Has multi-classing become too easy?

[hitchhike79]

My last campaign i was a fun Human ranger shooting my crossbow and realized i needed magical damage. So i just asked to multi-class into Forge Domain cleric and wow it was amazing!
Never made it past lvl 8 to see what all i could be, as the campaign came to an end when ole Strahd bit the stake.

It made me think though, how they hell did i just gain all that ability, skill and knowledge of a cleric? I didnt take months or whatever to go learn the stuff, i just applied it to my sheet...
It cant be that easy? Oh it is... that is too easy.

Way back in my teen years with 2nd edition (yes im old) when i last played before 5e, multiclassing was odd if i remember right. I do remember though the few that did, it wasnt just some trivial thing to make it happen. You had to work at it, maybe that was just my DM or the rules but it should be a challenge i fee.

So i raise the question, have we let META game and the do the most damage possible desire drag us to far away from the design of the game?

Also previously stated in other areas, does it take away fun/balance from the party? If one character can out dmg everyone else what is the point for combat?
If they can do two or three different skills that the party needs and removes the need for many classes, what is the point of the party then?



my proposal would be this;

If you happen to be a fighter with a great wisdom score and the cleric in your party decides to share his knowledge with you over the months... well then sure multiclass into that clerics class/subclass.
If your that same fighter with a great wisdom score and decide to become a druid at the drop of a hat with no training or anything... then no that just doesnt work. (sure you could pause everyone elses progression while you train in the forest with a mentor that you seek out, but that doesnt sound very fun for anyone)



There needs to be a path to take, not just "Hey guys we just killed this band of Trolls and it was enough XP to give me a level of Sorcerer AND Warlock. Oh i know im a Bard and already a jack of all trades, but now i can do this and this.... isnt that cool."

[MaxWilson]

My last campaign i was a fun Human ranger shooting my crossbow and realized i needed magical damage. So i just asked to multi-class into Forge Domain cleric and wow it was amazing!
Never made it past lvl 8 to see what all i could be, as the campaign came to an end when ole Strahd bit the stake.

It made me think though, how they hell did i just gain all that ability, skill and knowledge of a cleric? I didnt take months or whatever to go learn the stuff, i just applied it to my sheet...
It cant be that easy? Oh it is... that is too easy.

In AD&D, being a multiclassed Fighter/Mage involves advancing in both classes at the same time. 5E models this by having you "take a level" in one class or the other each time you get enough XP, but that doesn't necessarily imply that you haven't been a Fighter/Mage all along studying both.

The rules do allow you to suddenly decide that you're switching classes, but if it bugs you, don't do it.

That said, yes, 5E makes multiclassing too easy and too powerful. I like the AD&D (2nd edition) model better, wherein multiclassing helps you at low levels and hurts you at high levels. Reaching 18th level is pretty much hopeless if you're multiclassed, because it requires as much XP as a normal PC would require to hit 29th level. (Or even more if you are triple-classed.) Also, multiclassing doesn't relax as many restrictions in AD&D (2nd edition) as it does in 5E: a Fighter/Mage can wear armor while fighting as a fighter, but still has to take that armor off in order to cast spells like a wizard.

[Neorealist]

It's an abstraction necessary to facilitate the mechanics of the game; they were never intended to accurately map to either time or effort. Specifically there isn't any direct correlation between the abilities gained by obtaining a new level either in the same class or a new multi-class, and how much time has passed, nor the specific efforts of the character in a campaign.

Justifying it (or not) is left up to a player and their DM.

[TyGuy]

Different strokes for different folks.

Some people like to play table top video games where things are hand waved and instant. Poof you leveled up in the middle of a dungeon, you have full health and a new class dip in something you never roleplayed working towards once.

I personally think that stuff breaks immersion, and I try to do leveling with down time and "magic" events. Even if they're a little contrived, I like an explanation for power jumps. I also banned multiclassing because of the meta impulses of some of my players in the past.
The way I see it, there's 2 main reasons to multiclass. First is power gaming, of which I don't care about and won't cater to. Second is flavor/ theme, if a straight class falls short at telling the PC's story. I think just a much can be achieved with homebrew and refluffing as multiclassing for the second. Just my 2 cents.

[Zhorn]

It's a great point. Someone should make a comic strip about it, highlighting the idea of there being no Multiclass Struggles (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) :smallbiggrin:

[Frogreaver]

My last campaign i was a fun Human ranger shooting my crossbow and realized i needed magical damage. So i just asked to multi-class into Forge Domain cleric and wow it was amazing!
Never made it past lvl 8 to see what all i could be, as the campaign came to an end when ole Strahd bit the stake.

It made me think though, how they hell did i just gain all that ability, skill and knowledge of a cleric? I didnt take months or whatever to go learn the stuff, i just applied it to my sheet...
It cant be that easy? Oh it is... that is too easy.

Way back in my teen years with 2nd edition (yes im old) when i last played before 5e, multiclassing was odd if i remember right. I do remember though the few that did, it wasnt just some trivial thing to make it happen. You had to work at it, maybe that was just my DM or the rules but it should be a challenge i fee.

So i raise the question, have we let META game and the do the most damage possible desire drag us to far away from the design of the game?

Also previously stated in other areas, does it take away fun/balance from the party? If one character can out dmg everyone else what is the point for combat?
If they can do two or three different skills that the party needs and removes the need for many classes, what is the point of the party then?



my proposal would be this;

If you happen to be a fighter with a great wisdom score and the cleric in your party decides to share his knowledge with you over the months... well then sure multiclass into that clerics class/subclass.
If your that same fighter with a great wisdom score and decide to become a druid at the drop of a hat with no training or anything... then no that just doesnt work. (sure you could pause everyone elses progression while you train in the forest with a mentor that you seek out, but that doesnt sound very fun for anyone)



There needs to be a path to take, not just "Hey guys we just killed this band of Trolls and it was enough XP to give me a level of Sorcerer AND Warlock. Oh i know im a Bard and already a jack of all trades, but now i can do this and this.... isnt that cool."

That's an issue with most level based class advancement and it really doesn't depend on multiclassing at all.

Why do Barbarians suddenly become angry enough to learn frenzy and attack more? Why do Bards suddenly learn expertise at level 3? Why do wizards specialize in spell school at level 2? Why do Fighters suddenly learn action surge at level 2? Where do Shadow Monks suddenly learn the ability to cast darkness? Etc.

Multiclassing brings the problem to the forefront more often but it's still there even without multiclassing.

IMO, what this means is you should be setting the stage for your new abilities to seemingly organically manifest. If you must have that "on screen" then add it to your roleplay. Or be like most of us and just assume it's happening "off screen".

[Tanarii]

Reaching 18th level is pretty much hopeless if you're multiclassed, because it requires as much XP as a normal PC would require to hit 29th level.
Also because level limits.

[MaxWilson]

Also because level limits.

Well, sometimes. Depends on the race, class, and setting, and sometimes also on your prime requisite. Elves can reach 19th level as wizards under the DMG Exceeding Level Limits rule, for example--but in practice that only matters for NPCs who have been around for centuries already.

[Luccan]

It's harder than in 3.X. I'm not really sure there's a way to make it feel meaningfully difficult and rewarding.

[Necroanswer]

It's harder than in 3.X. I'm not really sure there's a way to make it feel meaningfully difficult and rewarding.

Was it really? I think you're forgetting about rules about favored classes and the xp penalties that can result in not keeping class levels evened out. A lot of tables hand-waved it away, but it was RAW.

Multiclassing probably warrants a brief discussion with players before play begins. If I were to GM I would personally prefer to know ahead of time that a player wanted to multiclass so that it could be worked into the story in a logical fashion.

[MaxWilson]

Way back in my teen years with 2nd edition (yes im old) when i last played before 5e, multiclassing was odd if i remember right. I do remember though the few that did, it wasnt just some trivial thing to make it happen. You had to work at it, maybe that was just my DM or the rules but it should be a challenge i fee.

Oh! I just realized you are talking about dual-classing here, not multiclassing.

Quick recap of dual-classing in AD&D2:

Humans only.

You need a lot of raw talent to pull it off: a 15 in the prime requisite of the class you're leaving, and a 17 in the class you're entering. (E.g. a Fighter 9 trying to become a wizard needs Str 15 and Int 17.) You have to be really smart at magic to catch up with full-blown wizards after you're already an adult, without a long apprenticeship first.

Until you reach a level in your new class higher than your old class, falling back to your old skills brings a hefty XP penalty for the whole adventure. If the now-wizard picks up a sword to fight off some gnolls the way he used to instead of nuking them the wizard way, XP penalty! It's harder for him to learn if he doesn't make a cold break. This applies even to saving throws IIRC, but not HP. (Why saving throws are affected: as a fighter maybe you used to drop and roll to dodge disintegration rays whereas as a wizard you counterspell them with a mystic gesture. If you keep dropping and rolling you'll never get good at the mystic gestures.)

You don't gain more HP until you reach a level higher than any you've gained before.

Unlike 5E, there are no crazy rules for combining classes or spell slots. If you're a Priest of Oghma 8 and a Necromancer 9, that's it--you're a ninth level character as a wizard, not a 17th level character, but you're also an eighth-level character as a priest. So, actually playing the PC is straightforward.

I am not sure without checking but I think that unlike a multiclassed character, you do not have to abide by religious restrictions after leaving the religious class. A Fighter/Cleric cannot use swords because they're edged, but I think a dual-classed Cleric-become-Fighter can. Dual classing doesn't let you cast wizard spells in armor though.

In short, most of the weirdness of dual classing is just related to the XP bookkeeping. If you don't care about leveling up any more, or if you've already exceeded your highest levels in other classes, dual-classing is straightforward and intuitive.

[loki_ragnarock]

Reaching 18th level is pretty much hopeless if you're multiclassed, because it requires as much XP as a normal PC would require to hit 29th level.
Because of nonstandard xp tables, there are some outliers like the gnome thief/cleric who will only be a very little bit behind a standard fighter.

Generally, avoiding the high xp table classes like wizard or ranger meant your multi-class wasn't typically suffering too much in the scheme of things.

Dual class, though. Dual class was a punishing gut check that left you fuuuuuuu-rious about adventuring as a 1st level wizard while everyone else is rocking out as an 8th level thief or 4th level wizard. Major disadvantage until you can catch back up.
(Numbers are exaggerated for humor via hyperbole coupled with not wanting to get up to cross check my books for accuracy.)

The old days. Nothing like them. Which is probably for the best, in a lot of ways.

EDIT:
I mean, I was coming to this late, but I wasn't expecting to be ninja'd like that.

[Temperjoke]

From a pure mechanics perspective, yeah it's easy as long as you meet the minimum requirements. But I think they did that intentionally, that way DMs had the most freedom to impose as many or as few requirements of their own. I mean, the whole multiclassing option itself is considered an optional feature at the DM's discretion. If your DM lets you multiclass as if it was as easy as pressing a button, that's on them. Personally, I'd prefer there to be more meaning/importance behind the multiclass choice, but you do you.

[zinycor]

I also started on 2nd edition AD&D. And yeah, now multiclassing is way easier. For starters, I had a high level dwarven fighter, and I couldn't take sny levels in cleric, cause of choosing to be a dwarf.

Personally, I love multiclassing being easy, powerfull and accesible.

[Luccan]

Honestly, there are enough feats that kinda cross over class features that you could put in a feat/proficiency requirement. I'd keep it low, seriously no more than 1 feat maybe 2 and only a couple proficiencies. Mix and match at your peril. And these would be on top of stat prereqs. Suggestions would be appreciated. Let's see:

Artificer: Proficiency with 2 sets of artisans' tools

Barbarian: Durable? or Savage Attacker

Bard: Proficiency with 2 instruments.

Cleric: Healer

Druid: Proficiency with Herbalism Kit (something more?)

Fighter: 1 Weapon/fighting style focus feat (Sharpshooter, Dual Wielder, etc.) or an Armor Master feat

Monk: Grappler, Tavern Brawler, Mobile or Athlete

Paladin: ?

Ranger: Alert?

Rogue: Skulker

Sorcerer: Magic Initiate

Warlock: ?

Wizard: Ritual Caster (Wizard)

This list obviously is imbalanced and incomplete, but you can see where I'm going. Of primary concern right now (to me) is Wizard and Rogue. For Wizard, Ritual Caster (wizard) seems like the obvious choice, but other than giving you a couple bonus spells for when you do multiclass it become extremely redundant immediately after you take your first level in Wizard. Meanwhile, I'm concerned that Skulker for Rogue is too on point if that makes sense. I feel like most of my other options have at least some redundancy to keep it from being "Pick up this upgrade so you're better than someone in the class that hasn't taken the feat", but Skulker basically just makes you better at sneaking than a Rogue that doesn't have it. Maybe that's not an issue because they're a 5th level Rogue and you're a Bard 4/ Rogue 1, but it's worth considering.

[Dork_Forge]

Honestly, there are enough feats that kinda cross over class features that you could put in a feat/proficiency requirement. I'd keep it low, seriously no more than 1 feat maybe 2 and only a couple proficiencies. Mix and match at your peril. And these would be on top of stat prereqs. Suggestions would be appreciated. Let's see:

Artificer: Proficiency with 2 sets of artisans' tools

Barbarian: Durable? or Savage Attacker

Bard: Proficiency with 2 instruments.

Cleric: Healer

Druid: Proficiency with Herbalism Kit (something more?)

Fighter: 1 Weapon/fighting style focus feat (Sharpshooter, Dual Wielder, etc.) or an Armor Master feat

Monk: Grappler, Tavern Brawler, Mobile or Athlete

Paladin: ?

Ranger: Alert?

Rogue: Skulker

Sorcerer: Magic Initiate

Warlock: ?

Wizard: Ritual Caster (Wizard)

This list obviously is imbalanced and incomplete, but you can see where I'm going. Of primary concern right now (to me) is Wizard and Rogue. For Wizard, Ritual Caster (wizard) seems like the obvious choice, but other than giving you a couple bonus spells for when you do multiclass it become extremely redundant immediately after you take your first level in Wizard. Meanwhile, I'm concerned that Skulker for Rogue is too on point if that makes sense. I feel like most of my other options have at least some redundancy to keep it from being "Pick up this upgrade so you're better than someone in the class that hasn't taken the feat", but Skulker basically just makes you better at sneaking than a Rogue that doesn't have it. Maybe that's not an issue because they're a 5th level Rogue and you're a Bard 4/ Rogue 1, but it's worth considering.

If you introduced a feat requirement but left the rest of 5e the same, then the number of V. Humans would sky rocket. The ASi/feat system currently in place just isn't enough to allow you to bump your stats and gain feats (nevermind needing to hit an ASI level, just to multiclass the level after). It would certainly make it less accessible, but it would struggle to not be inherently unbalanced and largely unused by the masses.

[LudicSavant]

It made me think though, how they hell did i just gain all that ability, skill and knowledge of a cleric? I didnt take months or whatever to go learn the stuff, i just applied it to my sheet...
It cant be that easy? Nothing is stopping you from roleplaying your study of Wizardry throughout the entire campaign before gaining your first Wizard level, exactly as you would be roleplaying a Wizard pursuing their study of higher level spells before they actually get them, or a Paladin deepening their connection to their oath, and so forth.

You write the explanation of how you gained your abilities at any given level up, whether it's single class or multi.

If you find the narrative you wrote unsatisfying, write a better one.

[Segev]

That's an issue with most level based class advancement and it really doesn't depend on multiclassing at all.

Why do Barbarians suddenly become angry enough to learn frenzy and attack more? Why do Bards suddenly learn expertise at level 3? Why do wizards specialize in spell school at level 2? Why do Fighters suddenly learn action surge at level 2? Where do Shadow Monks suddenly learn the ability to cast darkness? Etc.

Multiclassing brings the problem to the forefront more often but it's still there even without multiclassing.

IMO, what this means is you should be setting the stage for your new abilities to seemingly organically manifest. If you must have that "on screen" then add it to your roleplay. Or be like most of us and just assume it's happening "off screen".

This isn’t an issue of level-based or class-based systems. Any time you buy a new ability in any system, you can ask this question. Introducing training times to explain it can work, but I have never been in, nor figured out how to run, a game where downtime is plentiful enough to explain it. There’s always something else to be doing.

[LudicSavant]

Any time you buy a new ability in any system, you can ask this question

Yeah, it's a question you should be constantly answering, whether you're multiclassing or not.

[rel]

The people pointing to the spontaneous nature of gaining any new ability have the right of it.
Multiclassing is no different to the wizard suddenly learning how to cast cone of cold despite never having conjured so much as an ice cube in the last 7 levels. Or the monk suddenly learning to throw fireballs after a career of rather mundane monster punching.

[Waazraath]

My last campaign i was a fun Human ranger shooting my crossbow and realized i needed magical damage. So i just asked to multi-class into Forge Domain cleric and wow it was amazing!
Never made it past lvl 8 to see what all i could be, as the campaign came to an end when ole Strahd bit the stake.

It made me think though, how they hell did i just gain all that ability, skill and knowledge of a cleric? I didnt take months or whatever to go learn the stuff, i just applied it to my sheet...
It cant be that easy? Oh it is... that is too easy.

Way back in my teen years with 2nd edition (yes im old) when i last played before 5e, multiclassing was odd if i remember right. I do remember though the few that did, it wasnt just some trivial thing to make it happen. You had to work at it, maybe that was just my DM or the rules but it should be a challenge i fee.

So i raise the question, have we let META game and the do the most damage possible desire drag us to far away from the design of the game?

Also previously stated in other areas, does it take away fun/balance from the party? If one character can out dmg everyone else what is the point for combat?
If they can do two or three different skills that the party needs and removes the need for many classes, what is the point of the party then?

my proposal would be this;

If you happen to be a fighter with a great wisdom score and the cleric in your party decides to share his knowledge with you over the months... well then sure multiclass into that clerics class/subclass.
If your that same fighter with a great wisdom score and decide to become a druid at the drop of a hat with no training or anything... then no that just doesnt work. (sure you could pause everyone elses progression while you train in the forest with a mentor that you seek out, but that doesnt sound very fun for anyone)

There needs to be a path to take, not just "Hey guys we just killed this band of Trolls and it was enough XP to give me a level of Sorcerer AND Warlock. Oh i know im a Bard and already a jack of all trades, but now i can do this and this.... isnt that cool."

Yes, I think you are right. Leveling is purely mechanical (you get new abilities), and none of it is fluff (how exactly do you got those abilities). This is already a thing for single class characters, but for certain multi-class additions its just plain silly. You level up, suddenly made pact with that magical sword you never saw? Yeah, sure, it appeared in your dreams or whatever, with enough effort everything can be talked straight, but I prefer a game where, if somebody wants that, needs to fulfill a specific quest, or needs to encounter this sword in person in an adventure. And if your fighter wants to gains a level of wizard, fine, find somebody with whom you can study and that can teach you the trade.

As I remember well, earlier editions did sometimes had (optional?) rules on downtime in general, that you needed to spend X amount of time after leveling to train, practice new weapon tricks, etc.

By coincidence I spend last weak reading through some AD&D books - and couldn't help finding that that edition actually did a lot of stuff better, or at least as good, as the current edition. Some things worse as well, but they could have learned more from it when building the current edition of the game.

[Tanarii]

Oh! I just realized you are talking about dual-classing here, not multiclassing.

Quick recap of dual-classing in AD&D2:

Humans only.

You need a lot of raw talent to pull it off: a 15 in the prime requisite of the class you're leaving, and a 17 in the class you're entering. (E.g. a Fighter 9 trying to become a wizard needs Str 15 and Int 17.) You have to be really smart at magic to catch up with full-blown wizards after you're already an adult, without a long apprenticeship first.

You forgot the other important note about dual classing: if you rolled a 15 / 17, always plan a human dual-class! Due to the DP curve it was effectively free levels up to a certain point.

In other words, a Fighter 9 / Wizard X-1 was a "1 level dip" because a straight Wizard would be a Wizard X. Before name level it was a fraction of a level dip. All it cost you was your party carrying you for a time while you power leveled a few low capability Wizard levels.

[Aussiehams]

The fluff and the mechanics don't have to match. Class isn't even a thing in some game worlds. A PC is a person with certain skills, and how you get those skills depends on the game world.
If your Knight (Paladin) can suddenly cast more spells (Sorcerer), he is still a Knight in world, not a Paladin 6/Sorc 1.
Or maybe he is, each game is different and the players and DM have to work out how levelling works early on.

[Unoriginal]

my proposal would be this;

If you happen to be a fighter with a great wisdom score and the cleric in your party decides to share his knowledge with you over the months... well then sure multiclass into that clerics class/subclass.
If your that same fighter with a great wisdom score and decide to become a druid at the drop of a hat with no training or anything... then no that just doesnt work. (sure you could pause everyone elses progression while you train in the forest with a mentor that you seek out, but that doesnt sound very fun for anyone)



There needs to be a path to take, not just "Hey guys we just killed this band of Trolls and it was enough XP to give me a level of Sorcerer AND Warlock. Oh i know im a Bard and already a jack of all trades, but now i can do this and this.... isnt that cool."

Many D&D players do not like set RP conditions or requirement in their character building, regardless of the edition.

[MoiMagnus]

There is a conflict between two vision of classes:

1) Level 1 of a class is the literally the first time you start working on it. A level one warlock just made its pact the week before, a level one wizard just started working on its spells with his mentor, etc.

2) Level 1 of a class is an full member of the class, just lacking experience to reach its full potential. The level one wizard finished his multiple-years mentorship is is now stepping into the real world, etc.

The problem with [1] is that if the level one contain too few things, the character is not interesting to play at level one. The problem with [2] is that it makes classes front-loaded and give the impression that you can obtain the main characteristics of a class very easily through multiclassing.

The games currently tries to balance both visions, with all the problems coming from trying to compromise contradicting visions.

[Miele]

The most beautiful thing of D&D has always been the possibility to modify every rule, because each table is a different world, unlike say, an MMO, where all players have to use the same exact set of rules.

I prefer to find a logical and coherent reason to introduce multiclassing for my character, but I'm also the one that writes a short novel for each character I play. If someone at my table prefers to multiclass without a reason, I don't really care, as long as they're having fun (which is the main reason to play games, I believe).

In 5e MC'ing gives power AND versatility with a little drawback and frankly most of the times, given the limited short life of a character, it's just power with negligible negative effects. Losing spell progression or the eventual powerfull skill at level 11+, has little meaning if the vast majority of the character life has been spent using strong combinations of classes and the campaign is ending in 1 to 3 levels. Sometimes the drawback is so minor it could basically be non existant, think Sorlock w3/s17.

Add the fact that Cha is the king/queen and the whole court of multiclass stat, which opens beastly damage combinations while also making social life a lot easier to manipulate and you have the picture explaining you why the designers probably gave up and said "say it's optional, up to them". Can't say I disagree with them :)

[Xervous]

Maybe if classes were better reword to express concepts players wanted you would see less multiclassing. In absence of that finer detail multiclassing is the system’s answer to giving players more choice in character development. Cover guidelines and expectations in session 0 so there’s immediate discussion rather than potential future group dismantling.

Like everything else it’s a tool for aiding in telling the stories you and your players want. If it doesn’t fit your project don’t use it, but don’t call it a bad hammer for not digging you a hole.

[Droppeddead]

It's an abstraction necessary to facilitate the mechanics of the game; they were never intended to accurately map to either time or effort. Specifically there isn't any direct correlation between the abilities gained by obtaining a new level either in the same class or a new multi-class, and how much time has passed, nor the specific efforts of the character in a campaign.

Justifying it (or not) is left up to a player and their DM.

Basically this. The rules can't force you to roleplay your characters progression so it's all up to you as a player.

[cutlery]

If you want, say, an arcane 1/2 or 2/3 caster, you can do it. Will the class be as good as a fighter at fighting or a wizard at wizarding? No.

I think the only real problem with the "ease" is the charisma casters - there are too many of these. Warlocks as int casters would fix much.

The other big problem is abilities that scale by character level. For most cantrips, this is fine, but for eldritch blast, specifically, it is not. Would be easy to fix, though, and various homebrews tie it to warlock levels (you get one beam with multiple dice like other cantrips without more warlock levels). If every warlock dip turned into 6 levels of warlock, I think people would feel differently about it.

But, other than that stuff, most mechanical abilities improve with more levels in the base class (fighter extra attack, sneak attack, etc), and these force any multiclassing to require sacrifices. That's good, and gets to sort of the same place old 2e multiclassing did (you'd be well behind the party in levels if you multiclassed).

The spell slot system from 5e is really good - much better than klunky prestige classes (that inevitably grew more and more powerful with subsequent books).

[Willie the Duck]

People have generally said what I wanted to say. I just wanted to comment upon:

It cant be that easy? Oh it is... that is too easy.
Way back in my teen years with 2nd edition (yes im old) when i last played before 5e, multiclassing was odd if i remember right. I do remember though the few that did, it wasnt just some trivial thing to make it happen. You had to work at it, maybe that was just my DM or the rules but it should be a challenge i fee.
So i raise the question, have we let META game and the do the most damage possible desire drag us to far away from the design of the game?
There is a real (and not necessarily unreasonable) desire to define what we ourselves cut our teeth on to be ‘the norm,’ but it is important to remember that that to was just another spot on the evolution of the game. Also that the multiclassing of the time was part of an entirely different system and interacted with a vast amount of different rules. further, there’s nothing specifically more ‘META’ about the way 5e does multiple class-having that 2e’s system(s), what with humans doing it one way and demihumans doing it a completely separate way. That, too, was an arbitrary gamist contrivance, created for gamist reasons. And finally, there’s no magic ‘design of the game’ from which we can be dragged away. There’s no magical ur version of the game buried in a sacred pyramid in Lake Geneva, WI to which all versions of the game should hope to aspire.

There needs to be a path to take, not just "Hey guys we just killed this band of Trolls and it was enough XP to give me a level of Sorcerer AND Warlock. Oh i know im a Bard and already a jack of all trades, but now i can do this and this.... isnt that cool."
I sense a real fear that someone somewhere might think that something they do is cool or interesting. Why is that a problem?

I think the only real problem with the "ease" is the charisma casters - there are too many of these. Warlocks as int casters would fix much.
The other big problem is abilities that scale by character level. For most cantrips, this is fine, but for eldritch blast, specifically, it is not. Would be easy to fix, though, and various homebrews tie it to warlock levels (you get one beam with multiple dice like other cantrips without more warlock levels). If every warlock dip turned into 6 levels of warlock, I think people would feel differently about it.
There are a few more mechanical nuances that make the cha-classes stand out: paladin use of spell slots to power their abilities making a better-than-1:2 caster (sorcerer, bard, warlock) help a paladin do at least part of their schtick better than another level of paladin. Coffeelock for sorlocks as well. Eldritch blast scaling (and that a good at-will ranged attack just happens to shore up a major weakness of both paladins and bards) being another great example.

You forgot the other important note about dual classing: if you rolled a 15 / 17, always plan a human dual-class! Due to the DP curve it was effectively free levels up to a certain point.
In other words, a Fighter 9 / Wizard X-1 was a "1 level dip" because a straight Wizard would be a Wizard X. Before name level it was a fraction of a level dip. All it cost you was your party carrying you for a time while you power leveled a few low capability Wizard levels.
Mathematically, this is absolutely true. However, you still do have to play through those 9 levels of fighter, towards a goal of being a much more durable wizard ‘someday’ (which might never actually happen, depending on if the campaign lasts). If your initial goal was to play a wizard in the first place, that could be big ask.

[Joe the Rat]

You forgot the other important note about dual classing: if you rolled a 15 / 17, always plan a human dual-class! Due to the DP curve it was effectively free levels up to a certain point.

In other words, a Fighter 9 / Wizard X-1 was a "1 level dip" because a straight Wizard would be a Wizard X. Before name level it was a fraction of a level dip. All it cost you was your party carrying you for a time while you power leveled a few low capability Wizard levels.

That's kind of a critical difference - because level xp was strictly geometric through the early levels, dual classing (or 2-class multi for nonhumans) effectively drops you one level. an 8/9 character is 9th level, but it has the xp of 10th level single class (roughly, depending on classes involved).

The big difference for DualC is that it required you to not use old skills, or it takes twice as long... meaning you keep using your old skills, and your new advancement is one level behind where it would be otherwise - two levels behind (which would matter, since your friends are grabbing an extra HD, where you don't get them until you "catch up"

It was also a one-way street - you change classes, you don't go back.



So in short, yeah, it's easier. It's in some ways easier than 3rd (where levels needed to be relatively close outside racial preferred), some ways harder (having a relatively soft prereq for exit and entry sides).

But this is all really about the mechanics getting out of the way of story and concept, which should be the drivers. Is there a reason your character would be touched by a deity (Cleric isn't just faith, it's about being empowered by the divine)? When did the Ambiguous Dark Powers reach out and seal the deal to give you Curse-Fighting? How long have you been copying the Wizards moves (wizard, sorcerer, take your pick)? Have you always had a touch of something in your bloodline that manifests as magic? Are you a classic Elf Fighter/Magic-User, using Eldritch Knight and Wizard levels to tweak the casting and fighting to a satisfactory parity? Ditto Half-elf Thief/Magic-User. It's open, with just enough mechanical hurdle to have it make a little sense (getting that level of Barbarian on your Wizard for out-of-magic Rage Armor doesn't work if you're too squishy to be a plausible Barbarian, but if you meet the reqs and have a reason, let's hear it).

[MaxWilson]

Mathematically, this is absolutely true. However, you still do have to play through those 9 levels of fighter, towards a goal of being a much more durable wizard ‘someday’ (which might never actually happen, depending on if the campaign lasts). If your initial goal was to play a wizard in the first place, that could be big ask.

Most people don't like playing low-level AD&D wizards. (Cue jokes about dying to a housecat.) It's just the price you pay to play a high-level wizard someday.

Tanari'i's advice is sensible, if you do happen to roll high stats. You'll wind up with weapon specialization, lots more HP, and a much easier early time at early levels, and maybe even two attacks per round if you specialize AND hit Fighter 7. The only tricky part is deciding when to branch off and become a Wizard.

[KorvinStarmast]

There needs to be a path to take, not just "Hey guys we just killed this band of Trolls and it was enough XP to give me a level of Sorcerer AND Warlock. Oh i know im a Bard and already a jack of all trades, but now i can do this and this.... isnt that cool." Looks to me like you are hand waving the PC's entire life before they went adventuring. That's a lack of imagination working against you there.
EDIT:I just realized that LudicSavant already covered this bit (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24701336&postcount=17)

Let me give you a RL example. I got a degree in engineering. I was then in the Navy for over two decades (leveled up, you might say) in a field that was not engineering. I then retired and a few years later, I was hired as an engineer.

Multiclassing, eh? :smallcool: And you seem to object to that.

Here's how to deal with multiclassing At Your Table: work into the narrative of your characters that which is needed to make it plausible.

Or, you can go down the rabbit hole of "how realistic is this?" and revert back to AD&D 1e and require two weeks of down time training and expense before you are allowed to level up, At All.
I mean, come on, why is leveling up so easy? Huh? Why? (I think I just hurt my forehead rolling my eyes)

Go for it, if that's where your heart lies in verisimilitude.

This edition removes a lot of fiddly bits. They do this for a playability reason. If you want to add fiddly bits, do it!
Work out a scheme for your table.

To answer your exam question:
Has multiclassing become too easy?
No.
(PS: it's a variant rule. DM's are not even required to allow it).

[zinycor]

Personally on my games you do require a week per level of training in order to level up. Is pretty good to have a fleshed out world, but the stakes aren't so high that you wouldn't take that time, so it doesn't fit every game.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I think the best "multiclass" system is the Pathfinder Archetype approach we see in the EK and AT where you are playing an enmeshed hybrid from very early on, and I'm sort of disappointed they never made more of these subclasses. E.g. an "Oath of Rage" giving barbarian features to paladins.

The other big issue with 5e multiclassing is all of the classes that are not just front loaded, but practically empty at higher levels. Ranger and Barbarian being probably the most extreme example. This ties in with the general complaint about martials being boring at high levels.

[heavyfuel]

It's been easy for like 20 years.

The justification that a Fighter can suddenly decide to take levels in Wizard is easily explained by assuming they've been studying how to cast spells in their free time.

This justification does work better in campaigns that aren't dungeon crawls with one encounter quickly following another.

[hitchhike79]

All of you saying its up to you to set that narrative and stage are absolutely right. I feel though if it isnt stated that you should or/need to do that people just wont.

I agree with many of you that 2nd edition designs were clunky as hell, i just brought it up because it was my only reference.

You are all right, its your character and you can do what you want (after checking with the DM of course).

I understand not everyone wants to RP and your right it doesn't make a ton of sense that you can just gain a level and wow you know spells.
Perhaps the better statement is leveling to easy then? I don't know.

I think my basis for this entire question is based off all these "build X/X/X threads". Its super cool and i love the idea that you can make this really tuned character.
I guess i just want some background?

This game is great because of the balance of storytelling and math. The meta game drive for me takes out both of those things because your doing the most
damage possible and trivializing combat. Then the story of how your character became this god is done in a few clicks of a button or few pencil scribbles.

Your supposed to suck at stuff and need teammates, your supposed to spend a week studying new spells and gaining abilities.
There should be drawbacks to multiclassing other than just oh your behind in spell progression.

Lastly the thought ive had popping around lately is this;
With so many sub-classes and feats, why is multi-classing even a thing in 5E? It feels like they gave us the tools already to be the best of most worlds without needing to just become something new in the middle of a campaign, oh and then switch back because i only needed 3 lvls of fighter for action surge...


Anyways i want to thank everyone for the constructive conversation, its definitely helped me understand a ton and realize if i ever DM in the near future how to run some of this stuff.

[Frogreaver]

It's been easy for like 20 years.

The justification that a Fighter can suddenly decide to take levels in Wizard is easily explained by assuming they've been studying how to cast spells in their free time.

This justification does work better in campaigns that aren't dungeon crawls with one encounter quickly following another.

For that matter leveling up in a dungeon into any class tends to cause all kinds of verisimilitude issues.

[MaxWilson]

For that matter leveling up in a dungeon into any class tends to cause all kinds of verisimilitude issues.

Unless you're a Highlander of course. :)

[cutlery]

Unless you're a Highlander of course. :)

Wait, I thought that was how it worked? Isn't everyone else surrounded by lightning whenever they defeat an enemy?

Anyway, the only verisimilitude-breaking aspects of leveling up are entirely new abilities; ASIs are fine, extra attacks are fine, more sneak attack is fine, etc. Entirely new spells might be fine (for anyone other than a wizard) because they're figuring it out as they go or having the truth revealed by a deity or patron.

Stuff like indomitable or uncanny dodge isn't that weird - they've probably been hit with an attack or a spell before - and they've finally figured a way for it to suck less.

"Seeing the matrix" and figuring out how to do a thing better isn't really all that weird - it is more of a punctuated equilibrium than developing muscle memory, but stuff like the proficiency bonus adequately captures the muscle memory side of progression.

[Willie the Duck]

I think my basis for this entire question is based off all these "build X/X/X threads". Its super cool and i love the idea that you can make this really tuned character.
I guess i just want some background?

Look, as much grief as we've given you, there's certainly a valid point behind what you said. I honestly would love it if the game was fine-tuned enough that the only time most people felt the need to multi-class was when they genuinely wanted to play a conceptually cross-role character, and not for reasons like the one-level forge cleric dip to get a floating magic weapon effect, or similar.

However, the game has had getting and playing with different little mechanical bits and bobs and dials and levers and sliders and such pretty much from the get go. Early on most of the decision points were who got which magic items or whether the magic user would focus on finding new spells for their spellbook, but even by late 1E there were proficiencies to mix and match and those could even be swapped for combat boosts. 3E and 5E have had a lot of that modularity centered around feat and class-selection-at-every-level, to be sure, but that is just the implementation of the effect, not a new concept on the whole.


Your supposed to suck at stuff and need teammates, your supposed to spend a week studying new spells and gaining abilities.
There should be drawbacks to multiclassing other than just oh your behind in spell progression.
Looking at multiclassing in 5e, I'm really not seeing the lack of sucking at stuff and not needing teammates. There really aren't a lot of 'can do everything' multiclass builds, and virtually all multiclass builds really do give up (or significantly delay) important mechanical benefits.


With so many sub-classes and feats, why is multi-classing even a thing in 5E? It feels like they gave us the tools already to be the best of most worlds without needing to just become something new in the middle of a campaign, oh and then switch back because i only needed 3 lvls of fighter for action surge...
Well, yes. Or you could say that the feats or the sub-classes are the redundant bits. There's not a clear primacy amongst those options (sub-classes, in particular, have just as many problems as multiclassing -- MC you can suddenly change to the new character role whenever you level up, potentially creating a believability issue; on the other hand, MC-like archetypes require you to know that you will want to choose this cross-role character concept at a very specific point in time during your character's advancement, which can be equally as unrealistic). Regardless, yes, 5e has massively multiple ways at arriving at the same character concept.

[Pex]

Looks to me like you are hand waving the PC's entire life before they went adventuring. That's a lack of imagination working against you there.
EDIT:I just realized that LudicSavant already covered this bit (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24701336&postcount=17)

Let me give you a RL example. I got a degree in engineering. I was then in the Navy for over two decades (leveled up, you might say) in a field that was not engineering. I then retired and a few years later, I was hired as an engineer.

Multiclassing, eh? :smallcool: And you seem to object to that.

Here's how to deal with multiclassing At Your Table: work into the narrative of your characters that which is needed to make it plausible.

Or, you can go down the rabbit hole of "how realistic is this?" and revert back to AD&D 1e and require two weeks of down time training and expense before you are allowed to level up, At All.
I mean, come on, why is leveling up so easy? Huh? Why? (I think I just hurt my forehead rolling my eyes)

Go for it, if that's where your heart lies in verisimilitude.

This edition removes a lot of fiddly bits. They do this for a playability reason. If you want to add fiddly bits, do it!
Work out a scheme for your table.

To answer your exam question:
Has multiclassing become too easy?
No.
(PS: it's a variant rule. DM's are not even required to allow it).

This is not new to 5E. Too often people care about the story and forget it's a game. The story is an important part of the game, but so too is the game part. If someone wants to multiclass because he'll have fun with the game mechanics that results there's nothing wrong with that. He needs no more justification than that. The story part comes in the play of the game. There's nothing wrong with having a story reason for the multiclassing, but no one is doing it wrong without it. His character, maybe some background pre-game, and campaign plot itself can be the story that develops. The DM can have his game world culture. The character is a part of it. PCs are not NPCs. It may take years of study before an NPC wizard can cast a 1st level spell, but the PC fighter who multiclasses into one is a Prodigy precisely because he's a PC. Make that part of Campaign Plot if you like. Wizards take special interest in him because he learned the fundamentals so fast and can dabble some more.

[Xervous]

Your supposed to suck at stuff and need teammates, your supposed to spend a week studying new spells and gaining abilities.
There should be drawbacks to multiclassing other than just oh your behind in spell progression.


The monkey on typewriters approach 5e takes to some things does effect this. Everyone gets to suck until one of the party members lucks.

Though I’ll ask why on downtime. Why on multiclassing. Are we working off a correlation of multiclassing and problem players?

[heavyfuel]

There should be drawbacks to multiclassing other than just oh your behind in spell progression.

Except that being behind on spell progression is a ginormous drawback.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I don't think balancing something powerful by making it "hard" or unfun is a good solution in game design. I think it should be less powerful, and that it should promote far less thematic reductivism, but i don't think it's too "easy".

[MaxWilson]

Except that being behind on spell progression is a ginormous drawback.

Eh, only sometimes. A 1 level Cleric dip is rarely painful--it mostly just means that when you get a new spell like Fireball or Wall of Force, you have spell slots to cast it two or three times instead of only once or twice. Until then you keep playing with your other spells (like Web, or Polymorph) for one extra level.

The only times it hurts is when it briefly delays access to the game's two most broken spells, Simulacrum and Wish.

Being behind by three non-spellcaster levels from e.g. dipping Battlemaster 3 is far more painful.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is not new to 5E. Too often people care about the story and forget it's a game. The story is an important part of the game, but so too is the game part.

If someone wants to multiclass because he'll have fun with the game mechanics that results there's nothing wrong with that. He needs no more justification than that.

The story part comes in the play of the game. There's nothing wrong with having a story reason for the multiclassing, but no one is doing it wrong without it.

His character, maybe some background pre-game, and campaign plot itself can be the story that develops. The DM can have his game world culture. The character is a part of it. PCs are not NPCs. It may take years of study before an NPC wizard can cast a 1st level spell, but the PC fighter who multiclasses into one is a Prodigy precisely because he's a PC. Make that part of Campaign Plot if you like. Wizards take special interest in him because he learned the fundamentals so fast and can dabble some more. Amen to all of the above. :smallcool:

[heavyfuel]

Eh, only sometimes. A 1 level Cleric dip is rarely painful--it mostly just means that when you get a new spell like Fireball or Wall of Force, you have spell slots to cast it two or three times instead of only once or twice. Until then you keep playing with your other spells (like Web, or Polymorph) for one extra level.

The only times it hurts is when it briefly delays access to the game's two most broken spells, Simulacrum and Wish.

Being behind by three non-spellcaster levels from e.g. dipping Battlemaster 3 is far more painful.

I strongly disagree. A Wizard with Wall of Force is far better than a Wizard with Heavy Armor but no Wall of Force.

"One extra level", since I don't get to play super often, usually means one or two months. Having to wait this long to get stuff that's (very roughly) twice as powerful as the stuff you have now is almost never worth it.

[MaxWilson]

I strongly disagree. A Wizard with Wall of Force is far better than a Wizard with Heavy Armor but no Wall of Force.

Well, that's a playstyle preference then. I'll take the AC 21 wizard with Sanctuary and Polymorph/Evard's Black Tentacles, and you'll take the AC 15ish wizard with Wall of Force. (Good luck keeping concentration.)

The fact that different people can have different preferences here shows that neither option dominates the other.

[Desteplo]

That’s you not applying the narrative decision behind the mechanics. It’s easy but it’s moldable. So I can be a barbarian. We fight wizard. Wizard bad. He picks up the book and levels (or headband of intellect) he decides rage mage!
-or maybe he picks up a book. Plays around with cantrips etc. if there’s any downtime maybe Barbie the male barbarian asks his rogue friend how a word is pronounced.. now your rogue friend just went arcane trickster
-friends for life

[Tanarii]

Mathematically, this is absolutely true. However, you still do have to play through those 9 levels of fighter, towards a goal of being a much more durable wizard ‘someday’ (which might never actually happen, depending on if the campaign lasts). If your initial goal was to play a wizard in the first place, that could be big ask.


Most people don't like playing low-level AD&D wizards. (Cue jokes about dying to a housecat.) It's just the price you pay to play a high-level wizard someday.

Tanari'i's advice is sensible, if you do happen to roll high stats. You'll wind up with weapon specialization, lots more HP, and a much easier early time at early levels, and maybe even two attacks per round if you specialize AND hit Fighter 7. The only tricky part is deciding when to branch off and become a Wizard.Exactly. Nobody wanted to play a Wizard before oh level 5 or so. Much better to Fighter to 4 then branch out and zip through those first 4 Wizard levels with your party carrying the load. (I mean, they would have to carry the load anyway if a Wizard 1 was in the party old school style, but at least this way you had a ton of HP.)


But possibly made a mistake by using the Fighter --> Wizard transition. Now if you rolled a 15 Dex and 17 Wis, going Thief for a while --> Cleric might not be so appealing, despite being mechanically superior. Or even more to Willie's point about having to play through them, rolling a 15 Int and Str 17 and going Wizard to 9th level then switching to Fighter ... well unless you suddenly traveled to a nonmagical world that just sounds painful.

[MaxWilson]

But possibly made a mistake by using the Fighter --> Wizard transition. Now if you rolled a 15 Dex and 17 Wis, going Thief for a while --> Cleric might not be so appealing, despite being mechanically superior. Or even more to Willie's point about having to play through them, rolling a 15 Int and Str 17 and going Wizard to 9th level then switching to Fighter ... well unless you suddenly traveled to a nonmagical world that just sounds painful.

For those who aren't in on the joke--IIRC this is where dual-classing came from in the first place. A PC wizard travelled to a nonmagical world, and instead of remaining helpless forever he re-trained himself as a Fighter.

[Unoriginal]

For those who aren't in on the joke--IIRC this is where dual-classing came from in the first place. A PC wizard travelled to a nonmagical world, and instead of remaining helpless forever he re-trained himself as a Fighter.

It was Erac's Cousin, who was teleported to Mars and ended up dual-wielding Vorpal Swords.

[Frogreaver]

I strongly disagree. A Wizard with Wall of Force is far better than a Wizard with Heavy Armor but no Wall of Force.

"One extra level", since I don't get to play super often, usually means one or two months. Having to wait this long to get stuff that's (very roughly) twice as powerful as the stuff you have now is almost never worth it.

Yep.
Some of the spells you have to delay by level even for a 1 level dip.
Level 1 - sleep
Level 3 - shatter
Level 5 - fireball/hypnotic pattern/counterspell
Level 7 - Polymorph/dimension door/banishment
Level 9 - animate objects/wall of force
etc.

These are all game changing spells at the level you get them and the multiclass wizard has to wait 1 more level for all of them.

[Droppeddead]

I strongly disagree. A Wizard with Wall of Force is far better than a Wizard with Heavy Armor but no Wall of Force.

That statement suggests that all wizards have to take wall of force, multiclass or no. It's really not that simple, is it?

[OldTrees1]

That statement suggests that all wizards have to take wall of force, multiclass or no. It's really not that simple, is it?

If you look again you will see Wall of Force was used as an example shorthand for "the qualitative and quantitative boosts gained by having a spell of the next spell level". In this case the 5th level Wall of Force was the concrete spell example used in the concrete 5th level spells example of the benefits of having +1 spell level.

Aka, the statement only suggests that if taken out of context. Although does heavily rely on the context in a way that another wording might not have.

[Waazraath]

Yep.
Some of the spells you have to delay by level even for a 1 level dip.
Level 1 - sleep
Level 3 - shatter
Level 5 - fireball/hypnotic pattern/counterspell
Level 7 - Polymorph/dimension door/banishment
Level 9 - animate objects/wall of force
etc.

These are all game changing spells at the level you get them and the multiclass wizard has to wait 1 more level for all of them.

Shatter game changing?? An aao who does ok damage but with con save for half and not too large an area? I've never seen this to be a game changing spell tbh. Even on a tempest cleric that can maximize damage it's just 'good' or maybe 'very good' but not game breaking. And especially in the context of a wizard dipping cleric: you don't loose out on spell slots, so instead of casting shatter you just cast Thunderwave in a 2nd level spell slot, for exactly the same damage. Yeah, you need to be a bit closer to the front line, but bugger it cause you're wearing armor and a shield!

[Willie the Duck]

Exactly. Nobody wanted to play a Wizard before oh level 5 or so. Much better to Fighter to 4 then branch out and zip through those first 4 Wizard levels with your party carrying the load. (I mean, they would have to carry the load anyway if a Wizard 1 was in the party old school style, but at least this way you had a ton of HP.)


But possibly made a mistake by using the Fighter --> Wizard transition. Now if you rolled a 15 Dex and 17 Wis, going Thief for a while --> Cleric might not be so appealing, despite being mechanically superior. Or even more to Willie's point about having to play through them, rolling a 15 Int and Str 17 and going Wizard to 9th level then switching to Fighter ... well unless you suddenly traveled to a nonmagical world that just sounds painful.

Fighter to wizard really is the hardest against which to argue*. I was trying to make a more general point about 'mathematically and retroactive judgement aside, you still have to go levels one through whatever (which may very well be the entire campaign) playing something-other-than-your-intended-class before you jump ship and start doing what you intended to be doing in the first place.' Thief to cleric, wizard to anything, anything with baggage (cleric, druid, paladin) are better examples.
*Although in 1E, where an elven fighter/magic user can cast in armor, but a human fighter-then-magic user cannot, it could be a hard decision which route to take if ones dice come up with 15/17.

[zinycor]

I strongly disagree. A Wizard with Wall of Force is far better than a Wizard with Heavy Armor but no Wall of Force.

"One extra level", since I don't get to play super often, usually means one or two months. Having to wait this long to get stuff that's (very roughly) twice as powerful as the stuff you have now is almost never worth it.

I mean, a cleric1/wizard X will have better defenses, therefore, a better chance to get to the levels to get wall of force.

[Willie the Duck]

I mean, a cleric1/wizard X will have better defenses, therefore, a better chance to get to the levels to get wall of force.

Honestly, ones opinion on the matter is probably going to depend on whether your DM makes it easy to get an unarmored wizard up to wall of force levels. 5e has some pretty anemic zone of control abilities, and a DM who wants can make things hellish for 'backline' characters, in which case you probably don't play single-class wizards (excepting maybe a hobgoblin one with Moderately armored as their L4 feat or something). If they don't jump at the opportunity to have their monsters constantly rush past the front line to feast on the fleshies, than a wizard with a new set of tricks up their sleeve one level earlier probably looks pretty tempting.

[zinycor]

Honestly, ones opinion on the matter is probably going to depend on whether your DM makes it easy to get an unarmored wizard up to wall of force levels. 5e has some pretty anemic zone of control abilities, and a DM who wants can make things hellish for 'backline' characters, in which case you probably don't play single-class wizards (excepting maybe a hobgoblin one with Moderately armored as their L4 feat or something). If they don't jump at the opportunity to have their monsters constantly rush past the front line to feast on the fleshies, than a wizard with a new set of tricks up their sleeve one level earlier probably looks pretty tempting.

Exactly, in a game where the GM has the creatures focus the back line, then having some extra defensive measures (Such as an early cleric Multiclass) would probably be worth it.