Making multiclassing a feat.

[Throne12]

So me and my co-DM where talking about multiclassing and the good and bad that comes along with it. I had a ideal of dropping the Minimum of 13 in a Stat and making mulitclassing a feat. So how do you think this would effect the game? Ect

[JackPhoenix]

Not enough information to judge the impact on the game if you don't say what the feat does.

[Skrum]

Im guessing this is something like "take this feat, and now you can multiclass." Basically, you lose an ASI if you want to multiclass.

Well I'm a chronic and degenerate multiclasser, so I hate this lol.

My question is, what led you guys to this? Do you think multiclassing is too good, and it needs to be nerfed? Do you not like the aesthetics of hopping from class to class, and think there should be some cost to represent time in training? If it's yes to either, I think the are better solutions than making people give up incredibly precious ASI's.

A final note: making multiclassing more painful hurts the classes that are already weak. A barb or rogue can multiclass all they want, they will not be a fraction as effective as a twilight cleric.

[RogueJK]

Too punitive, and unnecessary.

Oftentimes you may only want 1-3 levels in a class before multiclassing out. This would force players to take 4 full levels just to get an ASI, and still be behind one ASI compared to single class characters.

Besides, more often than not, multiclassing is less optimal than staying single classed anyway, with some notable exceptions.

If you're doing this to try to limit the handful of overly powerful/abusable options (like dipping 1 level of Hexblade on a Paladin, or similar), you're better off just putting limitations on those few specific combos that you have specific issues with.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Too punitive, and unnecessary.

Oftentimes you may only want 1-3 levels in a class before multiclassing out. This would force players to take 4 full levels just to get an ASI, and still be behind one ASI compared to single class characters.

Besides, more often than not, multiclassing is less optimal than staying single classed anyway, with some notable exceptions.

If you're doing this to try to limit the handful of overly powerful/abusable options (like dipping 1 level of Hexblade on a Paladin, or similar), you're better off just putting limitations on those few specific combos that you have specific issues with.

Mostly this; the vast majority of combos, particularly if you include level combos, are at or below straight classes. Yes there are a couple of level 1 and 2 dips that are kinda dumb tbh. People do them just for the power boost and not any role playing reason. Deal with those some way or other (our table now requires continued leveling at min 1/3 the highest class) and you're fine.

[Throne12]

Im guessing this is something like "take this feat, and now you can multiclass." Basically, you lose an ASI if you want to multiclass.

Well I'm a chronic and degenerate multiclasser, so I hate this lol.

My question is, what led you guys to this? Do you think multiclassing is too good, and it needs to be nerfed? Do you not like the aesthetics of hopping from class to class, and think there should be some cost to represent time in training? If it's yes to either, I think the are better solutions than making people give up incredibly precious ASI's.

A final note: making multiclassing more painful hurts the classes that are already weak. A barb or rogue can multiclass all they want, they will not be a fraction as effective as a twilight cleric.

Pretty much what you said. First we wouldn't implement this with out getting the ok from are players. But the reason you brought up is pretty much that. Multiclassing leads to really powerful builds and they are mostly the same builds. Also lore wise it's pretty silly to have a fighter one day just have 2 levels in every class. Also this is just a problem with my group but are characters tend to have high stats so they start powerful so it makes that already easy Multiclassing easier. Also I feel mulitclassing is making martial classes nothing more then a dip class. Besides Barbarian every other martial classes hardly ever see a full campaign with out being mulitclassing into a caster. Also Multiclassing is stealing martials stop in the game. By allowing casters a easy way to to non resource burning Defense. Also if you look at all the best builds for any melee, tank, archer, Frontliner are all classes with a max of 5lvs in fighter, paladin, ect.

[Skrum]

Pretty much what you said. First we wouldn't implement this with out getting the ok from are players. But the reason you brought up is pretty much that. Multiclassing leads to really powerful builds and they are mostly the same builds. Also lore wise it's pretty silly to have a fighter one day just have 2 levels in every class. Also this is just a problem with my group but are characters tend to have high stats so they start powerful so it makes that already easy Multiclassing easier. Also I feel mulitclassing is making martial classes nothing more then a dip class. Besides Barbarian every other martial classes hardly ever see a full campaign with out being mulitclassing into a caster. Also Multiclassing is stealing martials stop in the game. By allowing casters a easy way to to non resource burning Defense. Also if you look at all the best builds for any melee, tank, archer, Frontliner are all classes with a max of 5lvs in fighter, paladin, ect.

You know your table and players best, so I can't really comment one way or the other on that, but "several classes don't really get a ton of stuff after the early levels and people keep leaving them....so we're gonna make multiclassing really painful so they're stuck getting crummy abilities" is, well, not what I would recommend doing.

The problem with trying to make rules around it is this is it isn't going to do what you want - if the cost for multiclassing is very high, the *only* multiclass builds are going to be the really really good ones. The ones that are still worth taking even if they cost a feat. That seems to be exactly the opposite of what you're going for. Paladin 6 Hexblade 1 Sorc X will be dinged for losing a feat, but that's still a really good build and better than pretty much anything any of the other martial classes or class combinations can offer.

It sounds like you should just ban multiclassing. While most people play with it, it is an optional rule. Just don't allow it.

[GeneralVryth]

Pretty much what you said. First we wouldn't implement this with out getting the ok from are players. But the reason you brought up is pretty much that. Multiclassing leads to really powerful builds and they are mostly the same builds. Also lore wise it's pretty silly to have a fighter one day just have 2 levels in every class. Also this is just a problem with my group but are characters tend to have high stats so they start powerful so it makes that already easy Multiclassing easier. Also I feel mulitclassing is making martial classes nothing more then a dip class. Besides Barbarian every other martial classes hardly ever see a full campaign with out being mulitclassing into a caster. Also Multiclassing is stealing martials stop in the game. By allowing casters a easy way to to non resource burning Defense. Also if you look at all the best builds for any melee, tank, archer, Frontliner are all classes with a max of 5lvs in fighter, paladin, ect.

2 thoughts.

1. It's usually martials that tend to have bad higher level abilities (fighter 12+, Barb 6 to 9+, Paladins 6 or 7+, etc...), so this is going to be more of a nerf for them. Which with the general consensus of caster power, is probably the opposite of ideal.
2. There is the question of class mechanics versus theme. Are classes themes that need to be enforced? Or can they be used as groups of mechanics to achieve a separate internally consistent theme? Figuring out what line you have here is important. For example I like almost everything about the Bard class except the fact it uses instruments as a spellcasting focus and is about being a performer. Some would argue those are important thematic elements, but mechanically Bard is a great class for a jack all trades or wise advisor kind of character (though sometimes wishing for Int as a casting stat). Figuring out what thematic pieces are important is going to help inform how you want to address the issue. Personally, I have always thought the character needs to have internally consistent theme, and Warlocks/Paladins have baggage that comes with their power unless you their theme changes.

[Damon_Tor]

Multiclassing ate feats in 4e. It wasn't great.

[Leon]

Really putting the Tax in feat tax

[LudicSavant]

So me and my co-DM where talking about multiclassing and the good and bad that comes along with it. I had a ideal of dropping the Minimum of 13 in a Stat and making mulitclassing a feat. So how do you think this would effect the game? Ect

A feat tax would dramatically lessen the number of viable multiclass builds. That's not a good thing.

Just drop the "13 minimum stat" and you get the opposite effect, with more possibilities opening (and not overpowered ones; I mean, a lot of the good multiclass combinations already want the same stat anyway).

[MoiMagnus]

So me and my co-DM where talking about multiclassing and the good and bad that comes along with it. I had a ideal of dropping the Minimum of 13 in a Stat and making mulitclassing a feat. So how do you think this would effect the game? Ect

Do you plan to give free feats as part of personal quests? If yes, then I could see this somewhat working. Otherwise, here is the feat I would suggest instead:

Multiclassing
Select a class of your choice, you unlock the possibility to multiclass into it. Compare your ability scores to the minimum requirements. If they are below, immediately increase your ability scores to those requirements.
If you gained 6 or less ability points this way, select one skill from the class' skill list and gain proficiency in it.
If you gained 3 or less ability points this way, select a second skill from that class' skill list and also gain proficiency in it.

(Those skills proficiency are on top of the proficiency you get when taking your first level in the chosen class)

[stoutstien]

I played around with it and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I was just a lot easier to just nix multiclassing and create new subclasses to fill the void.

[Segev]

There is an irony to how multiclassing is structured, that it is easier (i.e. possible at all) to combine a soul knife's abilities with a wizard's than it is to combine a soul knife's abilities with an arcane tricksters. You can never get Mage Hand Legerdemain in exchange for lesser spellcasting once you have learned to generate a psychic blade, but if you study anything BUT rogue abilities, you can eventually get mage hand legerdemain.

The fact you can multiclass classes but not subclasses makes subclasses within the same class forever more removed from each other than any class or subclass different from the class you already hold.

[Amnestic]

When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about expanding "dip feats" like Eldritch Adept/Metamagic Adept/Martial Adept - to add in things like Sneak Attack Adept or Wild Shape Adept.

[Damon_Tor]

When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about expanding "dip feats" like Eldritch Adept/Metamagic Adept/Martial Adept - to add in things like Sneak Attack Adept or Wild Shape Adept.

I'd be into that.

[Bundin]

Pretty much what you said. First we wouldn't implement this with out getting the ok from are players. But the reason you brought up is pretty much that. Multiclassing leads to really powerful builds and they are mostly the same builds. Also lore wise it's pretty silly to have a fighter one day just have 2 levels in every class. Also this is just a problem with my group but are characters tend to have high stats so they start powerful so it makes that already easy Multiclassing easier. Also I feel mulitclassing is making martial classes nothing more then a dip class. Besides Barbarian every other martial classes hardly ever see a full campaign with out being mulitclassing into a caster. Also Multiclassing is stealing martials stop in the game. By allowing casters a easy way to to non resource burning Defense. Also if you look at all the best builds for any melee, tank, archer, Frontliner are all classes with a max of 5lvs in fighter, paladin, ect.

If the issue is cookie cutter builds, prohibit those. In session 0, state that any MC is DM fiat only, and that <list> is not going to get greenlit because powerplay isn't a goal of the campaign. If the issue is story, have the player work on that not only in background but also in RP.

On the other hand: if it doesn't hurt the story, and the munchkin(-lite) can pace themselves and not hog the spotlight, and it increases their enjoyment.. maybe just let it happen.

[Kane0]

There is an irony to how multiclassing is structured, that it is easier (i.e. possible at all) to combine a soul knife's abilities with a wizard's than it is to combine a soul knife's abilities with an arcane tricksters. You can never get Mage Hand Legerdemain in exchange for lesser spellcasting once you have learned to generate a psychic blade, but if you study anything BUT rogue abilities, you can eventually get mage hand legerdemain.

The fact you can multiclass classes but not subclasses makes subclasses within the same class forever more removed from each other than any class or subclass different from the class you already hold.

Now theres a thought. Trade an ASI for the features of a subclass level in the same class as you got the ASI from, and lower than the level you got the ASI. So for example you couldnt use it at level 1, but at level 4 a samurai fighter could take the 'battlemaster (3)' feat.

[GeneralVryth]

Now theres a thought. Trade an ASI for the features of a subclass level in the same class as you got the ASI from, and lower than the level you got the ASI. So for example you couldnt use it at level 1, but at level 4 a samurai fighter could take the 'battlemaster (3)' feat.

I agree that is an interesting. It's would be a really nice option, if the sub-class features were better balanced with each other. I am trying to think what some of the most powerful options would be. I got to think Battlemaster would be near the top. Wizards being able to drop a feat for Portent, I would also think has to be up their. Paladins stacking auras would be interesting. Rogue or Fighter going for Spellcasting?

[Amnestic]

I agree that is an interesting. It's would be a really nice option, if the sub-class features were better balanced with each other. I am trying to think what some of the most powerful options would be. I got to think Battlemaster would be near the top. Wizards being able to drop a feat for Portent, I would also think has to be up their. Paladins stacking auras would be interesting. Rogue or Fighter going for Spellcasting?

Yeah, some subclass features scale based off of just a single feature+class levels (eg. spellcasting) whereas others get built up more by 'future features' (eg. echo knight shenanigans) and some get a bit of both (drakewarden upgrades both on ranger level and with extra later features).

Strictly a 4E monk's listed features are all at 3rd level, like spellcasting is for EK/AT, so though it's not a great subclass on its own being able to grab the entire subclass at the cost of a feat isn't too bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

Really putting the Tax in feat tax
Heh.

Multiclassing ate feats in 4e. It wasn't great.
But weren't feats in 4e a bit different than 5e feats?

If the issue is cookie cutter builds, prohibit those. In session 0, state that any MC is DM fiat only, and that <list> is not going to get greenlit because powerplay isn't a goal of the campaign.
If the issue is story, have the player work on that not only in background but also in RP. Looks like good advice.

If you ban Hexblade that cleans up some of the mess. :smallyuk:

Most of my players go with 1 class and enjoy the game. We use feats.
I have also chosen to upgrade all dragonborn PC's to B Fizban's dragonborn.

One of my favorite MC playes (my nephew) was a Ranger (hunter) 3 Rogue Scout (6 before he left the campaign). Wood elf. Yeah, it was meant to be a bit optimized for outdoors campaigning.

[Segev]

Now theres a thought. Trade an ASI for the features of a subclass level in the same class as you got the ASI from, and lower than the level you got the ASI. So for example you couldnt use it at level 1, but at level 4 a samurai fighter could take the 'battlemaster (3)' feat.

The one that stands out to me as possibly desirable would be a Circle of the Moon Druid picking up the bonus spells from Circle of the Land, or the Circle of the Land druid picking up the higher-CR Wild Shapes.

[Luccan]

You know your table and players best, so I can't really comment one way or the other on that, but "several classes don't really get a ton of stuff after the early levels and people keep leaving them....so we're gonna make multiclassing really painful so they're stuck getting crummy abilities" is, well, not what I would recommend doing.

The problem with trying to make rules around it is this is it isn't going to do what you want - if the cost for multiclassing is very high, the *only* multiclass builds are going to be the really really good ones. The ones that are still worth taking even if they cost a feat. That seems to be exactly the opposite of what you're going for. Paladin 6 Hexblade 1 Sorc X will be dinged for losing a feat, but that's still a really good build and better than pretty much anything any of the other martial classes or class combinations can offer.

It sounds like you should just ban multiclassing. While most people play with it, it is an optional rule. Just don't allow it.

This is basically everything I was going to say, but worded better. Talk to your table, maybe try a short campaign with no multiclassing to see how everyone feels. Also, if you find you still want/need a solution to "people jump ship from a class too quickly" the fix should probably be to make those classes or subclasses better, not making multiclassing harder.


The one that stands out to me as possibly desirable would be a Circle of the Moon Druid picking up the bonus spells from Circle of the Land, or the Circle of the Land druid picking up the higher-CR Wild Shapes.

I think this should be done on a case-by-case basis, because Circle of the Moon kind of just is the higher-CR Wild Shape. While I would like to see more Land druids, I don't want a bunch of Land druids that are also basically just Moon druids.

[Goobahfish]

This is a pretty bad idea.

---

If I have this right, the identified problem is that some multiclassing (particularly dipping) is bad.

This solution punishes legitimate multiclassing (I want to be a druid-rogue for example) and kind of encourages a big power-payoff to justify.

I think the real solution is:
#1: Just ban multiclassing and have done.
#2: Place a minimum number of levels you can put in a class. I.e., once you start a new class, you have to sink 3 levels before you can move on. This 'fixes' some of the more egregious examples of munchkinish behaviour.

[Kane0]

The one that stands out to me as possibly desirable would be a Circle of the Moon Druid picking up the bonus spells from Circle of the Land, or the Circle of the Land druid picking up the higher-CR Wild Shapes.

Yeah it would likely be a bit broken to get the full scaling benefit from a single ASI investment, like getting all of the EK/AT 1/3 casting progression.

[Sigreid]

Ok, this thread mixed with a manga recap and I've got a weird idea that isn't necessarily a good one.

1. Your class you start with, is your primary class and the only one you can advance in with XP.
2. To multi class, you have to pay in full levels, losing all abilities, HP and ASI equivalent to the new level advancement you want in a multi-class.
3. Your primary class must always be at least 1 level higher than any of your multi-classes.
4. You get the full benefit of the new class. I.E. a wizard that multi classes to fighter gets full armor proficiencies and not just light and medium armor.

So, for example, Tim starts as a sorcerer and wants to get some warlock goodness in his build. Once he hits level 3 in sorcerer, he can trade a level to become a level 2 sorcerer and a level 1 warlock. To advance to level 2 Warlock, he'd have to get to level 5 sorcerer so he could trade 2 levels to become a level 2 warlock/level 3 sorcerer.

At a top look, this looks to me like it has a couple of benefits.

1. There's an obvious and clear price being paid to multi class and someone who does it will soon find themselves behind those who don't want to.
2. It provides a means to effectively draw out a campaign if people multi-class by essentially building your epic character by spending more time at lower levels.
3. It lets the player play with a lot of flexibility, but because of the requirement that you have at least 1 more level in your primary class than any you multi-class into when you've paid for it, the maximum level in an off class is 9, meaning you can get a lot of flexibility, but you'll never be as good in a multi-class option as the person who has it as their primary class.
4. People have to dedicate their primary advancement long term to their initial class.

Naturally, I haven't put that much thought into balance or shenanigans, but it was an idea to kick around.

[DammitVictor]

I'm put to mind of the multiclassing feats in Star Wars 5e that allow a character with at least three levels in two classes to get limited stacking of class features between them.

Set the default rate to 1/3 levels, then use tailored feats to let certain (sub)classes stack better, and use [X] Initiate feats to fill in the gaps.

[sithlordnergal]

Ok, this thread mixed with a manga recap and I've got a weird idea that isn't necessarily a good one.

1. Your class you start with, is your primary class and the only one you can advance in with XP.
2. To multi class, you have to pay in full levels, losing all abilities, HP and ASI equivalent to the new level advancement you want in a multi-class.
3. Your primary class must always be at least 1 level higher than any of your multi-classes.
4. You get the full benefit of the new class. I.E. a wizard that multi classes to fighter gets full armor proficiencies and not just light and medium armor.

So, for example, Tim starts as a sorcerer and wants to get some warlock goodness in his build. Once he hits level 3 in sorcerer, he can trade a level to become a level 2 sorcerer and a level 1 warlock. To advance to level 2 Warlock, he'd have to get to level 5 sorcerer so he could trade 2 levels to become a level 2 warlock/level 3 sorcerer.

At a top look, this looks to me like it has a couple of benefits.

1. There's an obvious and clear price being paid to multi class and someone who does it will soon find themselves behind those who don't want to.
2. It provides a means to effectively draw out a campaign if people multi-class by essentially building your epic character by spending more time at lower levels.
3. It lets the player play with a lot of flexibility, but because of the requirement that you have at least 1 more level in your primary class than any you multi-class into when you've paid for it, the maximum level in an off class is 9, meaning you can get a lot of flexibility, but you'll never be as good in a multi-class option as the person who has it as their primary class.
4. People have to dedicate their primary advancement long term to their initial class.

Naturally, I haven't put that much thought into balance or shenanigans, but it was an idea to kick around.

That feels a bit too fiddly. Also, am I reading your math wrong, or are multiclass characters actually losing levels? Looking at your exampler:

Character wants to be a Sorcerer/Warlock: They need 3 levels of Sorcerer, and have to lose one level in Sorcerer to gain one level in Warlock. Total level went from 3 Sorcerer, to 3 Warlock, that's fine.

Same character wants to get Warlock 2. To do so they need to reach Sorcerer 5 first, giving them a total level of 6.
They have to spend 2 Sorcerer levels, dropping them down to Warlock 2 / Sorcerer 3, giving them a total level of 5.


I don't think that would accomplish any form of flexibility. In fact, I suspect it would do the opposite. People would be encouraged to take a 1 level dip into a single class, and then never bother with it again. In fact, your rule of gaining the full benefit of the new class highly encourages dipping. Who needs to start as a Fighter at level 1, you can do your Wizard thing and then snag 1 level of Fighter later to get everything.

Unless you meant Warlock 2 / Sorcerer 4 of course.

But even then, I think the overall idea would be too fiddly unless you're somehow doing it automatically. Take the jump from 8 to 9 in a multiclass. You'd need to remove 8 levels of Sorcerer, including all ASIs and spells obtained during that time. That's a lot of extra work for nothing really.

[JellyPooga]

Ok, this thread mixed with a manga recap and I've got a weird idea that isn't necessarily a good one.Yeah, for me this just says "don't bother multiclassing". You might as well just ban it, because this is a straight up nerf. There's no benefit I can see and it strains verisilimitude by having to "trade in" levels (i.e. straight up forget things you've learned and have been using).
"Hey Jim, why didn't you cast Fireball like you did yesterday?"
"Uh, I forgot how because now I know how to wear chainmail."
"Oh, kind of like how Bob's forgot that he knows all about trees and stuff after learning that thief language and Sarah isn't as good with her sword anymore since she learned to punch people?"
"Yeah, I guess?"