Idle What If: What if no character could have more than one subclass?

[PhoenixPhyre]

NB: This is a hypothetical, an idle what if thought sparked by another thread. Not something I'm promoting or planning on implementing...unless it turns out well.

Details: Add the following text (or something similar) to the multiclassing section:

Archetypes: <explain what is meant by that>. If you already have an archetype from one class, any feature that would grant another archetype or archetype feature from another class is ignored. You still gain any other features at that level.

How would that change things? Immediate thoughts--

1. One-level cleric dips for heavy armor/martial weapons would go bye-bye.
2. One-level (or few-level) dips into warlock for hexblade would go bye-bye.
3. Sorcadins would have to choose whether to get the pally Oath or the sorcerer origin. I'm 90% sure they'd always pick the pally one, but...
4. ???

[Kane0]

A lot of dips that would go for three levels now just go for two (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Paladin, Monk, Bard)

50/50 multiclasses die off even harder

I'd still expect to see plenty of Warlock 2 dips.

[Yakk]

"Fixing" things by adding dead level progression is a not fun way to fix things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Fixing" things by adding dead level progression is a not fun way to fix things.

I don't disagree. But I'm not trying to fix anything here. Just investigating the possibility space.

[Yakk]

Ok?

Then what would happen? It would make advancement in the game more boring, because dead levels are boring.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok?

Then what would happen? It would make advancement in the game more boring, because dead levels are boring.

Or it would change what multiclasses people take. Which is an effect. And could be an interesting one.

And it only changes anything for multiclassers, which, I'll remind you, is not the default. It's firmly variant.


What if there were more hybrid classes (and subclasses) with no multiclassing?

What if there were rules designed to create new classes from existing class abilities with no multiclassing?

What if you needed a 15 instead of a 13 to multiclass?

What if you had to have at least 4 levels before multiclassing out of your current class?

What if in 1D&D you can only multiclass within your class Group?

What if...

Those are also good questions. But not the ones I'm asking here.

[Damon_Tor]

It all comes down to this: MAD sucks. It makes you feel like you don't have room for feats and fun stuff in your build because you've got dreary mechanics to tend to. This is the reason for 99% of multiclassing: a wizard takes heavy armor proficiency so he can ignore dex. A paladin takes hexblade so he can ignore str. That's the whole thing. Fix MAD and you fix multiclassing.

[Yakk]

Yes, everywhere it applies it generates dead levels, which is boring.

Without the multiclassing rule in play, the rule does nothing.
Without PCs multiclassing, the rule does nothing.
Without a PC taking enough levels to get 2 subclasses, the rule does nothing.
It also has no impact on the price of wheat in New Delhi. I don't think I should have to list all the cases where the rule does nothing. :)

Which leaves me with what I did say:

When the proposed rule does anything, it generates dead levels, and that is boring.

That statement isn't strictly true. I mean, in some cases you'll have vestigial features next to a subclass feature (spell progression for example; but never access to a new level of actual spells or similar).

My point is, any rule whose effect is "make things more boring" has a huge debt in hand to justify considering it further. As this rule seems to have no purpose, it seems safe to reject it.

(I mean, I guessed at its purpose -- an attempt at fixing multiclassing -- but that was soundly rejected as a purpose for the rule.)

[KorvinStarmast]

What if in 1D&D you can only multiclass within your class Group?
Works for me.

This is the reason for 99% of multiclassing: a wizard takes heavy armor proficiency so he can ignore dex. But a wizard should not be able to cast spells if they wear heavy armor. :smalltongue: It's {censored} that they allowed that in this edition. :smalltongue: But it was an optional rule ... MC was ...

[Damon_Tor]

Works for me.
But a wizard should not be able to cast spells if they wear heavy armor. :smalltongue: It's {censored} that they allowed that in this edition. :smalltongue: But it was an optional rule ... MC was ...

A wizard can have 18 AC with 20 dex and mage armor. In a pure "vanilla" game with no multiclassing and no feats that's exactly what we'd expect to see.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A wizard can have 18 AC with 20 dex and mage armor. In a pure "vanilla" game with no multiclassing and no feats that's exactly what we'd expect to see.

But 20 DEX is a fairly heavy ask (ok, not nearly as bad now that Tasha's has inflated everyone's stats by 2-3) since you want CON as well. And regular armor's a whole lot easier to boost (with things like shields, magic armor, etc).

[TaiLiu]

When the proposed rule does anything, it generates dead levels, and that is boring.
I think PhoenixPhyre knows that, though. I think what's being asked is whether some multiclasses become more or less attractive with this rule in place. Which does something, I think. Like, it would definitely change the attractiveness of a Wizard/Cleric multiclass... though I'm not sure how much, since Medium Armour proficiency is quite good, too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think PhoenixPhyre knows that, though. I think what's being asked is whether some multiclasses become more or less attractive with this rule in place. Which does something, I think. Like, it would definitely change the attractiveness of a Wizard/Cleric multiclass... though I'm not sure how much, since Medium Armour proficiency is quite good, too.

Yeah. Although....thinking about it, the reasoning for "it's boring" proves too much. It basically says that any subtractive change (ie any "nerf") must be a non-starter because it removes options. Personally, some builds are over-stuffed with options and deserve to have to make a few choices. Like "do I accept a dead level here in exchange for access to something else later" or "do I pick a different class for this level because I don't like the dead level".

Personally, multiclassing should (in a perfect world) always reduce your power. It should always trade off depth and peak power for versatility. And it shouldn't be an even trade--a multiclassed character should always be notably weaker in direct competition with a single-classed character in the same niche. That's the cost that keeps things fair and makes the choice be a real one. If you can gain versatility AND power or gain tremendous versatility and keep about the same power...why wouldn't you? No-brainer choices are bad choices. They're a sign that something is out of balance.

[animorte]

What if… ok. What if the character got all their subclass features at the correct level no matter what the multi-class?

Say I go GenieLock, take it to level four for some invocations, pact boon, and ASI. Then I jump to Sorcerer (because why not) or Hexblade 4/Paladin X, whatever. At level 6 (or Warlock 4/other 2), the next subclass feature rolls in. Then at level 10 (or Warlock 4/other 6) the next subclass feature rolls in. Finally at level 14 (or Warlock 4/other 10) the last subclass feature rolls in.

So you don’t get any Warlock specific class features unless you go back into the class, but you locked in your subclass all the way up.

I personally think subclass feature spread (for all classes) should be locked in at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18.

[Psyren]

Archetypes: <explain what is meant by that>. If you already have an archetype from one class, any feature that would grant another archetype or archetype feature from another class is ignored. You still gain any other features at that level.

How would that change things? Immediate thoughts--

1. One-level cleric dips for heavy armor/martial weapons would go bye-bye.
2. One-level (or few-level) dips into warlock for hexblade would go bye-bye.
3. Sorcadins would have to choose whether to get the pally Oath or the sorcerer origin. I'm 90% sure they'd always pick the pally one, but...
4. ???

For heavy armor sure, but getting medium armor + shields from cleric would remain, and most casters have 14 Dex anyway.

You would kill Hexblade, sure - but if that's truly what you're after, it might be easier to just ban Hexblade.

As for sorcadins, what they're usually after is Font of Magic and higher spell slots, which would be unaffected.

[Kane0]

Yeah. Although....thinking about it, the reasoning for "it's boring" proves too much. It basically says that any subtractive change (ie any "nerf") must be a non-starter because it removes options. Personally, some builds are over-stuffed with options and deserve to have to make a few choices. Like "do I accept a dead level here in exchange for access to something else later" or "do I pick a different class for this level because I don't like the dead level".


It's the level 5 martial problem (doubling up on Extra Attack), but for everyone at level 3 (or earlier for just under half of classes).

Edit: Which is to day it doesn't really disincentivise multiclassing in general, but multiclassing up to/past that point. Dips become the default multiclass even moreso than they already are.
It doesn't change the parameters of multiclassing enough to really justify the change IMO

[PhoenixPhyre]

For heavy armor sure, but getting medium armor + shields from cleric would remain, and most casters have 14 Dex anyway.

You would kill Hexblade, sure - but if that's truly what you're after, it might be easier to just ban Hexblade.

As for sorcadins, what they're usually after is Font of Magic and higher spell slots, which would be unaffected.

It's telling, and not in a good way, that you equate "it's not worth dipping one level in hexblade" with "hexblade has no value". I'd say that's strong evidence that hexblade needs serious rework.

And you don't get shields, iirc, from dipping into cleric unless that's your first level. Which does provide some interesting consequences -- dipping for armor now happens at level 1 or not at all.

[Psyren]

And you don't get shields, iirc, from dipping into cleric unless that's your first level. Which does provide some interesting consequences -- dipping for armor now happens at level 1 or not at all.

Incorrect, you do get shield proficiency from a cleric dip. The table is on PHB 164.

Ninja'd


It's telling, and not in a good way, that you equate "it's not worth dipping one level in hexblade" with "hexblade has no value". I'd say that's strong evidence that hexblade needs serious rework.

I meant to say "you would kill Hexblade dips" - but yes, I do agree it needs a rework.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I meant to say "you would kill Hexblade dips" - but yes, I do agree it needs a rework.

I stand corrected about the shields.

But what I meant here was the notion that by killing hexblade dips you might as well just ban the whole subclass. As if the only point to its existence is as a 1-2 level dip.

I'll note (and repeat) that this isn't intended as a real proposal. It's a thought experiment. And most of the value I get from thought experiments comes from the reactions to it and what they reveal about how people approach the game.

The actual games I run are fairly close to stock as far as rules go (although the content/lore differs strongly because of setting differences). But there's always lots of value in thought experiments even if they're not intended to be actually used.

[Jack Bitters]

If your aim is to decrease the appeal of small multiclassing dips, you could attack it in another way and explore what happens if at ability score increase levels you also got a feat (4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th). I theorize that would disincentivize some of the 1, 2, or 3 level dips because you delay that 4-level powerspike.

[Kane0]

Or just reduce the frontloading on classes.

[Psyren]

But what I meant here was the notion that by killing hexblade dips you might as well just ban the whole subclass.

I didn't say that - I can see how I might have left that impression, but I corrected myself.



I'll note (and repeat) that this isn't intended as a real proposal. It's a thought experiment. And most of the value I get from thought experiments comes from the reactions to it and what they reveal about how people approach the game.

The actual games I run are fairly close to stock as far as rules go (although the content/lore differs strongly because of setting differences). But there's always lots of value in thought experiments even if they're not intended to be actually used.

My reaction was more "here's the likely effects of your proposal" than "here's my opinion on this if it were in my game."

[Amechra]

A similar question - what if you straight-up skipped subclass levels in class #2/#3/#4/#5? So Wizard 2/Cleric 1 would give all of the Wizard stuff, 3 levels worth of spellcasting, and the vanilla Channel Divinity.

The biggest issue would probably be that you can use this to accelerate your high-level ASIs — going Warlock 2/Sorcerer 18 would give you ASIs at 5/8/12/15/17.

Another alternative would be to hand out a "pity prize" for multiclassing, where you'd get some primary-class-themed ribbon instead of those subclass features. That kinda sounds like work, though.

[Keravath]

Or just reduce the frontloading on classes.

This :)

Most classes have cool things in the first 2-5 levels but the high level ones taper off. Some of the higher level abilities are either not useful or underwhelming in many cases which encourages some folks to pick up a few levels in another class for the early goodies since they have limited motivation to push through as a single class.

One reason that casters often don't multiclass as much would be because anything more than 3 levels will mean giving up 9th level spells. In addition to that, 3 levels of a multiclass would mean the character only gets 9th level spells at level 20. Unless a campaign plans to go beyond 20, that pushes the benefit of 9th level spells to the end of the character development so that they become available for the end of the campaign (assuming progressing to level 20 wasn't already the climax and the character doesn't just retire to enjoy their level 9 spells without getting a chance to cast one).

However, this is because level 9 spells are a powerful feature that motivates many to not multiclass as much with full casters. Spreading out benefits and having more useful high level features would tend to mitigate the frontloaded multiclass dipping practice.

[Rukelnikov]

A similar question - what if you straight-up skipped subclass levels in class #2/#3/#4/#5? So Wizard 2/Cleric 1 would give all of the Wizard stuff, 3 levels worth of spellcasting, and the vanilla Channel Divinity.

The biggest issue would probably be that you can use this to accelerate your high-level ASIs — going Warlock 2/Sorcerer 18 would give you ASIs at 5/8/12/15/17.

Another alternative would be to hand out a "pity prize" for multiclassing, where you'd get some primary-class-themed ribbon instead of those subclass features. That kinda sounds like work, though.

Besides the potential for exploiting, like getting metamagics with only 2 levels, or invocations with a single level in Lock, what would happen with spell progression? Does a Ftr3/Lock "1", get 2 lots, 1 slot or 0 slots?

It also has problems in the opposite direction, like MCing into Monk would become less of an option since by skipping subclass levels you skip Ki empowered Strikes...

[Amechra]

Besides the potential for exploiting, like getting metamagics with only 2 levels, or invocations with a single level in Lock, what would happen with spell progression? Does a Ftr3/Lock "1", get 2 lots, 1 slot or 0 slots?

It also has problems in the opposite direction, like MCing into Monk would become less of an option since by skipping subclass levels you skip Ki empowered Strikes...

I'd imagine that spellcasting would be handled with the pre-existing formula for multiclassing — so Ftr 3/Lock 1 would have the spellcasting of a 1st level Warlock (aka 1 slot) but would have Invocations as if they were a 2nd level Warlock. The Monk point is a good one, though — how you'd handle features that first pop up in subclass levels is wildly undefined. Like, I gave Wizard 2/Cleric 1 the generic Channel Divinity that they get at 2nd level, despite the fact that they get a subclass feature at 2nd level... but I'm not sure that that's always the best approach to take? You'd probably have to play fast-and-loose with it for each class, which sounds really annoying.

[Rukelnikov]

I'd imagine that spellcasting would be handled with the pre-existing formula for multiclassing — so Ftr 3/Lock 1 would have the spellcasting of a 1st level Warlock (aka 1 slot) but would have Invocations as if they were a 2nd level Warlock. The Monk point is a good one, though — how you'd handle features that first pop up in subclass levels is wildly undefined. Like, I gave Wizard 2/Cleric 1 the generic Channel Divinity that they get at 2nd level, despite the fact that they get a subclass feature at 2nd level... but I'm not sure that that's always the best approach to take? You'd probably have to play fast-and-loose with it for each class, which sounds really annoying.

I think if the idea is to "discourage" MCing, you could just charge it a Feat, make a feat that is "Multiclass", repeatable, each time you take it choose a class, you can multiclass into that class, maybe make it a half feat if a full feat sounds like too much, or eliminate MCing stat requirements since you are paying a feat, the latter would result in maybe unusual combinations, but it'd probably not be out of line since you are paying a feat for the "benefit" of multiclassing. There may be some sick combo where its favorable having to pay a feat than meeting the ability scores, but I don't think there will be plenty of those.