Considerations for a campaign with 50/50 multi-class splits

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So, what if a campaign had a rule that everyone had to be a 2 class multi-class and had to keep an even split on levels when possible (1/1, 2/2 etc)? Seems like it would provide more linear progression without some of the big power spikes. What's good? What's not good? What other considerations are there, and would any other house rules be a need?

So far as what's good, I started thinking that it would be a big nerf to casters having to delay their spells, but now I'm not sure. Caster splits still have the ability to upcast, while martials are just stuck waiting until 9th to get extra attack.

The only thing I've come up with is a need to house rule the 2nd multi-attack for characters that get it; probably a 1/2 ASI or feat would do, though it could be a full one. Perhaps an add on to this would be that Fighter Multi-Classes were in this situation could get their 3rd attack in lieu of the ASI at 8th (15 or 16 total levels). Perhaps that's not needed as the 3rd attack normally comes on at 11th, the same as 6th level spells, which casters won't get so....


Thoughts?

[Kane0]

Expect all the martials to MC into Rogue or some other class to continue scaling weapon damage, since extra attack is basically off the table for the majority of play.
Same goes for tashas vuman to enable a feat before level 7.
Casters will probably have less of a hard time, missing higher level spells will suck but they do still get upcasting. Cha casters will be least impacted, with inspiration, metamagic, pact magic and smites all playing off each other pretty well. Druid/cleric and wizard/artificer has significantly less variety.

[animorte]

This is a neat idea. I would play it. The only adjustment I would make is for keeping the ASI every 4 levels.

In addition, if both (not one) of your class choices would get the extra attack, give that at level 5 anyway. If you have chosen a gish subclass (Bladesinging Wizard, Swords Bard, etc.) I would put it at level 6 instead, provided your other class also receives the extra attack. Something of that sort.

[Amnestic]

Barbarians would hurt since a) delayed extra attack and b) lower rage use progression, but I suppose if they went barb/rogue they'd have rogue tricks to stay away from melee once they run out of rages. Not getting both subclasses until 6th level is a pain though. Monks rely a fair bit on their ASIs and they'd not get anything new until 7th+8th (4/4 split) so they might not do too great either.

Full casters are sitting pretty. Yeah, losing out on 6th+ spells sucks but you've got upcast slots galore to play with. I'd be more than happy to play something like that honestly.

Chances are I'd be going Ranger/Rogue, Cleric/Druid, or Warlock/Sorc.

[CTurbo]

It's a fun idea, but it completely kills all class features post level 10 which really hurts.

I agree with having ASI/feats every 4 character levels instead of class levels.

Off the top of my head here are the combos that come to mind for me in no particular order

Lore Bard/Celestial Warlock(Tome)
Divine Soul Sorc/Celestial Warlock(Tome)
Gloom Stalker/Shadow Monk
Gloom Stalker/Scout Rogue
Shadow Monk/Assassin Rogue

[Lunali]

Since cantrips scale on character level, I feel like an EB focused warlock would be pretty high on the list, probably crossed with sorc for double cantrips with quicken spell.

[Theodoxus]

A few things of note.

1) I would grant everyone a feat at 1st level, and not let vhuman or custom lineage (either outright, or at least not double up on feats, let the players decide if it's worth it). Since feats are being delayed by 6 levels, unless you're doing a featless game, it's going to sting a bit.

2) I would be very generous with attribute generation, including, but not limited to, simply allowing the players to assign whatever value they want (you could put a limit on it, I typically use "88 points", where everything costs 1 point and you can spend 88 of them, generally max 16, 17 or 18 to any one attribute.) But outside of that, a 5d6D2 would work. The point is to allow for non (or even anti) synergistic class combinations that would be hard to do with standard attribute generation due to MC requirements. A Paladin/Monk is a fun idea, but very hard to pull off without some great rolls...

3) I agree with everyone who's essentially saying 'Gestalt-lite' with ASI at character, not class level, and Extra Attack stacking (best you're gonna get is 3 attacks at 11th level requiring a Fighter // (Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, Ranger).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I agree on much of what you guys have to say. There are definitely some good combos around Cha that would be common. I keep thinking of characters that look like Ranger/ Cleric or Druid that would be decent. I am really wondering if martials are taking a heavier hit here pre 9th level; if so what to do about it. I know a couple of people mentioned getting an ASI at 4th, which makes some sense, but it makes 7th or 8th a dead level

[Amnestic]

Cantrips scaling off of character level (and spell slots stacking with each other, even if spells known do not) are the big contributing "problems" imo. With feats and racials offering them as well, it's not quite as simple as having them scale off of class level (for casters) instead either, though you could say that they only scale up if you've got caster levels and that racial/feat cantrips are set at 1st level otherwise, at which point they're more in line with extra attack. Spell slots stacking is nice, but since martials are generally front-loaded on class features it's not as noticeable an issue, in my opinion.

Monk is the only class-side I really feel would suffer from delaying their ASIs. The others probably would work just fine having them tied to class levels still.

[Aimeryan]

Since cantrips scale on character level, I feel like an EB focused warlock would be pretty high on the list, probably crossed with sorc for double cantrips with quicken spell.

That would be my take, too. Warlock is front loaded, but still has steady gains with level making it a good choice regardless. Cantrips scale with character level, so are unaffected. Extra Spells Slots and upcasting are fine, but perhaps extra Spell Slots via Pact Magic would be more efficient. Sorcerer would bring Metamagic (Quicken) to the table, as well as Font of Magic.

[sithlordnergal]

I agree on much of what you guys have to say. There are definitely some good combos around Cha that would be common. I keep thinking of characters that look like Ranger/ Cleric or Druid that would be decent. I am really wondering if martials are taking a heavier hit here pre 9th level; if so what to do about it. I know a couple of people mentioned getting an ASI at 4th, which makes some sense, but it makes 7th or 8th a dead level

Martials would be taking a massive, heavy hit. Rogues are the only Martial class that doesn't rely on Extra Attack for their damage, and even they're getting hurt pretty badly due to delayed Sneak Attack progression. Martials don't really get anything that increase their damage output, meaning they're basically doing the same amount of damage at level 8 that they did at level 1, with the only changes being their accuracy and one or two points from their Ability Score. They have to wait till level 9 for their boost.

Meanwhile casters kind of laugh at the limitations. Even if you removed cantrips keying off of character level, they still have high level slots. Sure, they won't get 3rd level spells until level 9, but things like Shatter, Scorching Ray, Magic Missile, Sleep, Web, ect. make up for it in a big way.

Now, I will admit, its a neat idea, and has some merit. But I'd expect to see an all caster party.

[Theodoxus]

Easiest fix is to not let casters mc with other casters.

[Gignere]

Easiest fix is to not let casters mc with other casters.

Paladin caster would be pretty strong too. Mainly because you can convert all the high level spell slots into smites.

[Lunali]

Alternatively, you could allow classes with extra attack to stack their levels to balance with cantrips.

[OldTrees1]

It helps to look at the existing ratio multiclasses (in contrast to dip multiclassing):

1) Halfcaster | Warlocks
Halfcaster | Warlocks have a nice 2:1 multiclass ratio where they modify the halfcaster from vancian halfcasting to pact magic 1/3 casting. Although conforming to a 1:1 ratio would be a bit of a nerf for 2 reasons:
A) It was a 2:1 ratio because the halfcaster gained spell levels slower. Instead of becoming a pact magic 1/3rd caster, they would become a 1/4th caster.
B) The halfcaster half was incentivized to rush to their T2 power spike (often extra attack), even if they let it be delayed a couple levels.


2) Martial | Martial
Martial's high level features are lackluster so they often consider multiclassing after one class reaches T3. This can create a 3:1, or 2:1 ratio eventually, however they are incentivized to complete one side to T3 first and then start the other side. They would be nerfed in this campaign due to delays in those T2 and T3 power spikes.

Also notice the spikes are not smoothed out, they are delayed. The progression is still has spikes, but now they are out of sync with CR power spikes.


What new ratios would arise?
X | Warlock would be common unless cantrips are nerfed as much as extra attack is nerfed.
X | Fullcasters would also be common
Rogue X would turn into Rogue Y | skillmonkey () Y and suffer from the loss of Reliable Talent.

[da newt]

So martials have 1 attack until they reach lvl 9? Ouch.

So no ASIs until level 7? That's rough too.

No subclass until lvl 5? The lowest levels are gonna be rough.

I think the casters would be far better off w/ cantrip damage and upcasting of lower level spells compared to their martial counterparts.

Warlock would be like an easy button.

You'd have to tone things down a bit to retain balance, but it would simplify the game some (less over the top godlike abilities).

If you house ruled ASIs and multi attack at total PC level (like cantrips) then things would be more even.

[JellyPooga]

If I were playing this campaign, I would heavily consider Rogue/Barbarian or Rogue/Ranger for the simple reason that many of the downfalls of the delayed progression (e.g. Extra Attack) are mitigated by the multiclass. Rogue/Barbarian really gets off the ground as a multiclass from lvl.4 (Sneak Attack+Reckless Attack, Rage+Athletics Expertise, Cunning Action for maneoueverability, Rage to mitigate smaller weapon damage) without missing Extra Attack too much and Rogue/Ranger from level 5 for much the same reasons.

I personally would tend to steer away from any class/subclass that is focused on limited use per day features that scale with level, if only because of the delayed progression. Spellcasting is the greatest culprit here; not getting even lvl.2 spells until character level 5 seems like a huge drawback, let alone trying to mitigate it by multiclassing to another full-caster or half-caster. Monk, for the same reason, would be very carefully considered before commiting, as would Druid and Warlock, considering Wild Shape and Invocation limitations based on level.

That said, multiclassing Arcane Trickster or Eldritch Knight against a full-caster might not be a bad shout, to at least assist the spellcasting progression whilst focusing more on the non-spellcasting aspects of the build. Warlock, too, given careful Invocation and spell choices, could also be a solid add (e.g. Paladin/Warlock for short-rest Smite regeneration or Warlock/Rogue to snag the likes of Devil's Sight).

Low-level utility and breadth of ability will definitely take centre stage compared to late-game potential or spike/nova damage. I would definitely foresee Bard, Rogue, Warlock (particularly Tome) and Wizard to be common elements for just that reason and likewise features or Feats like Ritual Caster, which grant scaling function based on character level over Class Level will surely see greater prevailance. This rule definitely plays into versatility over specialisation, so I'd expect builds that reflect that.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

So martials have 1 attack until they reach lvl 9? Ouch.

So no ASIs until level 7? That's rough too.

No subclass until lvl 5? The lowest levels are gonna be rough.

I think the casters would be far better off w/ cantrip damage and upcasting of lower level spells compared to their martial counterparts.

Warlock would be like an easy button.

You'd have to tone things down a bit to retain balance, but it would simplify the game some (less over the top godlike abilities).

If you house ruled ASIs and multi attack at total PC level (like cantrips) then things would be more even.

I think, as a couple of you have pointed out, the resourceless damage gap is a significant issue. We can't have cantrips scale at 5th and not get extra attack until 9th. While Warlocks are probably the most common example, Death Clerics and anybody else who gets some sort of bonus to cantrip damage or uses blade cantrips is going to be doing damage that makes martials kind of pointless when you have the option of picking classes that also get a full array of spells.

I was out fishing yesterday with the other guy who DMs our group, and taking in your feedback, here's what we came up with so far:

1) Give out an ASI/ Feat at 4th (though maybe this belongs at 5th to start tier 2). Whether this is extra or in lieu of one later, which might create a dead level I'm still not sure.

2) Delay cantrip scaling until 7th. Also provide the opportunity for characters who have 2 classes (not subclasses) that provide extra attack to take extra attack at 7th and delay the ASI feature they would have got until 9th. So Fighter/ Barb/ Paly/ Ranger combos would qualify. Rogue combos with those would have to wait until 9th (or 10th), as they are getting scaling of sneak attack.

3) At 10th give all redundant extra attack classes (again classes, not subclasses) either an ASI/ Feat or 1/2 ASI/ Feat.

4) From there, I'm not sure. I do think the RAW scaling of cantrips at 11th is an issue, but not as much as it was at 5th. It's adding 50% vs doubling at 5th. My sense it that it probably should be delayed to some extent, and this delay could come at the same time as the double extra attack classes have the opportunity to substitute an ASI with one of their level 11 abilities. I'm sure any fighter combos would take their 3rd attack. This could happen at 12th, 15th, or 16th, but I'm thinking 15th.
This last bit was the part we were less sure of, as trying to figure out what tier 3 play looks like under these rules is trickier.

So, we're pretty sold on point 2; I can't see playing in a game where casters are scaling resourceless damage 4 levels before martials, and I think this is a fairly efficient solution and meets somewhere in the middle at a good point for a lower powered campaign. The other stuff I'm less sure of, particularly the higher level changes. Do Fighter combos need a 3rd attack at any point when casters are capped at 5th level spells (using 9th level slots)? We were thinking of ranged Gloomstalker/ Fighter action surging (which is a limited resource in fairness) in a game like this; I think it's fine at level 15ish, particularly if cantrips scale at this point.
Thoughts?