Multiclassing/Dipping Shame

[Tanarii]

Level by level multiclassing is a very useful tool for designers. It allows them to make fewer base class while having a larger list of virtual base classes.

Not really. There are many better ways to do it that don't have to worry about the fact that it doesn't work, because classes can't be balanced on a level by level basis.

Even D&D has done it better, in two different ways. Pathfinder 2 took the hint from 4e and moved away from it. Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e (edit: multiclass) system.

[Psyren]

Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

Because it's intuitive and easy to grasp. The scaling issues can be fixed in other ways.

Yes P2 avoided some of the traditional pitfalls, but they introduced new ones, like exacerbating the feeling from P1 that you need the right feat to use the bathroom.

[Morty]

Not really. There are many better ways to do it that don't have to worry about the fact that it doesn't work, because classes can't be balanced on a level by level basis.

Even D&D has done it better, in two different ways. Pathfinder 2 took the hint from 4e and moved away from it. Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

Honestly, even in 5E subclasses are much better for branching away from core classes than multiclassing is. Both in 5E and in 3E, multiclassing is mostly a tool for optimizers. A player who just wants to play a concept a single class doesn't allow for is as likely as not to blunder into a trap. The best you can say about 5E's take is that it's harder to make a character that is just plain bad, which in 3E was very very easy.

If D&D classes are too restrictive, then either you loosen them up some or accept that as a logical consequence of a class-based system is trying to accomplish. You don't give players a crowbar and tell them to start pulling things out at their leisure.

[Jay R]

Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

That "failed" system sold more books, supplements, and related equipment than any other system in the history of role-playing. By contrast, 4e sold very few books. That's WotC moved away from it so quickly.

Publishers publish games to sell rulebooks, supplements, and related equipment.

By the measure of a publisher, that "failed" 3e / 3.5e system is the most successful system ever.

The measure of a product is how much it sells.

[icefractal]

The measure of a product is how much it sells.

For previous editions, yes. For 5E, I don't think selling books is the main business model anymore, based on the fairly slow rate of product (extremely slow compared to 3E/4E). The way D&D makes money now is by being a valuable IP, and the goal of 5E is to maintain that by keeping D&D widely known and mostly liked.

If D&D classes are too restrictive, then either you loosen them up some or accept that as a logical consequence of a class-based system is trying to accomplish. You don't give players a crowbar and tell them to start pulling things out at their leisure.

Maybe you don't.

5E leans significantly in the "however your group wants to play D&D, that's the right way to play" direction (rather than "let us teach you the right way to play"), and so I think allowing multiclassing is almost mandated by that.

And personally, I'm glad they did, even if it isn't perfectly balanced. No-multiclass no-feat 5E can be practically "you stop making choices after initial char-gen", depending on which class you play, and that's not my jam.

[OldTrees1]

Not really. There are many better ways to do it that don't have to worry about the fact that it doesn't work, because classes can't be balanced on a level by level basis.

Even D&D has done it better, in two different ways. Pathfinder 2 took the hint from 4e and moved away from it. Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

I understand you feel there are better ways to do it. I also recognize that is not a universal truth. I see the multiclass feats as much worse than the level by level multiclassing. Take the example character I gave, its ideal mechanical representation would be split fairly evenly between the uncontrollable fury mechanics and the animal form mechanics. With level by level multiclassing that is easy. With multiclass feats it would generally be impossible for 2 reasons. 1) Multiclass feats severely limit the ratios you can use. They basically only allow dips, and often smaller dips than a subclass would allow. 2) Multiclass feats allow multiclassing by content driven exceptions. If there are no multiclass feats that have access to the cross class features the character concept relies on, then you can't make the character. In contrast level by level multiclassing uses the existing features, so they immediately support a broader range of mechanical representation for character concepts.

Now you mention that it is harder to balance (you also claim it can't be done but that is imprecise). Yes, it is harder to balance. However if you err on the side of competency and err on the side of higher levels give stronger abilities, then it becomes much easier to make it balanced enough for an RPG (assuming the classes were already balanced enough for an RPG).


No, I stand by what I said. Level by level multiclassing is a valuable innovation in the RPG designer's toolbox. It is relatively easy to implement and expands the support much faster and more comprehensively than alternative ways.

Honestly, even in 5E subclasses are much better for branching away from core classes than multiclassing is. Both in 5E and in 3E, multiclassing is mostly a tool for optimizers. A player who just wants to play a concept a single class doesn't allow for is as likely as not to blunder into a trap. The best you can say about 5E's take is that it's harder to make a character that is just plain bad, which in 3E was very very easy.

If D&D classes are too restrictive, then either you loosen them up some or accept that as a logical consequence of a class-based system is trying to accomplish. You don't give players a crowbar and tell them to start pulling things out at their leisure.

I agree that subclasses are also a good innovation. They took the idea of alternate class features and clumped them together in thematic packages (similar to PF1's archetypes).

However you are a bit too quick to dismiss multiclassing. Multiclassing is mostly a tool for creating characters outside of a single class. I assume you have heard of the Bard, Eldrtich Knight, and Arcane Trickster? At their inception these were multiclass characters. They eventually became a base class and 2 subclasses but that only came later. The benefit of level by level multiclassing is the player in First Edition AD&D could play a Bard instead of having to wait for Second Edition AD&D. The example Barbarian/Druid I gave can play 5E instead of waiting for 7E. There will always be "one more class/subclass" that the developers did not have time to make, but level by level multiclassing allows players the option if they want it.

What a class based system is trying to accomplish is completely compatible with level by level multiclassing. Just think back to the Bard.

Now maybe you prefer the lower volume of potential characters. Different people have different preferences. Level by level multiclassing is always optional. Many groups don't use it, but 5E sells to both groups that do and don't use it because it works for both groups.

[Tanarii]

That "failed" system sold more books, supplements, and related equipment than any other system in the history of role-playing. By contrast, 4e sold very few books. That's WotC moved away from it so quickly.

I'm sorry, are you claiming that the reason for 3e's successful sales was the 3e Multiclassing system? And the reason for 4e's successful but not as stunningly successful sales was their take on Multiclassing?

[OldTrees1]

I'm sorry, are you claiming that the reason for 3e's successful sales was the 3e Multiclassing system? And the reason for 4e's successful but not as stunningly successful sales was their take on Multiclassing?

I feel like this hyperbolic leap in your reply to Jay R was atypical of your norm Tanarii.
Edit: Perhaps my later reply to Jay R helped?


The following is ignoring the hyperbole in your leap.

Beware Sample size of 1:
A: 4E's lack of sufficient multiclassing was one of my main reasons I skipped it. My other dealbreaker also dealt with other aspects of the decreased volume of mechanical representation for character concepts.
B: With level by level multiclassing the volume of mechanical representation for character concepts does scale fairly well with increased number of classes. That contributed to why I bought so many 3E books.

[Jay R]

I'm sorry, are you claiming that the reason for 3e's successful sales was the 3e Multiclassing system? And the reason for 4e's successful but not as stunningly successful sales was their take on Multiclassing?

No. I did not state a reason for why 3e was successful. I simply demonstrated that, by the measure used by publishers, it was successful. My point was that 3e was not a "failed ... system", as you claimed.

[OldTrees1]

No. I did not state a reason for why 3e was successful. I simply demonstrated that, by the measure used by publishers, it was successful. My point was that 3e was not a "failed ... system", as you claimed.

Context is important. Tanarii was talking about multiclassing systems. That sentence was not about the edition as a whole.

I disagree with Tanarii's estimation that the 3E multiclass system was a failure compared to the 4E multiclassing system (although the 5E system includes improvements, as expected of a new model). However Tanarii did not make a claim about 3E as a whole.

[Telwar]

I remember looking at the Pathfinder Unchained Rogue and wondering why Paizo was going through such hoops to let that rogue version use Dex to attack and damage, when it hit me, that they were doing their darnedest to try to make it hard to get Dex to attack and damage with a quick level dip. 4e (and PF2)-style multiclassing avoids that completely. But that style you're not mixing your classes nearly as much; you're dipping a little, mostly for feat and paragon path access.

Personally, I prefer the 4e-style multiclassing, I never particularly cared about trying to mix classes up to make some concept work, and even then you could wind up with 1/2 to 1/3 of your stuff from the other class, depending (in 4e). But you can realize builds with an a la carte class/level system that you would need a full class for otherwise, so as long as it floats your boat, go for it.

[Morty]

However you are a bit too quick to dismiss multiclassing.

To the contrary, my opinion on the subject is a result of putting a lot of thought into it. I used to like multiclassing, before realizing it just isn't good.

Multiclassing is mostly a tool for creating characters outside of a single class. I assume you have heard of the Bard, Eldrtich Knight, and Arcane Trickster? At their inception these were multiclass characters. They eventually became a base class and 2 subclasses but that only came later. The benefit of level by level multiclassing is the player in First Edition AD&D could play a Bard instead of having to wait for Second Edition AD&D. The example Barbarian/Druid I gave can play 5E instead of waiting for 7E. There will always be "one more class/subclass" that the developers did not have time to make, but level by level multiclassing allows players the option if they want it.

What a class based system is trying to accomplish is completely compatible with level by level multiclassing. Just think back to the Bard.

Now maybe you prefer the lower volume of potential characters. Different people have different preferences. Level by level multiclassing is always optional. Many groups don't use it, but 5E sells to both groups that do and don't use it because it works for both groups.

As I've already explained - if the problem is that classes and subclasses alone aren't enough to create all the characters people want, then multiclassing isn't a good solution. Either you figure out how to open up the classes or just accept that D&D isn't a system where you can play whatever you want. Multiclassing is an attempt to bypass the system's core concepts and introduce some kind of clunky pseudo point-buy to a uniquely strict class/level advancement.

It's no coincidence that the three classes/subclasses you list started out as multiclassing and became codified later. Because playing such characters as multiclassed was a major, counter-intuitive pain. Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters in particular became PrCs in 3E because of how much of a trap it was to multiclass a martial character with a spellcaster normally.

[Tanarii]

I feel like this hyperbolic leap in your reply to Jay R was atypical of your norm Tanarii.
Edit: Perhaps my later reply to Jay R helped?

Not really, he read mine out of context, and I read his response within my context. I also didnt (and still don't) see your response before this attempt to clarify. (Thanks for playing mediator. )

No. I did not state a reason for why 3e was successful. I simply demonstrated that, by the measure used by publishers, it was successful. My point was that 3e was not a "failed ... system", as you claimed.

Context is important. Tanarii was talking about multiclassing systems. That sentence was not about the edition as a whole.

Edited my post to make that clearer I was talking about the multiclass system specifically. I do not consider 3e as a whole a failed system. Only some components of it, mostly Multiclassing and too many fiddly feats.

------

OldTrees1
I don't have much more to say to us having strongly differing opinions on the effectiveness of the multiclass systems. But specifically, I still disagree that level by level balance across the spectrum of play is even a desirable system, let alone the question of it it is feasible to execute. Most games want some weight towards the beginning of the character career, not splayed across the career.

And 4e's / pathfinder 2's dabbling system aren't the only ways to implement multiclassing in a non-level by level fashion. 4e also had Hybrids, and AD&D had non-human multiclassing. Both were better than 3e's system. And that's saying a lot that AD&D's method was superior.

[OldTrees1]

@Telwar
I wonder what a system would look like if it included both variants. They would be variants so people only used them if they wanted them, but they would both be available. 6E and PF3 would be in good places to consider innovating on the concepts.

To the contrary, my opinion on the subject is a result of putting a lot of thought into it. I used to like multiclassing, before realizing it just isn't good.

After putting a lot of thought into the subject, my appreciation for level by level multiclassing continues to grow. I continue to realize it is great. However since you have spent a lot of time and reached a different opinion, let's conclude our informed opinions differ. Luckily editions like 5E support both of us. I can play my codified characters and my non codified characters (a warrior struggling with the beast within using Barbarian/Druid) and you can play some codified class.

OldTrees1
I don't have much more to say to us having strongly differing opinions on the effectiveness of the multiclass systems. But specifically, I still disagree that level by level balance across the spectrum of play is even a desirable system, let alone the question of it it is feasible to execute. Most games want some weight towards the beginning of the character career, not splayed across the career.

Yeah, we have strongly differing opinions on this. Maybe there will be a future innovation that resolves that difference or better satisfies both camps simultaneously. I am willing to leave it there, although perhaps you would elaborate on that last point?


You say most games want some weight towards the beginning of the character career. I want to understand that better.

• Are you saying the marginal gain from 2nd level would be stronger than the marginal gain from 5th?
  
  This sounds like a diminishing returns system. I don't think this is what you meant, however games where leveling focuses on horizontal improvement (gaining new abilities instead of getting stronger) can also work with multiclassing.
  
  
• Or are you saying the game wants everyone to start at 3rd level so it merged levels 1-3 so "1st" level weighs more than "5th" level?
  
  A mildly facetious solution would be to keep the levels separate and just suggest groups start at 3rd level.
  
  5E multiclassing decided the 1st character level was special and gets some extra proficiencies and extra hp based on the starting class but not linked with 1st level in the class if gained later.
  
  Another solution would be to have species/backgrounds fill in for what the designer feels is needed for a starting character.
  
  
• Or are you saying that some structural abilities would be placed earlier and later levels would focus on enhancing those abilities?
  
  This is what I think you were implying, but I don't want to assume. Structural abilities general come earlier and they seem to be the main focus of multiclassing. Even the Barbarian/Druid example I used was focusing on using Rage and Wildshape to represent its characterization. However this is generally not what I would call "having weight towards the beginning" because this qualitative different does not mean the Structural abilities are stronger than the latter enhancing abilities. However this can bleed into the previous possibility.
  
  
• Or 4th thing?

[Tanarii]

I am saying that most leveled games want a character to be able to do their Schtick at the beginning of a career, possibly after a few "training levels" to get used to the character. That typically results in a drop in marginal power gains in levels after the first level, and possibly after the training levels another drop in power gains.

This was addressed in 3e/5e multiclassing somewhat by not giving a character multiclasses everything that the first level character got. But it's nowhere close to balancing the fact that low level dips pretty much universally add a lot more power than say a 50/50 split, and often significantly more than staying 100% in either single class.

And of course that's exactly what the 4e/PF2 feats system is intentionally doing: only adding power equivalent to one feat from the new class. Whereas 3e/5e come nowhere close to always adding 1 levels worth of power equivalent. It's usually vastly more, sometimes significantly less.

[Trask]

The thing I dislike about dips and why I hate to see them is that they fundamentally challenge the whole point of having a class system. If I pick a fighter, I'm doing it for a certain conceptual package, same with a wizard. But when you dip, you often get to borrow the most iconic things from another class without actually being that class (usually having armor).

The extra sting is that dipping is almost always more optimal for casters, in a game where they don't need help to be dominant.

[icefractal]

The thing I dislike about dips and why I hate to see them is that they fundamentally challenge the whole point of having a class system. If I pick a fighter, I'm doing it for a certain conceptual package, same with a wizard.

The problem with classes having strong iconic identities is - are all characters supposed to conform with a dozen or less concepts? Sure, more come out in time, if the GM is using those books, but I really don't want to play from such a restricted range, nor do I have a problem coming up with character concepts.

But when you dip, you often get to borrow the most iconic things from another class without actually being that class (usually having armor).

I have to say "having armor" does not sound like a great defining feature. "Let us sing the tale of Tormod the Gray ... he wore armor." And it's also not something that's restricted to any particular class, that I know of?

The extra sting is that dipping is almost always more optimal for casters, in a game where they don't need help to be dominant.

Wat?

Is that the case in 5E? Because it sure as hell ain't the case in 3E, where "thou shalt not lose caster levels" is almost always the rule, power-wise.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's nothing inherently or ethically wrong with any sort of multiclassing.

Character classes are straight-jackets, almost anything a player does to break the straight-jacket is justified.

Don't play a trope, play an individual.

[Trask]

The problem with classes having strong iconic identities is - are all characters supposed to conform with a dozen or less concepts? Sure, more come out in time, if the GM is using those books, but I really don't want to play from such a restricted range, nor do I have a problem coming up with character concepts.

I have to say "having armor" does not sound like a great defining feature. "Let us sing the tale of Tormod the Gray ... he wore armor." And it's also not something that's restricted to any particular class, that I know of?

Wat?

Is that the case in 5E? Because it sure as hell ain't the case in 3E, where "thou shalt not lose caster levels" is almost always the rule, power-wise.

Wearing armor is iconic, because some characters just cannot do that and it is mechanically powerful. It also assumes all the things that come with armor, like being tough and standing in the front line. Lifting that concept just because you want to be a 'battlemage' or because you want to emulate some character from a book, comic, or anime isn't necessarily bad, but when you only treat the classes like grab bags then you lose the point of having classes in the first place, strong iconic packages that tentpole and populate the setting. This can be particularly annoying with dips, where the impact they can have on your build is enormous but the impact they have on the fiction of your character is often minimal. There are games better suited to picking and choosing, like point based games.

Classes are part of the appeal to me, and I'm not the type of player who would pick or multiclass into barbarian just because they wanted the rage feature that worked well for their build but completely threw away the "fluff" of rage. Or even someone who would pick a barbarian because I liked the class but my character isnt a barbarian at all, just an angry guy. Not my style. If we have classes, I want to use them and I want their fiction to be important. I wouldn't play a star wars game and pick a jedi but just ignore the force lore and say my character is a rare telepath that has nothing to do with the force.

I also am using my experiences with 5e as a baseline, if its different in 3e then I can't comment.

I'm not against multiclassing in general, one of my favorite D&D characters was a paladin 6/sorcerer 14. I think my opinion must be that I feel multiclassing should be a major investment and character defining, and so I'm opposed to the idea of dips on principle.

[Morty]

After putting a lot of thought into the subject, my appreciation for level by level multiclassing continues to grow. I continue to realize it is great. However since you have spent a lot of time and reached a different opinion, let's conclude our informed opinions differ. Luckily editions like 5E support both of us. I can play my codified characters and my non codified characters (a warrior struggling with the beast within using Barbarian/Druid) and you can play some codified class.

Nope. 5E does not support both of us. The existence of multiclassing is an active detriment to it even if I, personally, don't use it. You also keep insisting that I want to play codified classes. I don't, particularly. But multiclassing is a bad way to play characters less codified than core D&D classes.

[OldTrees1]

Nope. 5E does not support both of us. The existence of multiclassing is an active detriment to it even if I, personally, don't use it. You also keep insisting that I want to play codified classes. I don't, particularly. But multiclassing is a bad way to play characters less codified than core D&D classes.

How is it an active detriment? If your group uses the various subclasses and multiclass feats and does not use the multiclassing rules, how is the optional content you are not using somehow an active detriment? An unused optional rule is never an active detriment.

The whole point of something being optional, is my group can use it and your group can ignore it. How my group plays is not an active detriment to your group.

OR are you in a group where some players value multiclassing?

5E supports both of us on the topic of level by level multiclassing because unused optional content is not an active detriment.


The optional level by level multiclassing is a good way for a developer to allow players to play character concepts the developer did not explicitly support. The beast within example (5E Totem Barbarian / Moon Druid) would rather be possible than not be possible, especially since it can exist without being an active detriment to you. So it sounds like a good way to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

So what happens to characters who can't be modeled without multiclassing dips?

What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

"Sorry, can't play those." ?

[Vahnavoi]

Well duh. There isn't any universal reason for a game to allow any arbitrary character.

[Trask]

So what happens to characters who can't be modeled without multiclassing dips?

What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

"Sorry, can't play those." ?

I would question whether a player really needs that many levels to just play a character.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would question whether a player really needs that many levels to just play a character.

It's not really about the levels.

[Vahnavoi]

@Trask: They obviously don't. They only need that to play some very specific character that exists at the margins of the system.

[OldTrees1]

Classes are part of the appeal to me, and I'm not the type of player who would pick or multiclass into barbarian just because they wanted the rage feature that worked well for their build but completely threw away the "fluff" of rage. Or even someone who would pick a barbarian because I liked the class but my character isnt a barbarian at all, just an angry guy. Not my style. If we have classes, I want to use them and I want their fiction to be important. I wouldn't play a star wars game and pick a jedi but just ignore the force lore and say my character is a rare telepath that has nothing to do with the force.

I also am using my experiences with 5e as a baseline, if its different in 3e then I can't comment.

I'm not against multiclassing in general, one of my favorite D&D characters was a paladin 6/sorcerer 14. I think my opinion must be that I feel multiclassing should be a major investment and character defining, and so I'm opposed to the idea of dips on principle.

So what happens to characters who can't be modeled without multiclassing dips?

What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

"Sorry, can't play those." ?

Well duh. There isn't any universal reason for a game to allow any arbitrary character.

If a game/group/campaign has level by level multiclassing and prevents dips, then yes a character that only dips Ranger would not be supported by that game/group/campaign. There isn't a universal reason to allow any arbitrary character.

However there is a reason why a game might want to be applicable to a large player base by allowing explicit support for common characters and allowing the possibility to create the less common characters. So a game that allows an optional level by level multiclassing might leave it up to the group to decide if they want to allow/prevent dips or mandate everyone have 1 level of Rogue.

This then goes back to what Trask was saying. Personally I am also adverse to dips and adverse to throwing away fluff (refluffing is a bit different to me). There are probably places we differ, and we can scope those difference to our separate groups.

Sidenote: In 5E I don't see Armor as iconic. The classes with armor have other aspects that are iconic. However I do agree that structural features show up in the early levels. Some iconic features (Divine Smite) show up in those levels. Other iconic features (Aura of Protection) show up later.

Sidenote 2: In 5E some of the later levels in classes are poorly designed. I think the Paladin is a good model, because and multiclassing has a comparable tradeoff. Design like that decreases dips and makes them less of a mechanical issue.

[Max_Killjoy]

Note that "you can't do that because this specific setting doesn't feature what you want" is different from "you can't do that because other players or the system designer wanted quote-unquote 'iconic archetypes".

At some point both the prescriptivist misuse of tropes and the entire notion of archetypes in general... need to just die already.

[OldTrees1]

Note that "you can't do that because this specific setting doesn't feature what you want" is different from "you can't do that because other players or the system designer wanted quote-unquote 'iconic archetypes".

Assuming the restriction is scoped to the group:
Why not Thief 3 / Warmage 3 / UA Ranger 3 (not in that order)? If the character concept only comes together at level 6, then start at level 6. However in a group that does not like dips, don't make it a dip?

I am also a bit confused by the example character. I am not seeing the reason for the Ranger 1. However I could ask the player and they could explain why that is a crucial part of the character core identity.

[Vahnavoi]

Note that "you can't do that because this specific setting doesn't feature what you want" is different from "you can't do that because other players or the system designer wanted quote-unquote 'iconic archetypes".

For many practical cases, this is a distinction-without-difference: if a game master or play group desire iconic archetypes, it's a solid bet that mix-and-match characters don't exist in their game settings as a direct result.