Multi-class rules ideas

[sithlordnergal]

So, I like the idea of multi-classing and would like to keep it but, as seems to be the case at a lot of tables, I've seen a lot of 1-2 level dips that have mostly served to boost power, and not enhance role playing. So before we get another campaign going I'm trying to come up with some variant rule that would at least encourage some commitment to both classes if that's what people want to do.

So, I was thinking:

... that secondary class(es), if any, must be brought up to 1/3 rounded down of primary class at the earliest opportunity. In short, once primary class hits level 6 all other secondary class(es) need to go to level 2. If primary is 9, others need to go to 3, and so forth. Hopefully that's clear enough. It still lets characters get off the ground by going 5/1 or 6/1 in whatever order they want, which I think is good so that people don't feel gimped early by not getting level 5 soon. But, if they have multiclassed at that point they need to continue to devote some levels to secondary class(es) as they level.

Anyway, I was wondering if the forum had other thoughts on guidelines that might accomplish much the same thing.

This reminds me of 3.X's multiclass system...it was clunky from what I remember. I know I and my fellow 3.X DMs eventually just ignored it due to it being clunky. Though this should be far less clunky since you're working explicitly with levels instead of Exp Percentages. 1/3rd of your highest level is far cleaner than removing 20% of the exp you get. I think this should work pretty well. The only change I'd make is have it round by 1/4th or 1/5th instead of 1/3rd, simply because its a bit prettier mathematically. The fact that Moon Druid's scale by 1/3rd for their Beast Form CR always bugs me cause its like...if we had 1 more level we could do a nice, even, CR 7. Yeah, it does allow a bit more wiggle room, cause you'd need to be level 8 in the primary before you had to take your second level, but at the same time its nicer.

EDIT: Question, how shall this system work with more than two classes?

Personally, I'd go all the way back to the drawing board and just kill level-by-level multiclassing entirely. It's fundamentally ill-suited for a class/level game. Instead, do something like a three-headed approach that all basically boils down to "embrace the homebrew".

1. Make writing new classes fairly simple. So for your deeply involved multiclass builds (mostly equal levels) you and the DM can spin up a properly-tailored base class. Don't even have to make sub-classes because it's fundamentally throw-away.
2. Make writing new subclasses fairly simple. So for your less-equal but still more than a dip builds (6/14, say), you can just spin up a properly-tailored sub class for the "bigger" one.
3. Have each class declare a set of (possibly chained) "feats" you can take to do those "just want that one feature" thing.

So...I disagree with this, vehemently. For one thing, multiclassing increases the amount of class combos exponentially. Consider how many permutations there are for the standard PHB Fighter/Rogue or Rogue/Fighter combo. If you include the option of only going two levels and not getting a subclass, there should be around 56 combinations for Fighters and Rogues. Of course, feel free to check my math, maybe there are less. And before anyone says "Oh, but they all effectively play the same", no they really don't. An Assassin/Battlemaster is actually going to be pretty different from Champion/Thief. Heck, an Assassin/Battlemaster is going to be different from a Battlemaster/Assassin due to armor and skill proficencies influencing play styles.

That's a LOT of feats and homebrew classes/subclasses to make, just to emulate a system that is already in the game and works pretty well. Your method also puts a lot of more work on the DM side of things, work that DMs might not have time to do. I know a lot of DMs that would not have the time to create a brand new Class/Subclass for a player that really wants to make a Paladin that has somewhat better casting abilities without giving up all of their martial abilities. Sure, Clerics exist, but lets be honest. A Paladin/Sorcerer is going to capture that specific idea far better than a Cleric ever could since Clerics are not good at emulating the martial part of a Paladin.

Not only that, but level-by-level multiclassing lets the player tweak their character to better suit their preferences/ideas. If they want more spell casting, they can have more Sorcerer levels, if they want to lean into the martial side of things, they take more Paladin levels.

[Tawmis]

So, I like the idea of multi-classing and would like to keep it but, as seems to be the case at a lot of tables, I've seen a lot of 1-2 level dips that have mostly served to boost power, and not enhance role playing. So before we get another campaign going I'm trying to come up with some variant rule that would at least encourage some commitment to both classes if that's what people want to do.

So - I am normally not a fan of multiclassing.
I can't count how many games I've been in that the Cleric starts, then from there dips all wizard. Just so the wizard can wear armor and still be a nuking power house.

But I did multiclass in Out of the Abyss, myself - when my fighter got madness. And I spoke to the DM and asked if we could flavor as demonic possession (considering the theme) - and he was cool with it. So I dipped 1 level Warlock (when I was a level 8 fighter), and flavored it whenever I used the Warlock spell(s - literallu just elderitch blast) - my character would have no memory of it because it was the demon taking over.

So it gets difficult to say - when someone's doing it to just "be powerful" and when someone's doing it for RP - and when/how you should judge the whole multiclass thing.

[JNAProductions]

I think it's better to not allow multiclassing outright than make onerous and potentially trap-heavy restrictions on it.
I think it's best to talk to your players, and if someone is over- or under-performing, address that directly rather than trying to anticipate every issue and solve it in advance.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

You could solve most of the problems of dipping with the following rule: "you have the armor proficiencies of the class of which you have more levels. If there's a tie, you can choose".

Alternatively, you could tie spell level to armor proficiency. If you're a Cleric 1/Wizard X, you can cast only 1st level spells in armor (upcasting, as usual, counts as a higher level spell). If you're a Cleric 3/Wizard X, level 2 spells, and so on.

Maybe the one common multi-class this would not "solve" is the Hexblade dip for Paladins; but this is more of a problem with how the Hexblade was designed than a problem with Multiclassing.

This is, I think, a reasonable suggestion. I'd agree that in terms of casters, the only likely issue is still the one level Hexblade dip on a Paly, because it's otherwise (mostly due to SADness) so good that forgoing the 1 spell per SR (or finding something to precast) is still an issue. I suppose this could be handled with a separate Hexblade rule.
Obviously it does nothing for martials, but maybe that's not an issue. If a Rogue wants to take Fighter 2 or vice-versa perhaps the classes are thematically close enough and the power spike is low enough not to worry about.

[ahyangyi]

I think it's better to not allow multiclassing outright than make onerous and potentially trap-heavy restrictions on it.
I think it's best to talk to your players, and if someone is over- or under-performing, address that directly rather than trying to anticipate every issue and solve it in advance.

This. I see many suggestions here are well-intentioned, but I don't think they are well-thought-out.

[Hemkinator]

I appreciate multiclassing because it lets me explore really niche character concepts, but there's definitely a reason it's an optional rule. It's clear 5e wasn't designed with multiclassing being a primary system, there's basically no "balancing" done to make sure class features work both as a single class and a multiclass. I mean just the fact that 4/13 classes are CHA based while no other Ability Score has more than 3 classes sharing it is obviously going to result in CHA classes being better to multiclass than others. I agree with others here that it's better to just ban it altogether rather than try and homebrew it into a balanced state.

(Side note, the fact that on a mechanical level Paladins are closer to Bards than they are to Clerics makes very little sense to me, even if they changed the lore so Paladins aren't tied to a deity anymore.)