain idea about what the bag of themed mechanics that make up a class means, and for them that precludes certain character themes.

For myself, I just can't see a paladin/sorcerer as a swords-and-fireballs castery hybrid, even though I know that there is no more arcane/divine distinction; abilities like "divine smite" and "lay on hands" have a lot to do with that.

Oathbreaker/shadow sorcerer is pretty damned cool, though, for what that's worth - not every DM is ok with Oathbreakers.

zinycor

2020-09-05, 02:57 PM

Changing Sneak Attack dice to work with spells somehow.

This I don't get, dipping into rogue is already incredibly common and convenient, and any change done so sneak attack stacks with spells would also impact AT which already is one of the best rogue archetypes...

OldTrees1

2020-09-05, 06:18 PM

Truly that is the Platonic ideal. But it's akin to acknowledging that the solution to cancer is to cure it.

How should we meet all three of these goals?

How do you make 5wiz/5bard/5cleric/5sorcerer not garbage, by that standard without making it overpowered?

1) Add features to the higher levels in classes that don't have a level's worth of level appropriate features per level. This acknowledges one of the underlying problems and mentions the solution. True it does not create all the content for you or for WotC, but it does lay out the action items.
2) Take things like Extra Attack that overlap with no synergy, and replace them or add scaling. For Extra Attack there have been 4-7 solutions mentioned thus far in this thread.
3) For larger features with multiclass scaling but insufficient scaling, adjust to have more scaling. I know cutlery dislikes my spells known progress as Class level + Other levels / 3 suggestion, but that does solve their question of "How do you make 5wiz/5bard/5cleric/5sorcerer not garbage, by that standard without making it overpowered?" Because knowing 5th level magic from 4 list vs knowing 9th level magic from 1 list is more balanced then having them only know 3rd level magic from those 4 schools.

Similarly, how do you make 5pal/5fighter/5ranger/5barbarian not overpowered relative to a pure version of any of those?

And, then how does that interact with, say, 11ek/9wiz - I'd think very carefully before any sort of change that meant a 11ek/9wiz had 3 attacks and access to 6th level spells; or a 12ek/8wiz for that matter, which rescues an ASI with potentially no loss in highest spell slot.

I do know we both agreed to disagree so I will state my answers under that assumption. Rather than under the assumption that you want to burn more pages repeating that discussion over and over and over and over.

We both agree in trade offs. Here are the trade offs I am suggesting in this 1st draft.

5pal/5fighter/5ranger/5barbarian
Has the class features from 1-5 in 4 classes, 1.5-3 extra ASIs, and only 3rd level Paladin/Ranger spells compared to Paladin 20, their 5th level Paladin spells, the class features from Paladin 6-20, and the new level appropriate high level Paladin features.
I think the redundant Extra Attacks could be replaced with a full ASI (a level's worth of features lost => a level's worth of features gained) but only getting 1/2 an ASI is another common answer in the thread.

12ek/8wiz
3rd level Eldritch Knight spells. 6th level Wizard spells. 3 Attacks.
vs
EK20: 4th level Eldritch Knight spells. 4 Attacks. And the other level appropriate features added to levels 13-20.
Wiz20: 9th level Wizard spells. 1 Attack.
After step 1, where Fighter 20 becomes level appropriate, I consider these to be reasonable tradeoffs even though you consider 6th+ Wiz only spells to be a radioactive topic.

You can't just handwave "balance the spells" because that is a nontrivial task; particularly when class balance is, in part, related to different spell lists above 5th (but also some key lower level spells, like animate dead not being a Warlock spell).

Because if you could, you could just as easily handwave "make multiclassing suck less".

Spells are very much the problem, and it would take a detailed breakdown and set of list changes to make higher level spell access via multiclassing not broken.

We already wasted several pages on this. If you want to waste more, please do it without quoting me.

1) If you consider some spells to be OP and ban worthy, then ban them. You are the DM.
2) If you don't consider any spells ban worthy but consider 11th+ level to reward Wizard more than 11th+ level reward Fighter, then I refer you to my prioritized list.

1) Add features to the higher levels in classes that don't have a level's worth of level appropriate features per level. This acknowledges one of the underlying problems and mentions the solution. True it does not create all the content for you or for WotC, but it does lay out the action items.
And yes, I get that it is a nontrivial task. I do not claim the topic has a trivial solution. That is a premise you have that I don't share.

After those 2 options I see no reason to waste breath on this spurious argument.

No one has defined what "making things not garbage" even means in this discussion. If it means that any possible multiclass should be at least as strong as a pure class, while having the widened versatility of the multiclass, that's broken. The issue is very multidimensional and can't simply be reduced to a single parameter (or worse, a single binary garbage/not garbage indicator). And it's also largely subjective.
Actually that is why I have used subjective terms like trap or garbage. I phrase it as "IF you have this kind of problem, implement the matching kind of solution." because people are full of subjective judgements about the game. So I make my reply match their judgements by giving them the matching solution.