DMs: How do you buff or homebrew for dead features?

[TyGuy]

Dead feature: when a newly acquired feature is redundant due to a different source of the same benefit. Thus rendering the newly acquired feature meaningless.

Some dead features are really easy to resolve. If you get a redundant language, skill, tool, or cantrip it's enough of a horizontal power shift to simply offer a different appropriate language, skill, tool, or cantrip. Some features already have this side-step worked into them.

If you provide alternatives for the more powerful features like resistances, extra attack, channel divinity, evasion etc.; what kind of alternatives do you implement?

[LudicSavant]

Dead feature: when a newly acquired feature is redundant due to a different source of the same benefit. Thus rendering the newly acquired feature meaningless.

Some dead features are really easy to resolve. If you get a redundant language, skill, tool, or cantrip it's enough of a horizontal power shift to simply offer a different appropriate language, skill, tool, or cantrip. Some features already have this side-step worked into them.

If you provide alternatives for the more powerful features like resistances, extra attack, channel divinity, evasion etc.; what kind of alternatives do you implement?

I let players who get a skill, tool, or cantrip they already have get something else instead.

Things like Extra Attack or Resistances, however, I leave as "simply don't stack."

[Dienekes]

I’ve toyed with essentially just skipping the level you gain Extra Attack as far as features go. But honestly it’s never really come up in actual play. Possibly because my players were multiclassing around it and never brought it up to me.

Channel Divinity I do nothing, because you’re still gaining new uses for it.

For some features that mostly take up a level, I may offer the player a half feat without the accompanying attribute bonus.

[Man_Over_Game]

I’ve toyed with essentially just skipping the level you gain Extra Attack as far as features go. But honestly it’s never really come up in actual play. Possibly because my players were multiclassing around it and never brought it up to me.

I've always liked the idea of just handing out another ASI/Feat. Or maybe limit it to only half-feats.

It always seemed a little silly to me that Barbarian or Rangers hybrid-izing with Fighters was suboptimal.


Channel Divinity I do nothing, because you’re still gaining new uses for it.

Officially, I think you can't sum up their uses, similar to how Psionic Dice can't be used for each-other's powers. It's actually weaker to go both Cleric and Paladin, since you can only get CD uses from one of the two classes. Which I think is ****ing stupid.

I think all mechanics should follow the same example as Spell Slots: Resources scale from character levels, versatility and power scale from class levels. There's not really a good reason to do it otherwise - it's not like Druid/Cleric multiclasses are running rampant, destroying our balanced encounters, right?

[Dark.Revenant]

For Extra Attack stacking, consider awarding an extra Fighting Style. Alternatively, grant another use of a class feature such as Superiority Dice, Rage, or whatever.

[PhantomSoul]

Officially, I think you can't sum up their uses, similar to how Psionic Dice can't be used for each-other's powers. It's actually weaker to go both Cleric and Paladin, since you can only get CD uses from one of the two classes. Which I think is ****ing stupid.

I'm finding this ambiguous, so just in case you or a later reader will mix things up, how I interpreted Dienekes's comment was correct: you gain new uses=abilities_that_draw_on_Channel_Divinity but not new uses=number_of_times_you_can_draw_on_Channel_Divin ity.

From PHB p. 164:

C HANNEL D IV I N ITY
If you already have the Channel Divinity feature and gain
a level in a class that also grants the feature, you gain the
Channel Divinity effects granted by that class, but getting
the feature again doesn't give you an additional use of
it. You gain additional uses only when you reach a class
level that explicitly grants them to you. For example, if
you are a cleric 6/paladin 4, you can use Channel Divinity
twice between rests because you are high enough level
in the cleric class to have more uses. Whenever you use
the feature, you can choose any of the Channel Divinity
effects available to you from your two classes.

Edit for completeness:
This is different from how Crawford says Psionic Dice work:


The D&D Psi Warrior and Soulknife each get their own pool of Psionic Energy dice, which (quoting the class feature) "fuel various psionic powers you have, which are detailed below." Here "below" refers to the powers in the subclass, not powers you might get elsewhere. #DnD
(https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1331690537791803394)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't. At least not on a blanket basis. Multiclassing has its strengths and weaknesses, and dead features is one of the weaknesses. If you want the strengths, you have to pay the price.

Now if a player has an interesting concept that fits the world well but doesn't fit the existing classes (such that they'd have to multiclass in a highly-non-viable[1] way to do it), I'll consider homebrewing a sub-class (or heck, a full class) to fit that one concept. But if your complaint is "I want power", too darn bad. Not my problem.

[1] And it'd have to be either really really bad or pretty awkward. Not just "theoretically a 10% DPR loss", but "I need 3 maxed stats to be functional" or "I can't do <concept defining thing> until level 10+".

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm finding this ambiguous, so just in case you or a later reader will mix things up, how I interpreted Dienekes's comment was correct: you gain new uses=abilities_that_draw_on_Channel_Divinity but not new uses=number_of_times_you_can_draw_on_Channel_Divin ity.

From PHB p. 164:


Edit for completeness:
This is different from how Crawford says Psionic Dice work:


(https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1331690537791803394)

Right, those run counter to things like Martial Adept on a Battlemaster, or Magic Initiate for a caster to learn a new spell on their list.

By adding limitations like they did with Psionic Dice, Extra Attacks or Channel Divinity, you essentially are making specializing worse. Which is silly.

Instead of nerfing these massive investments that don't add anything broken to overly specialized builds, more attention should be spent on things that are overused. PAM or GWM, for instance, are specializations that are a bit overused, which means folks aren't specializing in other ways.

[Dienekes]

I've always liked the idea of just handing out another ASI/Feat. Or maybe limit it to only half-feats.

It always seemed a little silly to me that Barbarian or Rangers hybrid-izing with Fighters was suboptimal.
Agreed.




Officially, I think you can't sum up their uses, similar to how Psionic Dice can't be used for each-other's powers. It's actually weaker to go both Cleric and Paladin, since you can only get CD uses from one of the two classes. Which I think is ****ing stupid.

This is my fault. Using ambiguous language. I did not mean use as is an additional time you can use the ability. I meant use as in, now it can do a different thing.

[PhantomSoul]

Right, those run counter to things like Martial Adept on a Battlemaster, or Magic Initiate for a caster to learn a new spell on their list.

By adding limitations like they did with Psionic Dice, Extra Attacks or Channel Divinity, you essentially are making specializing worse. Which is silly.

For Extra Attack and Channel Divinity, the Multiclassing Rules are really just confirming that you use the abilities as written (you have two uses, not you gain two uses, therefore no stacking; you can attack twice instead of once, not you make one additional attack). It seems fair, and seems like a good decision to not make you better at a class's ability if you multiclass than if you stick with the class that gave you the ability (e.g. multiclassing to gain extra uses of a channel divinity from one of the classes; obviously there are cases where multiclassing is still better, but that's gunna be life).

This is the same as how I run getting multiple instances of Unarmored Defense, but technically the written version on p. 164 isn't that you can choose which AC calculation to apply, but rather than you don't gain the feature at all. That one I feel is a bad call.

[Evaar]

Extra Attack - sorry, them's the breaks.

Resistances - I would consider assigning a thematically appropriate replacement resistance (say it's a Mark of Storms Half Elf who wants to play a sea-themed Storm Herald Barbarian, I'd give them Thunder resistance since they already have Lightning from their race; if it's a Tiefling with an Efreeti Genie patron, I'd probably go for cold resistance reasoning that their own heat protects them from cold). I would not let the player choose this, as there are clear incentives to select more common damage types which may be less thematic.

Skills, tools, languages, etc - Pick a different one, player's choice.

[Kane0]

Typically a half ASI, so for example if you double up on Extra Attack you can get +1 to a stat of your choice or the not+1 part of a half feat such as Piercer.

If its a proficiency/expertise, just pick another one

[greenstone]

I don't. At least not on a blanket basis. Multiclassing has its strengths and weaknesses, and dead features is one of the weaknesses. If you want the strengths, you have to pay the price.
That is my approach as well.

The game should have meaningful choices.

[Evaar]

The game should have meaningful choices.

I agree with that, but when the player is getting punished for making a thematically appropriate choice (see above the Mark of Storms Half-Elf playing a Sea-focused Storm Herald Barbarian) then I want to fix it.

In general if the redundancy is coming from multiclassing, probably I'm not going to do anything about it.

If it's coming from a race/class combo, then I'll judge those case by case. If you're a flying race and your class gives you a flight ability, probably not going to do anything about that. But outside of that? There are probably some simple and worthwhile fixes. I don't want to punish a Dragonborn Draconic Sorcerer for choosing the same preferred element with his class and race.

[Dienekes]

That is my approach as well.

The game should have meaningful choices.

I mean, I agree. But I thought the meaningful choices was you’d never reach the pinnacle of power of the class you’re in. Not that you’d end up having to get nothing for a level.

I do however, find it amusing that the game went backwards over itself to allow casters to use charts and formulas to figure out exactly how many spells they can cast with no real penalty to their main power source as a class at all. While the warrior types get a shrug and told that’s the cost of multiclassing.

[Evaar]

I do however, find it amusing that the game went backwards over itself to allow casters to use charts and formulas to figure out exactly how many spells they can cast with no real penalty to their main power source as a class at all. While the warrior types get a shrug and told that’s the cost of multiclassing.

This is actually a great point. You just changed my mind on this.

[PhantomSoul]

I mean, I agree. But I thought the meaningful choices was you’d never reach the pinnacle of power of the class you’re in. Not that you’d end up having to get nothing for a level.

I do however, find it amusing that the game went backwards over itself to allow casters to use charts and formulas to figure out exactly how many spells they can cast with no real penalty to their main power source as a class at all. While the warrior types get a shrug and told that’s the cost of multiclassing.

But there is a cost -- you don't get higher-level spells!
Blue because it often doesn't matter; you get the bonus slots and your proficiency bonus does the scaling and you get an extra spell list and more castable leveled spells per day and (barring half-casters without optional boosts) more cantrips and all of the class features from the new class.

[MrStabby]

I never help with abilities, but as a DM I do help with a character.

So if a player goes for some kind of thematic character and it is/would be innefective - then I might give them something, but it wouldn't ever be tied to a specific feature or level. So it isn't like you can make a super optimised character, have one redundant choice then get something good instead.

That said, I prefer homebrew when someone has a concept they want to play and the multiclass needed to support it is terrible.

[Segev]

The trouble is that "more spell slots" is a resource management boost, while "more attacks" is an action economy boost. The latter is generally far more powerful than the former. I think letting a PC pick an extra fighting style from the class list of either the class they're getting the extraneous Extra Attack feature from, or from the class they got the original Extra Attack feature, is a suitable trade-off. It's still martial, and it's still in one of their classes. The only way this screws anybody over is a Barbarian/Bladesinger or a Barbarian/Valor Bard, which are both such awful combinations that you could probably give them the third attack and not be overpowering them.

[MrStabby]

But there is a cost -- you don't get higher-level spells!
Blue because it often doesn't matter; you get the bonus slots and your proficiency bonus does the scaling and you get an extra spell list and more castable leveled spells per day and (barring half-casters without optional boosts) more cantrips and all of the class features from the new class.

To be fair, that is a pretty serious cost for a lot of casters. Meteor swarm is a bit better than an upcast fireball. Hold monster is more than an upcast hold person. Wall of force is more than an upcast wall of wind. Upcasting spells does take the edge off multiclassing, but it is still a serious cost.

[Evaar]

To be fair, that is a pretty serious cost for a lot of casters. Meteor swarm is a bit better than an upcast fireball. Hold monster is more than an upcast hold person. Wall of force is more than an upcast wall of wind. Upcasting spells does take the edge off multiclassing, but it is still a serious cost.

Yeah it's a cost, but it's not a Willy Wonka "YOU GET NOTHING" like martials get for a redundant Extra Attack.

There should be a consolation feature for martials. Not a full extra attack likely, but a half feat or maybe even a full ASI would be appropriate. Hard to see how that is especially abuseable - maybe with the new Bladesinger's special Extra Attack it could be a problem. (And Hexblades wouldn't get the extra ASI since their extra attack comes from an Invocation, not a class feature.)

[PhantomSoul]

To be fair, that is a pretty serious cost for a lot of casters. Meteor swarm is a bit better than an upcast fireball. Hold monster is more than an upcast hold person. Wall of force is more than an upcast wall of wind. Upcasting spells does take the edge off multiclassing, but it is still a serious cost.

It can be a serious cost, but for some classes (Cleric comes up a lot for it), it seems people don't really care as much for the higher-level spells anyway (Cleric was salient because a player in one of my groups is planning a multiclass citing exactly that as the reason... and I did the same thing with my Cleric in another group ages ago). I feel like that's a good disincentive for Wizards (before peak levels at least, or maybe if not anticipating to get to peak levels) interested in control spells, though. (For Meteor Swarm vs. Fireball, the 12 character-level difference is probably well worth the multiclass even if you do reach the relevant level!)

[Dienekes]

The trouble is that "more spell slots" is a resource management boost, while "more attacks" is an action economy boost. The latter is generally far more powerful than the former. I think letting a PC pick an extra fighting style from the class list of either the class they're getting the extraneous Extra Attack feature from, or from the class they got the original Extra Attack feature, is a suitable trade-off. It's still martial, and it's still in one of their classes. The only way this screws anybody over is a Barbarian/Bladesinger or a Barbarian/Valor Bard, which are both such awful combinations that you could probably give them the third attack and not be overpowering them.

Agreed, and it’s why I didn’t advocate for just letting them get all the Extra Attacks above.

But I don’t see any reason why they should get nothing. When if we apply that same mentality to other classes, well, a multiclassed mage would end up with a whole bunch of first level spell slots and not much else.

[Rukelnikov]

I do a Fighting style if you get EA and already have it

[Segev]

Agreed, and it’s why I didn’t advocate for just letting them get all the Extra Attacks above.

But I don’t see any reason why they should get nothing. When if we apply that same mentality to other classes, well, a multiclassed mage would end up with a whole bunch of first level spell slots and not much else.

That the bit you quoted went on to suggest something to get in place of Extra Attack x2. Which is to say: I agree with you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Spell slots are a consolidation of a resource pool. The "naive" option would be to just have them be separate, but that's a pain to carry around. And yes, spell-casters pay a huge price, specifically ability scores. Wizards who multiclass have the same number of slots, but fewer spells (and lower level ones), and the ones they get from another class don't use INT any more. So you have to juggle two sets of DCs/attack bonuses. Now the CHA casters get around that, but at a cost--warlock slots don't stack, and most of the real goodies from bards don't carry over (because they're not slots and the bard list is relatively poor).

However, I'd be totally ok with just dropping that. You multiclass from bard into sorcerer? Great, you've got the higher of the two slot-sets you're allowed (so bard 2/sorcerer 3 would have the slots of a 3rd level sorcerer). Because I don't like level-by-level multiclassing at all. It's clunky, awkward, and there really should be a better way of expressing those character concepts. Variant systems are variant, and I don't care to spend much effort fixing them as long as they don't break things on the upward side when used. Use at your own risk. Note: I haven't actually changed anything at my own tables, because it's not been a problem. It's a theoretical dislike.

To be fair, I wasn't thinking about things like race/class overlaps. I can see some rationale for compensation there, but the only real issue is resistances. Backgrounds are already fully customizable (and have the compensation for skill/tool overlap built in); classes grant enough possibilities that you can avoid skill/tool overlap. For resistances, I'd probably just find some related resistance (so storm might get thunder if it normally would overlap on lightning, fire might get radiant, cold might get necrotic, poison might get acid, etc.).

[MaxWilson]

Dead feature: when a newly acquired feature is redundant due to a different source of the same benefit. Thus rendering the newly acquired feature meaningless.

Some dead features are really easy to resolve. If you get a redundant language, skill, tool, or cantrip it's enough of a horizontal power shift to simply offer a different appropriate language, skill, tool, or cantrip. Some features already have this side-step worked into them.

If you provide alternatives for the more powerful features like resistances, extra attack, channel divinity, evasion etc.; what kind of alternatives do you implement?

You mean like for Goblin Rogues: Cunning Action + Nimble Escape? Typically I don't do anything. If a player comes to me with a dissatisfaction I'd work something out, but by default I try not to make house rules without some kind of reason, either a player request or something that bugs me so much that I have to change it for my own sanity.

If a player came to me saying, "I'd like to play a Goblin Rogue but the redundancy issue troubles me--can I be some kind of variant Rogue that gets something instead of Cunning Action at level 2?" my opening bid would be "How about a Rogue that gets Action Surge at level 2?" They're about the same power level and equally desirable, although of course their effects are opposites: Action Surge is bursty while Cunning Action raises your baseline at-will capabilities.

[Dienekes]

You'll note that the bit you quoted went on to suggest something to get in place of Extra Attack x2.

Yea and I liked them. Sorry should have commented on that.

[MrStabby]

Yeah it's a cost, but it's not a Willy Wonka "YOU GET NOTHING" like martials get for a redundant Extra Attack.

There should be a consolation feature for martials. Not a full extra attack likely, but a half feat or maybe even a full ASI would be appropriate. Hard to see how that is especially abuseable - maybe with the new Bladesinger's special Extra Attack it could be a problem. (And Hexblades wouldn't get the extra ASI since their extra attack comes from an Invocation, not a class feature.)

I think you are putting too much weight on a single level. Out of 20 levels this happens once. If you want to compare, better to do so over more levels - consider that martials generally get useful things that add (some exceptions around clogged bonus actions happen). On the other hand casters get consistent, but weak multiclass benefits every time they gain a spell level but without higher level spells known.





It can be a serious cost, but for some classes (Cleric comes up a lot for it), it seems people don't really care as much for the higher-level spells anyway (Cleric was salient because a player in one of my groups is planning a multiclass citing exactly that as the reason... and I did the same thing with my Cleric in another group ages ago). I feel like that's a good disincentive for Wizards (before peak levels at least, or maybe if not anticipating to get to peak levels) interested in control spells, though. (For Meteor Swarm vs. Fireball, the 12 character-level difference is probably well worth the multiclass even if you do reach the relevant level!)

I think that cleric is an exception. Your point is valid, but we shouldn't generalise to "casters" from "cleric". There exists one class, that predominantly casts spells, that gains more out of multiclassing (sometimes) than staying single classed. And here usually after level 9 at least, so not something relevant in many games.

[Segev]

Yea and I liked them. Sorry should have commented on that.

'salright. I just wanted to be sure, since your comment seemed to be disagreeing with mine, when in actuality I think we agree in principle.

[quindraco]

It *is* a bit weird that out of all the Extra Attack granting subclasses and classes, Bladepact Warlocks are the only ones with the option to opt out by simply selecting another invocation. However, that's not nearly as weird as the multiclass rules explicitly banning you from gaining the second unarmored defense if you're monk/barbarian, since the ban doesn't do anything except artificially constrain what order you must take monk and barbarian in for your build. That's the easiest homebrew in the world, in terms of fixing - I just let my players have both, as it's utterly harmless having both.

[Kane0]

I think you are putting too much weight on a single level. Out of 20 levels this happens once. If you want to compare, better to do so over more levels - consider that martials generally get useful things that add (some exceptions around clogged bonus actions happen). On the other hand casters get consistent, but weak multiclass benefits every time they gain a spell level but without higher level spells known.


Wizard 10: Subclass feature, cantrip, 5th level spell slot
Fighter 10: Subclass feature
Barbarian 10: Subclass feature, optional Tasha's proficiency

Wiz 5/Fighter 5: 3rd level spells or Extra Attack depending on order taken
Fighter 5/Barb 5: Duplicate Extra Attack, potentially 10' Fast movement depending on order taken

It ain't nothing, but I wouldn't call it equal. Getting nothing feels bad, and mechanically speaking there is a reason most MCs are 1-3 dips or 4-6 splashes. There are notable diminishing returns especially when duplicate features come into play.

[stoutstien]

Multiclassing was a ham fisted attempt stapled to the system from the get go so without basically redoing the whole thing I don't think it's worth the effort.

[Gignere]

Wizard 10: Subclass feature, cantrip, 5th level spell slot
Fighter 10: Subclass feature
Barbarian 10: Subclass feature, optional Tasha's proficiency

Wiz 5/Fighter 5: 3rd level spells or Extra Attack depending on order taken
Fighter 5/Barb 5: Duplicate Extra Attack, potentially 10' Fast movement depending on order taken

It ain't nothing, but I wouldn't call it equal. Getting nothing feels bad, and mechanically speaking there is a reason most MCs are 1-3 dips or 4-6 splashes. There are notable diminishing returns especially when duplicate features come into play.

For the most part the thread was comparing caster / caster multi to noncaster / noncaster multiclass.

In that case 5 caster / 5 caster gains absolutely nothing but higher level slots since they already got 3rd level spells already.

So it seems pretty balanced to me, since the fighting classes generally have more synergistic features between levels 1-3 than spell casters would outside of some weird edge cases.

[PhantomSoul]

For the most part the thread was comparing caster / caster multi to noncaster / noncaster multiclass.

In that case 5 caster / 5 caster gains absolutely nothing but higher level slots since they already got 3rd level spells already.

So it seems pretty balanced to me, since the fighting classes generally have more synergistic features between levels 1-3 than spell casters would outside of some weird edge cases.

Putting aside synergy (where I think you get tons of variation -- with all the perks for Charisma casters it seems, and Concentration being the main potentially anti-synergy point that I've felt for spellcaster multiclasses), I think that's not quite right; getting the extra spell list for level 1-3 spells is pretty massive, in addition to more spells known/prepared and the extra cantrips [with diminishing returns depending on the class combo, of course].

[Gignere]

Putting aside synergy (where I think you get tons of variation -- with all the perks for Charisma casters it seems, and Concentration being the main potentially anti-synergy point that I've felt for spellcaster multiclasses), I think that's not quite right; getting the extra spell list for level 1-3 spells is pretty massive, in addition to more spells known/prepared and the extra cantrips [with diminishing returns depending on the class combo, of course].

Noncasters class multiclasses generally gain actual damage from levels 1-3 which means getting better at what they do. Caster/caster classes gains options for having more spells known / prepared outside of a few edge cases.
However they absolutely lose damage/effectiveness to a level 10 pure caster.

Whereas 5/5 split of martials can be equal to if not better than a level 10 pure class martial.

Like thinking of a barb 10 vs a barb 5 / fighter 5 chances are the 5 / 5 DPR is just as good if not better than the barb 10. Certainly better nova and sustained once rages are done.

Same for a 5 rogue / 5 fighter, damage can outpace a 10 rogue (non AT). Certainly nova damage does outpace the pure rogue.

[Dark.Revenant]

Even if you get a Fighting Style instead of Nothing when you get a duplicate Extra Attack, it wouldn't really change balance much, if at all.

Compare Fighter 5 / Barbarian 15 to Fighter 4 / Barbarian 16. The latter is basically strictly better than the former, even if we can get a bonus Fighting Style. The reason for this is because we get an extra ASI that can mimic the extra Fighting Style, and yet we're not giving up as many Barbarian features. A similar principle applies for Fighter 5 / Barbarian 5 vs Fighter 4 / Barbarian 6; the latter is strictly better, even with the Fighting Style substitution houserule.

Fighter 5 / Rogue 5 is a good multiclass combination. However, there's no duplicate Extra Attack in that configuration, so it's not relevant.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing I've noticed about the conservative half of the responses is that the main reason to not buff redundant Extra Attacks is that it's not a big enough deal to worry about.

But I'm not seeing anyone explaining in much detail why buffing would be a bad thing. The options so far seem to be "Make the game better" or "Do nothing".

On the topic of spellcaster hybrids, we all know those are stupidly inefficient. You might as well be talking about a Rogue/caster hybrid (which are mostly garbage for no reason). On the same topic, Paladin/Sorcerer and Paladin/Warlock hybrids do well, while Paladin/Cleric has anti-synergies with CD and redundant proficiencies.

WOTC did NOT think about multiclassing, which is probably why they left it as a "variant" rule. So some of the MC stuff makes zero sense. Using something broken as an example for good mechanics isn't going to resolve a problem, especially one that's nearly irrelevant (casters don't have the same MC problems that martials do).

[Kuulvheysoon]

Honestly, I do think that multiclassing was tacked on based on responses to D&D Next. It's pretty clear that it isn't a completely integrated system (or they likely would have come up with something with redundant Extra Attacks, like they did for spellcasters. Which they did because WotC loves their casters).

[Segev]

When people recommend a half-feat for the wasted Extra Attack feature(s), I assume they mean "without the +1 to a stat," but I figure I should ask: do you mean that?

[Kane0]

When people recommend a half-feat for the wasted Extra Attack feature(s), I assume they mean "without the +1 to a stat," but I figure I should ask: do you mean that?

Yeah, either +1 to a stat or the not-stat-increase portion of a half-feat.

[Segev]

Yeah, either +1 to a stat or the not-stat-increase portion of a half-feat.

I would recommend not the +1 to a stat. In some ways, ASIs are more powerful than new features, just due to their rarity.

[Kane0]

Honestly i would expect at least 80% of players i know to take the features of a half feat rather than the +1. For resilient especially.

[Gignere]

Honestly i would expect at least 80% of players i know to take the features of a half feat rather than the +1. For resilient especially.

This would likely make stacking dead levels stronger than a single class leveling. I mean people keep saying how casters get to stack spell slots, well just build a Druid/wizard/sorcerer/bard with 5 levels in each it will be basically unplayable.

Compared to say a barbarian/fighter/Paladin/ranger the 5 levels in 4 martials although not optimized will not be utterly unplayable at level 20.

Of course this is like the dumbest way to multiclass, because there are way better martial combinations that makes even more sense like fighter 11 / barbarian 9 or fighter 11 / Paladin 9, these multiclass combinations are at least as good if not better than the pure class straight to 20. Not to even mention the casting class that get extra attack like, fighter/Bladesinger will become basically a no brainer combo because fighter Bladesinger was already a good multiclass now it’s even more optimized.

Imagine Paladin / swords bard will become insane smite harder earlier and more often and get a free half feat to boot. Later even magical secrets find greater steed, why ever play a single class Paladin?

Edit: I like the adjust on a case by case offered by a couple of posters. Say someone wanted to play a barbarian / ranger and wants exact split in both classes I might offer them something for the dead level. However if another player comes with his 11 battlemaster CBE / Sharpshooter and wants to go 9 levels into gloomstalker ranger to ultimate min/max his first round alpha nova, yeah the dead level is just fine in my book.

[Man_Over_Game]

Thinking about it, I think a good balance is a +1 to a stat and proficiency in a skill.

Less than a half-feat, but not significantly so. Worth just enough to not consider it a dead level and continue with the levels, but not enough to be worth abusing.

[Kane0]

This would likely make stacking dead levels stronger than a single class leveling.

Likely true, but is already the case for well-considered multiclassing and optimization in general.



I mean people keep saying how casters get to stack spell slots, well just build a Druid/wizard/sorcerer/bard with 5 levels in each it will be basically unplayable.

Compared to say a barbarian/fighter/Paladin/ranger the 5 levels in 4 martials although not optimized will not be utterly unplayable at level 20.

That seems a strong claim, what argument do you have in support of this?



Imagine Paladin / swords bard will become insane smite harder earlier and more often and get a free half feat to boot. Later even magical secrets find greater steed, why ever play a single class Paladin?

Better than the existing Paladin/Warlock or Paladin/Sorcerer?



Edit: I like the adjust on a case by case offered by a couple of posters. Say someone wanted to play a barbarian / ranger and wants exact split in both classes I might offer them something for the dead level.
What would you offer?

[MaxWilson]

This would likely make stacking dead levels stronger than a single class leveling. I mean people keep saying how casters get to stack spell slots, well just build a Druid/wizard/sorcerer/bard with 5 levels in each it will be basically unplayable.

Not unplayable, just not as strategically overpowered as normal casters (e.g. no access to Wish). It will still be pretty good compared to a warrior due to minionmancy. You've got Tiny Servant and Conjure Animals and Fog Cloud/Darkness/etc., and tons of spell slots to fuel them, so you can easily conjure up a couple of dozen Tiny Servants and Giant Poisonous Snakes and put them in a Darkness or Fog Cloud to give them advantage and murder a bunch of beefy monsters.

Now obviously this isn't true of certain beefy monsters with high mobility and good AoEs, like dragons or many of the Cthulhu mythos monsters. You've got weaknesses that a normal caster wouldn't have, because they have options that you are missing. Against such monsters you're basically reduced to spamming Magic Missile or low-level control spells like Entangle/Web/Tasha's Hideous Laughter/Tasha's Mind Whip (if available) to help your buddies. But having a tough time against certain monsters doesn't make a character unplayable.

P.S. You can also have fun with Major Image, since you'll have plenty of slots to make permanent illusions to go along with your summons.

[Kvess]

If a character is multiclassing in a way that gets them extra attack twice, they are probably pursuing a build that will get them a benefit that's bigger than the drawback of the empty calorie level and likely doesn't need a power boost.

If they're not already on track to outshine every other party member and you really want to give them something, I'd recommend giving them the option of picking between three interesting minor features from another subclass. You could award a multiclassed monk the option of taking Drunken Technique, Shadow Arts or Hand of Healing at Monk 5.

[GeneralVryth]

Honestly, I do think that multiclassing was tacked on based on responses to D&D Next. It's pretty clear that it isn't a completely integrated system (or they likely would have come up with something with redundant Extra Attacks, like they did for spellcasters. Which they did because WotC loves their casters).

It's worth pointing out the multi-class rules for spell slots is actually a nerf versus the default which would be stacked spell slots. Because up-casting scaling is so bad multiple lower level spell slots are usually going to be better than a single higher level slot. This is especially true when discussing 3rd level slots. The other option would have been to ban stacking outright like they did with Extra Attack, which would have pretty much banned multi-classing into multiple full casters (not that is even a good option now outside of dips).

I agree with the general thought that multi-classing was tacked on. In reality it's non-optimal outside of small dips (with one or two key exceptions). Can anyone think of of a 10/10, 7/7/6, 5/5, or even 4/3/3 build (not involving the Rogue class) that is even on par with a pure level 20 or 10 build?

As to answer the question about dead Extra Attacks, I like the Fighting Style solution, maybe with the option to get a skill proficiency or expertise instead. Another thought, would be just providing the option to "skip" certain dead levels. It would depend on the specifics to see how well balanced that is, but I suspect it would work.

[Gignere]

It's worth pointing out the multi-class rules for spell slots is actually a nerf versus the default which would be stacked spell slots. Because up-casting scaling is so bad multiple lower level spell slots are usually going to be better than a single higher level slot. This is especially true when discussing 3rd level slots. The other option would have been to ban stacking outright like they did with Extra Attack, which would have pretty much banned multi-classing into multiple full casters (not that is even a good option now outside of dips).

I agree with the general thought that multi-classing was tacked on. In reality it's non-optimal outside of small dips (with one or two key exceptions). Can anyone think of of a 10/10, 7/7/6, 5/5, or even 4/3/3 build (not involving the Rogue class) that is even on par with a pure level 20 or 10 build?

As to answer the question about dead Extra Attacks, I like the Fighting Style solution, maybe with the option to get a skill proficiency or expertise instead. Another thought, would be just providing the option to "skip" certain dead levels. It would depend on the specifics to see how well balanced that is, but I suspect it would work.

Yes 11 / 9 fighter / ranger especially gloomstalker is a powerful optimized archer build. Taking advantage of the fact that after level 11 you don’t get much of anything in fighter to help with archery. This will give you an amazing alpha round in the first turn.

6 fighter / 5 warlock / 5 whispers and you can build a ranged smite build leveraging elven accuracy, Eldritch smite, hexblade curse, and whisper dice. If you action surge in the first round you can basically guarantee a crit in the first turn.

6 fighter / x barbarian isn’t a bad build neither as is 11 / 9.

Than you have all the flavors of Paladin / sorcerer / hexblade builds.

EK 11 / Paladin 9 is also a very good build too. This can be done in a few ways but combining 3 attacks and smite is powerful. Can even be built around Shadowblade for easy advantage.

[TyGuy]

I've always liked the idea of just handing out another ASI/Feat. Or maybe limit it to only half-feats.


Typically a half ASI, so for example if you double up on Extra Attack you can get +1 to a stat of your choice or the not+1 part of a half feat such as Piercer.

I'm not a fan of +1, too basic/boring for my taste, and I don't care to add sources of ASI over what already exists. The feature part of the half feat could be a good substitute though.



For Extra Attack stacking, consider awarding an extra Fighting Style.
You know, I've been thinking about this one and I quite like it. To my own fault, I dismissed Tasha's in its entirety because there's stuff in there I strongly dislike. But the new fighting styles are quite nice in my eyes. And they really expand the options in that realm. I think this is how I would address this in the future, if it ever came up... Level 10 play has been less than 1% of my entire D&D experience.


Resistances - I would consider assigning a thematically appropriate replacement resistance (say it's a Mark of Storms Half Elf who wants to play a sea-themed Storm Herald Barbarian, I'd give them Thunder resistance since they already have Lightning from their race; if it's a Tiefling with an Efreeti Genie patron, I'd probably go for cold resistance reasoning that their own heat protects them from cold). I would not let the player choose this, as there are clear incentives to select more common damage types which may be less thematic.
A big part of why I chose this topic is because of character creation redundancies and how they disincentivize drilling down into a thematic aspect. For example, a race with fire resistance may consider the storm herald options other than desert to make use of a new resistance at level 6, or eat the loss of a new resistance with desert. I'm not really sold on an adjacent or opposite resistance as I don't really see all resistance options as having an adjacent or opposite equivalent.
Personally, I'm considering something that adds to the resistance in question but isn't nearly as OP as immunity. Perhaps something inspired by Heavy Armor Master where there's a flat Proficiency Bonus damage reduction on the element in question. Something I like about that is that it can be applied globally as a variant rule so temporary benefits can use the same formula easily enough. Like draconic sorcerer and the storm herald's ability to share the resistance later on.




You mean like for Goblin Rogues: Cunning Action + Nimble Escape? Typically I don't do anything. If a player comes to me with a dissatisfaction I'd work something out, but by default I try not to make house rules without some kind of reason, either a player request or something that bugs me so much that I have to change it for my own sanity.

If a player came to me saying, "I'd like to play a Goblin Rogue but the redundancy issue troubles me--can I be some kind of variant Rogue that gets something instead of Cunning Action at level 2?" my opening bid would be "How about a Rogue that gets Action Surge at level 2?" They're about the same power level and equally desirable, although of course their effects are opposites: Action Surge is bursty while Cunning Action raises your baseline at-will capabilities.
This type of stuff is actually what started the thought process for me. I see the thread really turned heavily into multiclassing and extra attack specifically. Which is cool, but not really something that's going to come up much for most play imo. But what really gets me is that "Oh the __ race option that has X aspect is actually not exemplary at the class with X, because the race already gives X so you're missing out on new stuff as it were."

A big one for me is the armor and weapon proficiencies on races with racial ASI that are conducive to martial classes anyways. A good example is the mountain dwarf. If a player is going to type-cast the Str & Con mountain dwarf as a strength martial, then they're going to get that armor proficiency anyway...
For armor, I'm leaning towards the option of any non-ASI half of the armor feats. So if a PC gets two sources of light armor as the highest option they can choose moderately armored. In the case of a mountain dwarf fighter they could choose medium armor master or heavy armor master.
For redundant weapon proficiencies I want to do something where those specific racial weapons get a little better. I like the idea of applying savage attacker feat to the racial prof. weapons that get the proficiency again through the class. But that kind of passes the buck and makes getting savage attacker less appealing and it technically doesn't apply to ranged weapons RAW. Perhaps a +1 to attack. As boring as that is, it's not terribly hard to remember.


One thing I've noticed about the conservative half of the responses is that the main reason to not buff redundant Extra Attacks is that it's not a big enough deal to worry about.

But I'm not seeing anyone explaining in much detail why buffing would be a bad thing. The options so far seem to be "Make the game better" or "Do nothing".

I've noticed this forum skews (at least with the vocal set) towards buff aversion. Even when said buffs simply bring things closer to or at the power levels of existing RAW content.
I was hoping this thread could be less about the why and a lot more about the how. As I have already decided that I don't like how redundancies discourage drilling down on themes. I want more variety in character options.

[GeneralVryth]

Yes 11 / 9 fighter / ranger especially gloomstalker is a powerful optimized archer build. Taking advantage of the fact that after level 11 you don’t get much of anything in fighter to help with archery. This will give you an amazing alpha round in the first turn.

6 fighter / 5 warlock / 5 whispers and you can build a ranged smite build leveraging elven accuracy, Eldritch smite, hexblade curse, and whisper dice. If you action surge in the first round you can basically guarantee a crit in the first turn.

6 fighter / x barbarian isn’t a bad build neither as is 11 / 9.

Than you have all the flavors of Paladin / sorcerer / hexblade builds.

EK 11 / Paladin 9 is also a very good build too. This can be done in a few ways but combining 3 attacks and smite is powerful. Can even be built around Shadowblade for easy advantage.

It's telling I think none of those are perfectly even splits (though they do actually follow the spirit of my point better than I expected). I also think it's telling they all involve either a smite effect (a way to get around up-casting scaling issues), or are Fighter 11 plus something else (which really just shows how bad the high level Fighter bonuses are). I think all multi-classing that is competitive with a single classed character likely falls into 1 of 5 groups:
1. A dip (the second/third class has no more than 4 levels in it, usually 1 to 3).
2. A smite effect (to get around up-casting scaling) combined with some method for either an extra attack or more powerful one (blade cantrip).
3. Something + Rogue.
4. Something + Warlock.
5. Fighter 11 combined with something else.

The reason Rogues and Warlocks make popular multi-class options (both for dips and otherwise) is all their bonuses stack with other classes.

[Segev]

I've noticed this forum skews (at least with the vocal set) towards buff aversion. Even when said buffs simply bring things closer to or at the power levels of existing RAW content.
I was hoping this thread could be less about the why and a lot more about the how. As I have already decided that I don't like how redundancies discourage drilling down on themes. I want more variety in character options.

I have not noticed this trend. In fact, if anything, this forum tends to the opposite, pushing people to buff perceived weaknesses rather than nerfing things perceived as too strong in comparison to those weaknesses.

[Kane0]

If people are seeing proponents of both buffs and nerfs i would say thats a good place to be.
Either that or confirmation bias.

[PhantomSoul]

I have not noticed this trend. In fact, if anything, this forum tends to the opposite, pushing people to buff perceived weaknesses rather than nerfing things perceived as too strong in comparison to those weaknesses.

Entirely agreed! Sometimes things are just too high above the rest for buffs to work or for the outlier to be ignored, which is where the nerfs seem to show up. (That, and a "nerf" often actually being removing an unintended/undesired interaction or clarifying an ambiguous phrasing.)



I was hoping this thread could be less about the why and a lot more about the how. As I have already decided that I don't like how redundancies discourage drilling down on themes. I want more variety in character options.

I think a minor title change would help here; the title assumes (implies) we do buff things in this way, so people can respond to the false assumption, so a conditional could help. It won't be perfect, but it seems that threads get more "I wouldn't, but if you want to ..." (and therefore "how" answers) when it's phrased that way just because it's framed differently. (Often titles like that also have different first-post structure, which could also have an effect.)

[TyGuy]

I think a minor title change would help here; the title assumes (implies) we do buff things in this way, so people can respond to the false assumption, so a conditional could help.


If you provide alternatives for the more powerful features like resistances, extra attack, channel divinity, evasion etc.; what kind of alternatives do you implement?
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to read the OP before responding. Is it common to respond to threads after reading just the title?

[PhantomSoul]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to read the OP before responding. Is it common to respond to threads after reading just the title?

I unfortunately think it is common (though less so early into threads [1]), but I also think the title sets the tone; the OP kind of had to "undo" the title for me, and I'd still be tempted to bring up that aspect of the title because it's important to buy-in. (But unless responding to a specific comment, I'd still give the desired information afterwards, unless I thought it was so ill-advised that I'd want to confirm the design goals or get more info about the problem being targeted.)

Also, your OP is short (and well-formatted) enough that I'd hope someone commenting on the thread (and not just on a comment) would've read the OP!

Clarification edit: [1] this is mainly when the title makes you think you know what the thread's about. I kind of hate that it means less informative titles can be strategically useful (but I like to think lower click likelihood would help offset that, even if I have no idea whether that's true!).

[MaxWilson]

I agree with the general thought that multi-classing was tacked on. In reality it's non-optimal outside of small dips (with one or two key exceptions). Can anyone think of of a 10/10, 7/7/6, 5/5, or even 4/3/3 build (not involving the Rogue class) that is even on par with a pure level 20 or 10 build?

Moon Druid 10/Gloomstalker 10 is competitive with Gloomstalker 20 if not with Moon Druid 20. Moon Druid 5/Barb 5 is competitive with Fighter 10 or Barb 10.

Shepherd Druid 7/Lore Bard 6/Life Cleric 7 is weird and a bit MAD (max Cha, leave Wisdom low) but viable, a great summoner and healer, and arguably competitive with Shepherd 20 or Life Cleric 20, maybe even Lore Bard 20 depending on how much you value Wish and True Polymorph.

That's all I can think of right now.


It's telling I think none of those are perfectly even splits (though they do actually follow the spirit of my point better than I expected). I also think it's telling they all involve either a smite effect (a way to get around up-casting scaling issues), or are Fighter 11 plus something else (which really just shows how bad the high level Fighter bonuses are). I think all multi-classing that is competitive with a single classed character likely falls into 1 of 5 groups:
1. A dip (the second/third class has no more than 4 levels in it, usually 1 to 3).
2. A smite effect (to get around up-casting scaling) combined with some method for either an extra attack or more powerful one (blade cantrip).
3. Something + Rogue.
4. Something + Warlock.
5. Fighter 11 combined with something else.

The reason Rogues and Warlocks make popular multi-class options (both for dips and otherwise) is all their bonuses stack with other classes.

The high-level Eldritch Knight bonuses are quite good, especially the teleport. Indomitable is bad, but overall it's still a tough dilemma to give up EK 20 in favor of e.g. EK 11/Diviner 7/Rogue 2 because you really do miss that 2/rest teleport-and-action surge and 4th (really 5th) attack. There is a noticeable difference between opening a combat with 18 attacks and two teleports in rounds 1-2, vs. only 11 attacks and zero teleports. (But Portent and more wizard spells and Cunning Action are great too! It's a dilemma.)

BTW I wouldn't say Rogue bonuses stack with all other classes. In particular I'll call out Uncanny Dodge as tough to leverage because of that reaction cost. I'd say this is one reason why Rogue 5 is much less desirable than Rogue 2, though of course the opportunity cost of 3 more levels is also a factor.

[Man_Over_Game]

I have not noticed this trend. In fact, if anything, this forum tends to the opposite, pushing people to buff perceived weaknesses rather than nerfing things perceived as too strong in comparison to those weaknesses.

Humans are naturally biased towards avoiding loss rather than enjoying gain.

So nerfs get more backlash than buffs. It changes the perspective from "Hey, I'm enjoying the game, so why should I be punished?" to "Yeah, equal privileges are cool, of course you can buff that other option to match mine".

Even if nerfs are better, we're talking about homebrew stuff in a culture that hates extra work. A homebrew suggestion needs to be extremely appealing to the populace to get praise, because it has to be appealing enough for folks to overlook the work of implementing it (that is, saving it and convincing your table to both use it and remember it).

So nerfs will almost never be taken seriously on the forum. Don't get me wrong, I would love nothing more than to replace PAM with something interesting, I just won't ever expect folks to be jumping on board for it.

[TyGuy]

I think nerfs vs buffs is a false dichotomy.
What I've seen is the majority of responses to
"is X too weak?" or "should I buff X?" as "no, X is fine". Even if X is well below the uninspired standard optimized stuff mostly everyone uses. And a good chunk of unsolicited responses to "this is a buff to X" as "that's OP!" When the math says otherwise.

Example: someone asked how to buff two weapon fighting for their player that wanted to dual wield without dragging the party down in effectiveness. I had a suggestion that put the damage of two weapons at just below PAM with great weapon fighting. Someone dismissed it out of hand. When I described the math they became ok with it. That knee jerk reaction to buffs is something I've noticed enough to personally consider it a trend.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think nerfs vs buffs is a false dichotomy.
What I've seen is the majority of responses to
"is X too weak?" or "should I buff X?" as "no, X is fine". Even if X is well below the uninspired standard optimized stuff mostly everyone uses. And a good chunk of unsolicited responses to "this is a buff to X" as "that's OP!" When the math says otherwise.

Example: someone asked how to buff two weapon fighting for their player that wanted to dual wield without dragging the party down in effectiveness. I had a suggestion that put the damage of two weapons at just below PAM with great weapon fighting. Someone dismissed it out of hand. When I described the math they became ok with it. That knee jerk reaction to buffs is something I've noticed enough to personally consider it a trend.

I absolutely agree. Math has been incredibly useful in debates.

One thing I've started to slowly understand is that Balance or Fairness doesn't always equal Fun or Good.

It's fair that if casters suck when multiclassing each other that martials are expected to run into issues. But is that a Good or Fun thing?

Is it a good idea to halt progress for the sake of fairness? Not trying to imply that it isn't or anything, it's a good question and one I have been asking myself for a while now.

[Rukelnikov]

I think nerfs vs buffs is a false dichotomy.
What I've seen is the majority of responses to
"is X too weak?" or "should I buff X?" as "no, X is fine". Even if X is well below the uninspired standard optimized stuff mostly everyone uses. And a good chunk of unsolicited responses to "this is a buff to X" as "that's OP!" When the math says otherwise.

Example: someone asked how to buff two weapon fighting for their player that wanted to dual wield without dragging the party down in effectiveness. I had a suggestion that put the damage of two weapons at just below PAM with great weapon fighting. Someone dismissed it out of hand. When I described the math they became ok with it. That knee jerk reaction to buffs is something I've noticed enough to personally consider it a trend.

But PAM/GWM is a two feat investment, did your suggestion require any kind of investment from the PC to work? Or was is just vanilla two weapon fighting that got just below PAM/GWM?

For the record I deinitely think two weapon fighting needs a rework, its not just a DPR thing, it doesn't feel unique in any sense, GWM has the power attack they can do and the pseudo cleave, ranged combat is completely different from melee, Shield Master allows for bashing and using the shield to protect from some spells and AoEs, and the protection style allows to block attacks directed at others(*), but Dual Wielder offers no such mechanic.

(*) I know every dual wielder could use one attack to bash and the BA to attack getting the same results, or better depending on DMs ruling on when the bash can be done, and the protection style wasn't that hot before Tasha's and now is almost completely overshadowed by Interception which doesn't require a shield, so I also think S&B could use some tweaks to its mechanics, but at least the intention and the ideas are there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But PAM/GWM is a two feat investment, did your suggestion require any kind of investment from the PC to work? Or was is just vanilla two weapon fighting that got just below PAM/GWM?

For the record I deinitely think two weapon fighting needs a rework, its not just a DPR thing, it doesn't feel unique in any sense, GWM has the power attack they can do and the pseudo cleave, ranged combat is completely different from melee, Shield Master allows for bashing and using the shield to protect from some spells and AoEs, and the protection style allows to block attacks directed at others(*), but Dual Wielder offers no such mechanic.

(*) I know every dual wielder could use one attack to bash and the BA to attack getting the same results, or better depending on DMs ruling on when the bash can be done, and the protection style wasn't that hot before Tasha's and now is almost completely overshadowed by Interception which doesn't require a shield, so I also think S&B could use some tweaks to its mechanics, but at least the intention and the ideas are there.

Exactly. Baselines matter. If your baseline for "underpowered" is a pair of feats that many (including myself) considered out of balance...sure. You're going to want more buffs. But that's a recipe for spiraling power creep. Some things need buffs, others need nerfs. And the only way to know which is to have an external baseline decided in advance. Not "buff all the things to be equal to the best thing" (or conversely "nerf all the things to be equal to the worst thing").

[quindraco]

I agree with the general thought that multi-classing was tacked on. In reality it's non-optimal outside of small dips (with one or two key exceptions). Can anyone think of of a 10/10, 7/7/6, 5/5, or even 4/3/3 build (not involving the Rogue class) that is even on par with a pure level 20 or 10 build?

One of the issues is paying attention to inflection points in the leveling curve - which varies by class and subclass - and the nature of scaling. Many builds aren't built because the class benefits involved have the wrong scaling - for example, Monk martial arts dice scale with proficiency bonus, but because they're written to scale with Monk level instead of proficiency bonus, they're less useful for multiclassing. Much of success in multiclassing involves finding class and subclass benefits with either a) flat (the ability never improves, so there's no downside to multiclassing), b) stat modifier, or c) proficiency bonus scaling, and avoiding class level scaling. As more subclasses come out, this becomes easier to do.

Another issue, which is part and parcel of multiclassing being tacked on as an afterthought, is that the ASIS at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 are class benefits every class gets, unlike proficiency bonus, which ignores class. As a result, something like 4/3/3 is harder to come up with something for, since you have to give up an ASI for it. You can patch the problem with VHuman or TCL for an L1 feat, but it's still challenging. At higher levels, you can probably find room for another ASI, making things easier.

Yet another issue is occasionally inane multiclassing requirements, like how Paladins need Strength to multiclass but Fighters don't, despite neither class being Strength-dependent for any of their class features. And yet another is wide disparities in capstone power levels, if you're discussing L20 builds - a Druid gives up a lot more to multiclass than a Sorcerer does. And yet another is how partial casters (paladins and rangers, primarily) get a progression nerf at odd levels for no apparent reason.

If you want an example triple-class build that's not bad at all, Warlock 4/Sorcerer 4/Paladin 12 is better than Paladin 20 if built right. A lot of that is for getting ASIs. Since 2 ASIs is enough for Cha 20, you can also do this: Warlock 3/Sorcerer 3/Paladin 8/Bard 6. Paladin and Bard will synergize for nonsense-grade saves, especially if you pick Eloquence Bard, while Sorcerer will synergize with Warlock for sorcery points and Warlock will synergize with Paladin for smites.

[MaxWilson]

Yet another issue is occasionally inane multiclassing requirements, like how Paladins need Strength to multiclass but Fighters don't, despite neither class being Strength-dependent for any of their class features.

Nitpick: Fighters must have either Strength 13 or Dexterity 13 in order to multiclass. Letting Dexterity substitute for Strength seems reasonable since Fighters include archers, but you can't dump both Dex and Str and still multiclass out of Fighter.

[MrCharlie]

I mean, I agree. But I thought the meaningful choices was you’d never reach the pinnacle of power of the class you’re in. Not that you’d end up having to get nothing for a level.

I do however, find it amusing that the game went backwards over itself to allow casters to use charts and formulas to figure out exactly how many spells they can cast with no real penalty to their main power source as a class at all. While the warrior types get a shrug and told that’s the cost of multiclassing.
They don't get more spells known however, and most multiclassing builds for casters are suboptimal because of it. High level spells are (usually) much more effective than low level spells-there are some exceptional spells that give lie to this (particularly at tier break points) but otherwise it's generally true. So casters typically either wait on multiclassing until they already know the spells they want, or they multiclass in that a half-caster takes full caster levels.

(And in 3.5, the only caster multiclassing that was done either cheated past this limitation or sucked).

That said, the end result of both martial and caster multi-classing is that there are breakpoint levels that you go to first, and then you dip into other classes briefly. For martials it's to grab low level (1-3) features that add damage or combat options, for casters it's to grab low level features that add proficiencies, typically, or some strong level 1 spell.

There are only a handful of builds that I can name where heavily invested multiclassing into multiple classes is a good idea, and most of them involved Rogue as the one martial class that adds damage linearly with any amount of investment, or involved mixing a martial and a caster.