Multiclass with different archetype in the same class

[JLandan]

I've got a player that wants to multiclass with Ranger Hunter and Ranger Beastmaster. Has anyone come across something like this before?

Off-hand I lean towards no. But it occurred to me that if I made him start the second archetype from re-running level one and two (getting nothing but a hit die) it might balance out. I certainly would not let him have the first two levels concurrent.

Would this work with any class? A second level Cleric with two domains would be really front loaded. Would a fourth level Wizard with two schools be over-loaded?

[Psyren]

I'm not sure how that would work. Are you suggesting:

a) Gestalt both subclasses (get their archetypical features concurrently at the same levels)?
b) The player can choose which features to mix and match, e.g. BM pet at 3rd, then Hunter's Defensive Tactics at 7th?
c) The player can swap between subclasses but must get the features in order, e.g. BM pet at 3rd then at 7th, they can pick Exceptional Training or Hunter's Prey?
d) Something else?

(a) would be a huge power boost. (b) and (c) would depend on the class - it has the potential to be quite strong, but for this combination it would almost certainly be weaker.

[Evaar]

How would this work with spellcasting progression? Full slots? What about for spells known/prepared? Does a Cleric1(Life)/Cleric4(Arcana) know third level spells just like a Cleric5 would?

If so, then that's a major boost to spellcasting classes relative to martial classes because they're effectively progressing their primary features while martials aren't.

[JLandan]

I'm not sure how that would work. Are you suggesting:

a) Gestalt both subclasses (get their archetypical features concurrently at the same levels)?
b) The player can choose which features to mix and match, e.g. BM pet at 3rd, then Hunter's Defensive Tactics at 7th?
c) The player can swap between subclasses but must get the features in order, e.g. BM pet at 3rd then at 7th, they can pick Exceptional Training or Hunter's Prey?
d) Something else?

(a) would be a huge power boost. (b) and (c) would depend on the class - it has the potential to be quite strong, but for this combination it would almost certainly be weaker.


Definitely NOT concurrent.

It would be handled as two separate classes. i.e. level 1= Ranger 1, level 2=Ranger 2, level 3= Ranger 3 with Hunter, level 4= Ranger 1 again (nothing but hit die), level 5= Ranger 2 again (nothing but hit die), level 6= Ranger 3 again with Beastmaster.

Edit: Actually, looking at Ranger again, the first two levels are not dead. There are options for both levels that would be available.

Per multiclass spellcasting, spells would be 6 known (3 for each "class"). Since Ranger is half-caster, slots for a 3rd level, 4-1st, 2-2nd. Single Ranger 6 is 4 known and 4-1st, 2-2nd. So, 2 more known traded for 4 dead levels.

No ASI/feats, because neither is 4th yet.

Choices for Hunter features would be chosen on Hunter levels only. Anything dependent on class level would be by that archetype only, not combined. All advancement would be one or the other, same as any multiclass.

[Steven K]

Definitely NOT concurrent.

It would be handled as two separate classes. i.e. level 1= Ranger 1, level 2=Ranger 2, level 3= Ranger 3 with Hunter, level 4= Ranger 1 again (nothing but hit die), level 5= Ranger 2 again (nothing but hit die), level 6= Ranger 3 again with Beastmaster.

Per multiclass spellcasting, spells would be 6 known (3 for each "class"). Since Ranger is half-caster, slots for a 3rd level, 4-1st, 2-2nd. Single Ranger 6 is 4 known and 4-1st, 2-2nd. So, 2 more known traded for 4 dead levels.

No ASI/feats, because neither is 4th yet.

Choices for Hunter features would be chosen on Hunter levels only. Anything dependent on class level would be by that archetype only, not combined. All advancement would be one or the other, same as any multiclass.

Does it really make sense to have them repeat levels one and two, which are in no way related to the choice of archetype? The choice point is level three, so repeat level three, then take the ASI/Feat for Ranger level four at character level five, then extra attack at character level six, and so on. Every character level where the ranger levels up to a new archetype feature, choose one of the available archetype features, then either keep going with the normal ranger features or take the other archetype feature on the next level up. The only problem point is spellcasting-I'd tie that to character level rather than ranger level so the progression wasn't interupted.

[JLandan]

Does it really make sense to have them repeat levels one and two, which are in no way related to the choice of archetype? The choice point is level three, so repeat level three, then take the ASI/Feat for Ranger level four at character level five, then extra attack at character level six, and so on. Every character level where the ranger levels up to a new archetype feature, choose one of the available archetype features, then either keep going with the normal ranger features or take the other archetype feature on the next level up. The only problem point is spellcasting-I'd tie that to character level rather than ranger level so the progression wasn't interupted.

My reasoning is that multiclassing in any other class would require a certain number of levels to attain the archetype. This maintains balance. It would be unfair to allow two archetypes without the lesser levels. The player is looking for two whole archetypes, not cherry-picking features, which would only get every other feature from both archetypes. Why have classes at all if you do that. The method of Ranger A and Ranger B maintains balance between the other PCs and all other mechanics as written. I am not going to re-write the whole game for this one PC.

Also, on further examination because we play with the optional class features, the first and second levels of Ranger B won't be dead levels. At 1st, I'm allowing a second Favored Enemy and Deft Explorer to replace Natural Explorer. At 2nd, I'm allowing a second Fighting Style, but spell casting will follow the usual multiclassing spell caster rules, combing Ranger A and Ranger B as two half-casters.

While it seems at first to be overpowering, consider if the second class were Fighter, he would get everything the Fighter class has. So, getting everything the second Ranger class has is fair. Features that are the same do not stack but features that have options within themselves may. Fighting Style from Fighter would not preclude Fighting Style from Ranger, they would just have to be different styles. The specified features in the multiclassing rules would not stack.

And if I go ahead with this house rule it should be applicable to all classes to remain fair. This raises headaches for every single class. For example, most Wizard features would be okay with two schools, with the exception of Arcane Recovery. That would be either it doesn't stack, or it does stack. Same issues with every other class.

[HPisBS]

My reasoning is that multiclassing in any other class would require a certain number of levels to attain the archetype. This maintains balance. It would be unfair to allow two archetypes without the lesser levels. The player is looking for two whole archetypes, not cherry-picking features, which would only get every other feature from both archetypes. Why have classes at all if you do that. The method of Ranger A and Ranger B maintains balance between the other PCs and all other mechanics as written. I am not going to re-write the whole game for this one PC.

Also, on further examination because we play with the optional class features, the first and second levels of Ranger B won't be dead levels. At 1st, I'm allowing a second Favored Enemy and Deft Explorer to replace Natural Explorer. At 2nd, I'm allowing a second Fighting Style, but spell casting will follow the usual multiclassing spell caster rules, combing Ranger A and Ranger B as two half-casters.

While it seems at first to be overpowering, consider if the second class were Fighter, he would get everything the Fighter class has. So, getting everything the second Ranger class has is fair. Features that are the same do not stack but features that have options within themselves may. Fighting Style from Fighter would not preclude Fighting Style from Ranger, they would just have to be different styles. The specified features in the multiclassing rules would not stack.

And if I go ahead with this house rule it should be applicable to all classes to remain fair. This raises headaches for every single class. For example, most Wizard features would be okay with two schools, with the exception of Arcane Recovery. That would be either it doesn't stack, or it does stack. Same issues with every other class.

Sure, but you'd normally also get the other features of the base class, too....

You know, it's actually kinda fortuitous that the player specifically wants to dual wield Rangers, especially since the class got that soft rewrite. I'd offer the following:

For the 2nd Ranger progression, the PC can pick up any option s/he originally neglected.

- Meaning, if they originally chose Deft Explorer and Favored Enemy [undead], their 2nd lvl 1 can be Natural Explorer and either a Favored Foe, or a new Favored Enemy selection.
Their 2nd lvl 2 would net them a 2nd Fighting Style and 2 new 1st lvl spells known.
Their 2nd lvl 3 would grant them whichever they don't have yet between Primeval and Primal Awareness. And so on.

(In the unlikely event that the player eventually takes both all the way to lvl 8, I'd probably give them Fleet of Foot from the Revised Ranger.)

[JLandan]

Sure, but you'd normally also get the other features of the base class, too....

You know, it's actually kinda fortuitous that the player specifically wants to dual wield Rangers, especially since the class got that soft rewrite. I'd offer the following:

For the 2nd Ranger progression, the PC can pick up any option s/he originally neglected.

- Meaning, if they originally chose Deft Explorer and Favored Enemy [undead], their 2nd lvl 1 can be Natural Explorer and either a Favored Foe, or a new Favored Enemy selection.
Their 2nd lvl 2 would net them a 2nd Fighting Style and 2 new 1st lvl spells known.
Their 2nd lvl 3 would grant them whichever they don't have yet between Primeval and Primal Awareness. And so on.

(In the unlikely event that the player eventually takes both all the way to lvl 8, I'd probably give them Fleet of Foot from the Revised Ranger.)

That's what I am thinking. I don't have Revised Ranger in my sources. Our initial campaign will probably top off at 8th.

Looking at other classes, I don't know if this house rule is gonna work. The problem isn't features from different achetypes, it's doubling up on base class features.

With Barbarian, will Rage stack? Will Fast Movement?
Bard as RAW, Inspiration won't stack, but Expertise would.
Clerics would be two domains at 2nd level, but Channel Divinity would not stack RAW.
Would Druid Wildshape usage stack?
Would all the Fighter features' usage stack?
Would Monk ki points stack?
Paladin's Lay On Hands?
Rogue's Sneak Attack? Way overpowered.

Many features would have to be added to the multiclass list of features that don't stack. The same name rule might fix this, but it would remove options under the same feature. Maybe no same name, unless options?

[HPisBS]

...
Many features would have to be added to the multiclass list of features that don't stack. The same name rule might fix this, but it would remove options under the same feature. Maybe no same name, unless options?

No same name, unless as alternate options seems the way to go.

I've often toyed with the idea of Same name with no options yields 1 bullet point of a feat - at DM's sole discretion; must finish acquiring the same feat in this way to before moving on to another one, but idk. What do you think?

[heavyfuel]

I allow players to mix and match archetypes, but they must pick the archetype abilities in the "correct order", so to speak.

A level 7 Fighter could have both Improved Critical (Champion 3) and Fighting Spirit (Samurai 3). But couldn't have Improved Critical and Elegant Courtier (Samurai 7)

This gets a finicky when you have subclasses that give you stuff almost every level (like Eldritch Knight), but I haven't run into this problem yet, and I'll deal with it when I have to.

So far, it hasn't broken anything.

[Doug Lampert]

Does it really make sense to have them repeat levels one and two, which are in no way related to the choice of archetype? The choice point is level three, so repeat level three, then take the ASI/Feat for Ranger level four at character level five, then extra attack at character level six, and so on. Every character level where the ranger levels up to a new archetype feature, choose one of the available archetype features, then either keep going with the normal ranger features or take the other archetype feature on the next level up. The only problem point is spellcasting-I'd tie that to character level rather than ranger level so the progression wasn't interupted.

What he's suggesting is simply treating ranger with archetype 1 as a separate class from ranger with archetype 2.

Which is HOW MULTICLASSING WORKS, if you get something twice, and the multiclassing rules do not say that it stacks, then it does not stack.

If you want to multiclass archetypes, doing it as if you were multiclassing two classes with a lot of overlap is perfectly reasonable, because that is exactly what the player is asking for. In any case, proficiency, spell slots, spells known (but not level of spells), favored enemy, fighting style, and terrain all stack as does HD, so he really doesn't lose much except for higher level abilities, which you expect to give up when you multiclass for a different archetype.

There are no dead levels here.

[JLandan]

I've decided to let the player run it as two distinct classes. This is a DM ruling, not a house rule. It will work for the two Rangers, but looking at other classes, some work, some not without some nerfing.

A Barbarian with +4 damage with Rage is too much, so that would come under same name. A Sorc with 8 cantrips, a lot, but not broken. A double domain Cleric would get a lot, but if evenly split would never see 6th level spells or 11th+ features at 20th. A single dip of one level of a second Cleric domain would get a lot for almost no cost in spell casting. I would have to rule on a case by case.