Muticlass archetypes

[Fynzmirs]

No, this is not a thread in which I ask if I can multiclass two archetypes of the same class.
Aight, back to the topic.

During my times playing 3.5 I have stumbled upon a rather niche system based on 3rd edition SRD and set in the world of Conan. It had several interesting mechanical solutions (scaling alternative to AC, a surprisingly useful Noble class, a completely unique magic system focused on the narrative effects with battle magic being comparatively weaker). Among those mechanical solutions there was something akin to "multiclass archetypes". Before I explain how they work I should probably explain why you, Dear Reader, should care.

The what now?

I'll try to be brief but if you wish to learn my purpose behind the following anecdote already, it is to make a suggestion on how the clunky and optional multiclassing system of 5e can be improved.
Sidenote: I have no idea if authors of that Conan sub-system created that idea of if it was from a different game altogether

See, the aforementioned Conan system got created during the optimization craze of the 3rd edition. There used to be a lot of dips, prestige classes and weird optional rules. However, the writers of that particular subsystem for some reason didn't want to introduce prestige classes at the beginning (maybe they didn't like the concept, maybe they didn't have any good ideas for them; they did eventually introduce some prestige classes but they were rare and difficult to obtain). As an alternative for all those people craving for mixing and matching, they have encouraged multiclassing the base classes by a system of special multiclassing archetypes.

Basically, for every pair of base classes they've invented a name and a bit of rather vague fluff. Obviously, creating a specific prestige class for every combination would take ages. So instead of inventing new progressions, for every pair of base classes they have created a few (2-4) special abilities that you would get for free. Those abilities weren't designed to push the combination in some weird direction, but rather to build on top of different class mechanics and provide a way of making them more synergistic. Each of those abilities would require either a certain level in both of the mentioned classes or a pair of abilities from the two different classes (to speak in 5e terms, a cleric/rogue ability could require Channel Divinity and Evasion for some unfathomable purpose). Some of them provided slight buffs for weaker combinations and some even changed the base class features. Additionally, all of them were optional and could be taken separately or all at once (and I think I recall at least some being mutually exclusive). And yes, you could multiclass more than two different classes and choose from among any abilities for which you met prerequisites.

So how does it connect to 5e?

Seing how 5e is trying to avoid introducing prestige classes (and with 5e ruleset I think that's a good decision) and seeing how they are not afraid to print optional features for single classes, I think those "multiclass archetypes" could be a way of fixing the issues that current multiclass builds face. As a cherry on top, due to specific abilities having specific requirements, they wouldn't improve the already common power dips but rather make some weirder multiclass splits more viable (wizard 5/cleric 5 anyone?). Some obvious examples of multiclass archetypes that don't work well currently are Rage Mages (barbarian/wizards), Mystic Theurges (wizard/clerics), Ninjas (monk/rogues), Green Knights (paladin/druids) and druid/warlocks (witches?).

And why exactly are you posting this?

I would like to know your opinions. What do you think about this idea? Could a similiar system work in 5e? Before the printing of optional features in Tasha I would say that it would bring too much complexity to 5e, but as WotC has already made a precedence for optional features, could it be possible to follow up on it while keeping the spirit of streamlining? It would obviously make those weird level splits more powerful but as long as they would still be weaker than straight base classes, I don't think that would be an issue.

[MrStabby]

Well with the usual caveat of it depending on the quality of the implementation, I quite like the idea. On the other hand, it would pretty much make certain we would never get any new classes.

I also generally like the optional alternative class features so I think that could be a cool way to go. So is the idea that certain class features would be replaced if you had a different class? So for exampe if you are a rogue and you multiclass fighter, you could pick up something like a "dirty fighting" style as an ACF that replaced fighting style? Or would you be looking at feats specifically where you have a prerequisite from each class (which could end up being pretty damn late game if you need something like extra attack AND evasion AND then pick up your next ASI)

[Fynzmirs]

So is the idea that certain class features would be replaced if you had a different class? So for exampe if you are a rogue and you multiclass fighter, you could pick up something like a "dirty fighting" style as an ACF that replaced fighting style? Or would you be looking at feats specifically where you have a prerequisite from each class (which could end up being pretty damn late game if you need something like extra attack AND evasion AND then pick up your next ASI)

I agree that feats aren't really a good solution for the reasons you have mentioned (and they are another optional ruleset that would be required in order for this system to work).

The basic idea is that you could get for example "Dirty Fighting" for free as soon as you have 3 levels in rogue and fighter, similiarly to those optional features in Tasha that don't replace anything. However, should "Dirty Fighting" be too powerful to be given for free it could also replace existing features, but that would be an exception, not the norm.

As I have stated in my post there is a case to be made that giving players new features for free is an example of power creep. However, if the multiclass combination in question was already vastly suboptimal and the new feature would make it better but still worse than straight 20 levels in a single class, then I don't think we can call it power creep - it merely improves worst options in an effort to improve the variety of viable builds.

[MrStabby]

I think that this could be made balanced, but could pose problems for new content.

So lets say we look at the situation when PHB was released. Consider something like the Sorcerer and the Monk - two classes that faced some criticism and with no synergy. Imagine a bonus feature for multiclass that lets you spend Ki like sorcery points and vice versa. It isn't broken (having allowed exactly this for one of my players I get it).

Now fast forward to 2022 and imagine this had been released as rules. Your best use of points is no longer something like a blasty draconic sorcerer but rather something like Aberant mind. Imagine short rest monk powering Ki, each of which in turn powers Silvery Barbs. Imagine that monk still doing two attacks per turn but reliably having one of the best reactions in the game. Imagine being able to spam level 1 enchantment spells AND as a bonus action hit someone because you spent Ki. Imagine being able to spend 1 Ki Any power creep or fix of broken classes then gets amplified, potentially quite a bit.

I am not saying that anything would be this egregious, but it is one example of how when everything else gets fixed it would break some of these things.

[Fynzmirs]

I admit that there could be some imbalanced features but the same can be said about class archetypes and feats.

In the example you have provided the obvious error is allowing a resource recharging on short rest be used to fuel features recharging on long rests but I get your point.

As a counterpoint, avoiding any new additions and changes would mean that the game stagnates. All changes and additions have a potential of being unbalanced, but a system of multiclass archetypes would at least fix some of the existing imbalances before possibly adding new ones.

[OldTrees1]

The basic idea is that you could get for example "Dirty Fighting" for free as soon as you have 3 levels in rogue and fighter, similiarly to those optional features in Tasha that don't replace anything. However, should "Dirty Fighting" be too powerful to be given for free it could also replace existing features, but that would be an exception, not the norm.

If I understand this correctly:

A Rogue 6 gets features for Rogue 1-6
A Fighter 6 gets features for Fighter 1-6
A Fighter 3 / Rogue 3 gets features for Fighter 1-3, Rogue 1-3, and the feature for being at (Ftr 3+ & Rog 3+).
With the caveat that it could be an ACF(alternate class feature) replacing an existing feature instead of an additional feature.

If I understand correctly these additional features are encouraging multiclassing by offsetting the tradeoff (trade high level features in exchange for synergistic additional low level features) by granting additional features (or granting ACFs. Additional choices would increases the synergy of those low level features but less than additional features).

In a system with more exponential growth (like 3E) you might want these additional features to rebalance the tradeoff.
In a system with flatter growth (like 5E) you might want to stick to having these being ACFs.
In a system where 1st level is a bit overloaded (a general problem) this might also suffer from that issue.

Yes, something like this could provide a more robust multiclass system. Although one wonder if it is better to have the ACFs be tied to the classes or to the class pairs.

[Pildion]

If I understand this correctly:

A Rogue 6 gets features for Rogue 1-6
A Fighter 6 gets features for Fighter 1-6
A Fighter 3 / Rogue 3 gets features for Fighter 1-3, Rogue 1-3, and the feature for being at (Ftr 3+ & Rog 3+).
With the caveat that it could be an ACF(alternate class feature) replacing an existing feature instead of an additional feature.

If I understand correctly these additional features are encouraging multiclassing by offsetting the tradeoff (trade high level features in exchange for synergistic additional low level features) by granting additional features (or granting ACFs. Additional choices would increases the synergy of those low level features but less than additional features).

In a system with more exponential growth (like 3E) you might want these additional features to rebalance the tradeoff.
In a system with flatter growth (like 5E) you might want to stick to having these being ACFs.
In a system where 1st level is a bit overloaded (a general problem) this might also suffer from that issue.

Yes, something like this could provide a more robust multiclass system. Although one wonder if it is better to have the ACFs be tied to the classes or to the class pairs.

Trying to tie in additional class features for every class pair would be crazy, if anything just give each class or even archetype some additional class features to chose from that synergies well with the most common multiclasses for those archetypes.

[paladinn]

Has there been anything "official" or 3rd party developed in this way? Or some guide for exchanging class features between classes?

I'm contemplating an "agent" type class that would be a kind of rogue/fighter mix.. probably an inquisitive with more fighting ability. I could also see a paladin (Vengeance oath) "borrowing" the ranger's favored foe/enemy feature. So s/he kicks undead butt All the time, but can really lay a smite smackdown as well.