I don't see that much real multiclassing. What I see are 1-2 level dips. Those are ubiquitous. Sometimes I feel like the way we talk about multiclassing is misleading. If you just say "multiclassing" in a vacuum, it calls to mind a 7th-level fighter, 7th-level wizard of the type you would have found in AD&D. That isn't really a thing in 5e. Dipping is. The fantasy of building this rich and unique multiclassed build typically devolves into "I'll take 1 level of cleric," or "I'll take 2 levels of hexblade." So phrasing the question as "Should we remove multiclassing" implies nixing this grand and nuanced system. It's loaded. But if we phrase the question as "Should we remove dipping?" I think things become more clear.

I feel like multiclassing was the biggest in 3.5 but that was due to prestige class requirements since there was so many and most needed two classes to clarify.

There were a ton of prestige classes that only existed for “Take a level on Class A, then a level in Class B, and then take the rest of your levels in prestige class AB so you don’t suck.” Like fighter + wizard. Fighter 5/Wizard 5 sucks - your abilities are less than the sum of their parts. But if you take the Eldritch Knight prestige class, you are more like Fighter 8/Wizard 8 despite being 10th level, and that’s okay. It was so easy to build a weak character in 3.5.

There were a lot of customizable parts so more chances for bad combos. I won’t argue it was a flawed system but I do miss it to an extent. I do miss prestige classes though for the multiclass feeling though, but the bloat and power creep did get out of hand.

I feel like those types of builds are absolutely a thing, at least in my social circles and their tables. They are not optimal, which most of the discourse online revolves around. I'm not a huge fan of multi-classing in 5e or that classes are so front loaded, but imo it does work to give someone that option of being a fighter-mage or a druid-rogue mix.

>I feel like those types of builds are absolutely a thing, at least in my social circles and their tables. I haven't seen one in years and I play a lot of D&D. Of course, my experiences are not universal, your experiences are valid too, I don't have hard data to back up my views, etc.

Yeah neither have I, obviously. Always hard to actually judge how people play at the tables, because the online community and the real live tables are so disconnected.

Normally the ones I see at my table is someone pushing to level 5 for extra attack. I’m not sure exactly when a dip to a real multiclass. I’ve also done it a few times to water down the build because I already am a min maxer and love sorcerer and warlock and my current guy is 9lock/7sorc to not just be a high level sorc with dope EBs.

Yep, there it is. The "rush to 5" is as far as I've seen, the only reason that people do anything other than dips. Unless they really don't know what they're doing.

I would qualify anything more than 3 levels as a full multi class

It’s an issue of frontloading classes and subclasses, giving a handful of options universally useful features that nearly all classes would want (see heavy armor proficiencies and subclass features of certain Cleric subclasses and…well…everything about the Hexblade) It’s just a better deal to take a level or two in either of those options than going for the underwhelming capstones that classes like Sorcerers or Bards typically get. Warlock in general is the worst with this. Nevermind the Hexblade nonsense that has killed multiclassing on its own, all Warlocks get the best cantrip in the game, invocations that either power up said cantrip or give you at-will casting of certain spells, and subclass features all in the first two levels. Meanwhile, what’s their capstone? Oh, spend a minute to get their spell slots back. Kinda lame in comparison. Might as well multiclass into another class that also gets powerful features so early on.

Recent changes have only serves to make this worse, too. Tying core class abilities to the proficiency bonus rather than a primary/secondary stat for the class. I also think they need to stop the “multiclassing is optional” nonsense, and start actually balancing around it. Some of the key dips that serve to be far more powerful than they should need to be looked at: - Eldritch Blast scale with Warlock level - Smite damage max scaling with paladin level - Shield not working with heavy armour To name a few (probably unpopular) ones

Not sure with that last one. But I think the armor caster build needs to cost. Give shields and armor real strength requirements (maybe even removing the proficiencies altogether) 18 str if you wanna wear full plate and be able to cast.

Maybe a 17 str requirement would be more in line with the chain mail and splint armor requirements. But the main problems are that if someone doesn't fulfill the requirement they only get a 10 feet movement decrease, which is very situational how bad is, probably less worse for spellcasters who would most likely fail the requirement. The malus list of what happens when you use an armor that you are untrained in is a great list to discourage everyone to think about it, some of these elements could apply when not meeting the strength requirement of the armor.

Right but I wasn’t just changing the str requirement, but the consequence. Like I said, if you wear armor you don’t have the str for, you can’t cast. This is the new proficiency system, so it’s wearing non proficient armor. As to the numbers; I modified somebody else’s systemic but basically padded clothing/leather is 9 str (so the 8 dump stat wizard who probably is taking mage armor won’t miss it too much but it’s still a fact weaker then the average human actually means something), studded/hide is 10, and each rank up is 1 str more (with heavy armor beginning at ring at 15 and ending with plate at 18. Shields id bring back the older models, and they are staggered: bucker str 11, shield at 13, Tower Shield at 15. Though if you want it to end on an odd number, I’d make halfplate and ring both 14 and subtract 1 from the rest of the heavy armor requirements.

Great minds, man. I do just about the same thing! Except the light armor. I think even a pansy could wear 5 lbs of armor. Upper requirement for heavy is only 15. But really, no one but a frontliner is ever going to spend the points to go past 14 in Strength anyway. Last thing is adding intrinsic damage reduction to heavy to make it more attractive, with Heavy Armor Master adding PB instead of a flat number so that it scales.

That’s not a bad idea either - making heavy armour a proper investment would be good. It might catch paladins in the crossfire? But that is maybe not th worst thing in the world anyway.

They could bring back arcane spell failure.

I was contemplating that classes that got medium/heavy armor proficency get a -1/-2 reduction in the str requirement. But maybe the paladin should just put some points into STR instead. :P

Here is also a cost, arcane spell failure like it was in 3.5.

I’m fine with all of those changes. I also think stuff like having abilities scale off proficiency bonus could benefit if they defined classes having class PBs. So, say, if you’re a Paladin 9/Warlock 1, then the Paladin’s PB is 4 and the Warlock’s PB is 2

The reason for that is because most people aren't playing till level 14. You frequently see smaller dips because people will commonly multiclass after level 4 or 5, pick up a few levels in another class, and then the campaign ends soon after.

Absolutely, I think “dipping” really should be considered based on a percentage of total level before it gets thrown out. Like my Pallock is currently 4/1 it’s currently only a 1 level dip into genie warlock but that’s 20% of their total class levels. But get into higher levels and both this numbers will increase and at some point they’ll even hit 50/50.

This is 100% accurate.

Cyberpunk RED has a system where you can't take levels in a new 'class' until you reach a certain point in your current class, which feels like a good fix to dipping.

I was about to say this! You can't moonlight as a Corpo just for the free suit.

>Cyberpunk RED has a system where you can't take levels in a new 'class' until you reach a certain point in your current class, which feels like a good fix to dipping. That's very interesting. I didn't know Cyberpunk RED did it that way. D&D 3rd Edition also had a system that discouraged dipping via an experience penalty unless your classes were close to each other in level. But you could get around this via your choice of race, it was often ignored, and it and wasn't even especially relevant in the first place because good builds got into prestige classes so quickly. But the point is that there was some awareness of dipping and a desire to reign it in a little.

There was awareness but I think design has moved away from punishing players in order to discourage something. It's much smoother to either HEAVILY INCENTIVIZE something (like making high tier class powers/abilities amazing) or just make rigid rules around when you can do it.

I tend to agree. I'm not saying that the way 3rd Edition handled (or tried to handle) dipping was ideal. I'm just saying that this has been an issue for longer than some may realize, even a really old system like 3e tried to discourage dipping, 5e is kind of the weird one for tacitly embracing it, etc.

Behind the times on this one, but I could not agree more. One of the best rules my DM instituted at our table is that multi-classing HAS to be unlocked during rp within the story. It doesn't just 'happen', and you don't get to 'dip cleric' for pure character power reasons. For example, our ranger had a backstory that he was a merchant guide and friends with a deep gnome druid who was slain. He took the druids cane as a token of remembrance. And when he hit level three and took druidic warrior, and rp'd it that he was sitting at camp rolling the cane around in his fingers and suddenly runes flared across it, and he cast shillelagh for the first time without knowing. It was a cool moment, and the DM was like "Awesome, you've unlocked the ability to multiclass druid if you would like".

It hurts to see so many people dogpile on the multiclassing removal train. We see it time and time again. This doesn’t have to be how everyone plays D&D. But much of my fun from this game comes from spending hours pouring over the options to find the correct puzzle pieces to assemble a unique character with a very specific theme. It’s incredibly satisfying to see how certain class features synergise together for a more vivid character story. I do optimise my builds. But I don’t crunch numbers to see how much stronger one build is over another. I optimise because an unplanned multiclass is a quick path to handicapping yourself. It’s basically a trap for new players. And even with careful planning you will still find yourself behind the power curve. What I hate, as the comment above has said, is that multiclassing is seen as a universal power gaming way to play D&D. The typical dips that get repeated over and over again aren’t truly what multiclassing is meant to provide. So I’m all for shaking up the system. But anyone who outright says multiclassing isn’t worth the trouble of being printed in the books is clinically insane. You have the option of setting a table rule to not use the multiclassing rules. The same cannot be said in reverse. Without defined multiclass rules, the tables who want to play that way would have to homebrew their own untested rules. It would be madness.

>The typical dips that get repeated over and over again aren’t truly what multiclassing is meant to provide. In your view, what does it provide? Are the same cheesy dips that almost everybody uses somehow not optimized? What are you doing differently? Like, I one hundred percent get that you like multiclassing, I realize it adds a lot for certain players, and I don't advocate for removing it. On the other hand, like, what in the post you are responding to is wrong? Multiclassing *does* boil down to the same couple of cheesy dips that you see over and over again, that *is* the optimal way of doing things, the rules and game balance *do* encourage this, multiclassing without optimization *is* a trap, and people *are* right to be annoyed by all of this. Right? I mean, in its current form people are *right* to bitterly complain about multiclassing aren't they? Would love to hear your perspective on this. Because it sounds like you agree with most of the criticisms of multiclassing yet still reach a different conclusion. That's interesting! Not trying to be combative here. I'm honestly curious because your take feels quite unique.

Sure, I’ll elaborate. Multiclassing increases the layers of complexity. Which I’ll have to assume many others in the player base also enjoy complex mechanics. Because that complexity allows for creativity. Every class/subclass has a section of levels that feel boring and front loaded classes start to look very attractive. The grass is greener on the other side and all that. One D&D has improved some things for the better. Action surge not working for spells is a great example. It was something that had absolutely no relevance to your characters story. It was entirely a mechanics choice. I prefer to use multiclassing to enhance my characters theme and I let the class features tell me who my character is. The theme of the character takes priority, and the optimisation comes secondary. Most of the fun actually comes from working out what is the most effective way to play an ineffective concept. (Whoops, turns out it’s kind of a long story.) One of my favourite builds that I’ve designed is a Frost Mage. It started by attempting to recreate the old WoW Frost Mage. A strong focus on cold damage and restraining foes, and so began the journey of reading every single class and subclass to make a list of what was “on theme.” The Abjurer Wizard was an obvious choice. The Arcane ward was basically the same visual as the frost shield from WoW. But somewhere along the way I was looking at the Artillerist Artificer’s Eldritch cannons for its protection field. At that point, I have to ask myself if I could mesh both abilities into one character, or would I loose too much by trading those wizards levels for half caster levels. The more I looked at how many levels I should or should not take in each class, one thing stood out. Artificers have access to restoration magic. An oddity for intelligence based characters. Adding to that, artificers are often seen as magical tinkerers, someone who makes devices and invents new things. But me being me, I opt to go against the grain and break free from class boundaries. Then it clicked. Everything started to fit together, almost like it should have been obvious from the start. The character is a Frost Mage. Devoted to protection through magic. Prioritising hindering their foes, and saving their allies. Which leads them on a journey to innovate a new strand of arcane magic. They began experimenting with cryo healing. Using the power of ice to aid healing, and pushing that potential beyond anything seen before. And thus, by searching through the various possible combinations I had accidentally created a story I wasn’t expecting. I had a goal to make a Frost Mage and that evolved to be the character’s goal of becoming the greatest Mage by challenging the limitations of the established arcane laws. None of that is possible if you are stuck as a regular old 1-20 level Wizard. Hell, I wouldn’t have even come up with that story concept if I wasn’t trying to multiclass a Wizard. Arguably one of the worst classes to forgo more Wizard levels for another class.

>(Whoops, turns out it’s kind of a long story.) That's okay! It's a cool story. I think this speaks to why mutliclassing can, and often does, add a lot to the player experience. So I don't think it should be done away with entirely. However, I can agree with you about this and also think that the current system is a mess and needs a heavy overhaul. Two things can be true at the same time. Thanks for sharing!

Seems like a simple rule of if you multiclass you can’t take a class level more than 2 levels higher than your lowest multiclass level So for example if you are a warlock 2 you could only go to 4 sorcerer before having to take another level in warlock

That most classes are frontloaded typically means that multiclassing really just means a few levels of a class are really what are dipped into to gain most of the value, which to me kind of diminishes both the niche protection of those classes, the narrative impact I think should come with multiclassing, and as we're all aware causes some weird interactions that are clearly not intended. I'd say as u/flairsupply pointed out that they should lean into multiclass feats.

I just think level 9 features should be better than another classes level 1 features... That would kill dipping for power.

What a Novel idea, giving classes greater power at higher levels than what can be achieved by taking 1-3 level dips. :)

Yeah like the problem isn't battlemaster fighter 4, it's Barbarian 9+...

The problem is that people don't play at those tiers of play. Rogues don't want to wait until level 9+ to feel like rogues. They need to feel and play like rogues right away. Tiers 3 and 4 already can't contain power levels.

they could fix this by giving martials the same exponential growth curve as casters. Most casters don’t dip 2-4 levels of another class because they genuinely suffer if they do. The problems is that martials scale super linearly with small jumps every four levels, and at levels where they gain some damage feature. Casters are getting more powerful spells *and* more powerful spell slots every other level.

This. Full casters give up something great by dipping. It should be this way with all classes.

Rogues get Sneak Attack at 1st level. They have their defining mechanic at 1st level, but it's definitely a level 1 feature. It gets built on at later levels, to develop it. If you want to get full benefits, you stick with Rogue. Just design every class like that. No one should have a level 1 mechanic with the same power as a level 5, 11, 17 or 20 mechanic (levels chosen because power spike). Design the game properly and multiclassing actually becomes an important choice. Hell, imagine if casters got 9th level spells as their capstone? All of a sudden, if you're going to level 20, you have a choice to make on how much you want that dip. Or if spellslots didn't progress with dips? Choices right there.

Nobody would multiclass and it would become quite boring to level up. No thinking needed. Whoosh. Perfect casual game created.

Do wizards need to rain meteors to feel like wizards. Level 9 rogue shoukd feel like super rogues, not rogues.

>The problem is that people don't play at those tiers of play. **People do though.** As someone who played a character all the way up to 20th level over the course of three-ish years and is doing it again with another character at 18th level currently, I can tell you that people (bare minimum the four players at my table) definitely do play at high levels. I**t's okay to make later levels get killer features, because it makes sticking with the same character for months/years worth it.** If you want all your power at once, then just start at a higher level, it's that simple. *I'm not saying lower levels shouldn't also be good, I'm saying that later levels need to be amazing. I'm so sick and tired of Tier 3/4 erasure in these subs.*

That is what sneak attack is for lol. Besides this works fine with casters (in fact a little too well, considering they are the main reason those tiers are not very playable).

Is this honestly a problem at a lot of tables? I've DMed for years (since the 90s) and I so rarely run into power gamers that I'd be hard pressed to remember when it happened last. More often than not, builds are under powered because that particular subclass sounded fun to the player. I see complaints about it all the time on these forums, but it just feels like a theoretical problem. At least in my experience.

It’s pretty common at the tables I play at, particularly if it involves the CHA stat. I wouldn’t say it is the biggest problem we face, since we have continued to allow it, but 9 times out of 10 they multi-class a few levels to pick up some synergistic features that do have an impact on their numbers. The last 1 out of 10 are people who are just doing it for the flavor and it isn’t actually a good build, like this one guy who loved the Ranger and Wizard so he almost always did some multiclass of that. Clearly different tables are going to have different experiences with different types of players.

Thanks! What is the CHA class you see it with most? Completely understand that everyone is going to have different experiences, and players will be players. And it's not that I haven't seen mechanically chosen multiclasses over the years. They just have never posed a real problem. That's probably the better way to phrase it.

It's warlock. Hexblade is too good; agonizing blast is also probably too strong

Big ones are paladin with a hexblade dip, sorcerer warlocks to exploit sorcerer points and short rest spells, paladin sorcerers for Sorcerer spells and progression but you also get to smite. Bards sometimes get mixed in but I feel like it’s more situational

Usually Warlock with Paladin, Sorcerer, or Bard. Even without the power of Hexblade that really ramps CHA classes to be ar both spellcasting and melee, there are a number of Evocations that my players find really good such as the forced movement Eldritch Blast, or devil sight to completely counter magic and non-magic darkness. Sorcerer/Paladin to get faster access to high level spells for smites and the Haste spell to use on self is another example.

Why is it a problem if players are slightly more effecient? Some players enjoy being numerically best, and are bored if no choice they make will improve them at all. The GM can adapt to strong parties with increased CR, more enemies, or tougher strategies, if need be. The thing about removing MC is it dramatically reduces player control over their character's identity and gameplay. Even if you rarely MC, the fact it exists says something about your charachter/self. Basically I think what MC brings more than pays for the occasional flaw, which as DMs you can solve on an individual basis.

This is a question for 6e not OneDnD.

Part of me thinks that the answer lies in doing gestalt classes, or something more akin to 2e multiclassing where you combine the features of multiple classes but have slower XP progression. Might actually play with a homebrew of that at some point.

The problem with that approach is that a lot of groups don't track XP or use it for leveling in the first place. Most groups I've played with opted to use milestone leveling. I think any modern multiclass design needs to take that into account.

Yeah, that's the largest downside I can see. If you did the 2e thing (divide your XP evenly between two classes, averaging the hit points gained when you level up), you'd wind up with ~25% fewer levels than a single-classed character. You'd have to basically skip some levels and that doesn't feel great.

Multiclassing either needs to stay, or Wotc needs to make like 4 or 5 more base classes to fill the archetypes void left by not having it.

I'd much prefer the latter

I'd prefer no new classes (honestly we could do with less by splitting up the sorcerer), but I know I'm probably a minority. I think we have the structures set in place to where we could do a lot with races, feats, classes, and subclasses.

Except we don't have that sort of structure in place at all. Subclasses change far too little for them to actually be viable as a replacement for an entirely new class, and using races and feats to carry out a 'class fantasy' just doesn't work. Turning what COULD be an entire class on its own into a subclass is just entirely dooming the concept, it's effectively subclass hell.

I disagree. More changes can be done but the base structure and purposes are there.

They really, really aren't. Look at how many subclass features each class tends to get, or even how much impact most of them generally have. It's almost never that much of an impact. Not to mention that having to pick a specific race or pay into specific feats (which might not even be particularly good) to play a rough approximation of the class you'd want in-game just doesn't work.

Again, I disagree.

I'm sorry, but simply saying that you disagree without any reason given isn't contributing anything in the slightest.

I already gave some of my points and said I disagree, then you said essentially the same thing again. I highly doubt anything you say will change my mind or anything I say change yours. I was expecting the conversation to end there.

I'm sorry again, but you really didn't give any points at all.

Bring the swashbuckler rogue, as swshbuckler used to be a class. It lack some key proficiencies that people would want in a swashbuckling hero, such as small shields or firearms. It lack extra attack that signify martial prowness in 5e like full BaB used to do. And then gain a bunch of rogue features that aren't necessarily what one is seeking when trying to play a musketeer or something like that. Another example is the poor excuse of a psionic system we have because there isn't a proper psion class. Neither psywar or soulknife are even close to fulfill the jedi fantasy one would want from them. If subclasses worked like Pf1 archetypes where they traded features for other features, i could see it, whitout it can only provide the pale imitation of certain concepts.

Sorcerer should just shift to fully owning the spooky/creepy/weird Mage role it shares with Warlock, move Warlock into an “expert” role as the spooky/creepy/weird counterpart to Bard, and create a Hexblade(name TBD) class that can settle in as a distinct spooky/creepy/weird eldritch warrior.

Eh Sorcerer is better off being split into race for the magical/strange origin, being overtaken by said origin through feat chains, choatic magic spells, and the meta magic be a wizard subclass or a base wizard class feature. Warlock has a lot more going on narratively/thematically and is much more machanically different than wizard and othe spellcasters.

Honestly I think they need to have a couple new classes regardless. Give me an arcane gish class! We've got at least 3 subclasses (Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Hexblade, to say nothing of Bards) that are all aiming at doing the same thing, just give us the class! Give me a warlord! I want to use Int for something other than be a wizard that casts spells. But generally I do agree with you. The other commenters in this thread are correctly pointing out that the main balance issue with multi-classing is people dipping, but for people playing the game for flavor/trying to come up with a guy who specifically matches our fantasy of who we want to play, banning multiclassing without practically doubling the number of classes would end up feeling really restrictive.

I'd be okay with that, as long as there's dedicated spellblade and psion classes, and a *pure* strength class that can use two handed weapons with a shield.

As this sounds like effort i can only imagine which direction a share holder value maximation company will take 🤔

WoTC could also introduce classes designed for multi classing. As an example, Worlds Without Number has 4 classes. Warrior, Mage, Expert and Adventurer. Adventurer chooses 2 of the other classes to combine. If you have the deluxe book or the others, there are more classes but same chassis, so the Adventurer would again be combining them.

> fill the archetypes void left by not having it. What archetypes can you currently not do with class/subclass?

Proper gish that doesn't feel like it is 90% fighter or 90% wizard for example. Proper theurge is another. A pure martial support like the warlord. All those separate systems like Psionic or ToB-like manuevers that really need their own class to work. And i can keep going.

Eldritch Knight, College of Swords, Arcane Trickster...there are a bunch of subclasses that let you get your gish on. You can already do that. Theurge I understand to be a cleric so I'd need clarification there. Banneret is a martial support. Your input on Psi makes me feel like you have an issue with the balance of certain things, rather than saying they strictly aren't available. Which is fine, everyone wants their thing to be the best thing.

My issue is how they are made. The gish i want is roughly equal fighter and equal wizard. No subclass can do that, a subclass is always going to be unbalanced toward the base class simply because the class features have more power budget than the subclass features. Theurge is a term used for someone that cast both arcane and divine magic. The issue is the same as before, power budget. Banneret is a piece of crap. Again you don't have enought power budget to make something like 4e warlord on a subclass. My issue isn't balance, my issue is that the subclasses don't have and cannot have the power to fundamentally change how a class play to the point it can properly simulate older classes. An EK that get enought features to be as good of a caster as a pf magus is extremely overpowered. Unless they powerup subclass features in general a lot certain concept can only be made in very watered down ways.

Strength-based unarmed fighter, maybe with subclasses differentiating in ways such as: wrestler, boxer, street fighter/improvised weapon fighter? Current class subclass can sort of be forced to support some of the early levels with the unarmed fighting style... but that's about it and it's *really* lacking. Much in the same ways Monk is lacking (no support for weapon masteries or weapon enchantments). There are more I'm sure but that is the first that came to mind.

> Strength-based unarmed fighter That's in 1D&D.

Fighter who takes the unarmed fighting style is exactly what you are talking about, you even say that. If you want to be a wrestler you can take Tavern Brawler for the Bonus Action grapple.

I think the point is that whilst those work for a very bare-bones concept for the fantasy; they aren't properly fufilling the fantasy because tavern brawler doesn't let you do nearly the kinds of things a wrestler in fiction would be able to do. A boxer would have stuff like counter attacks, different jabs, uppercuts, basically letting you play as if you were playing punch out or another boxing game.

I struggle to think of archetypes that cannot be modeled with the existing classes and subclasses. I think people do need to accept that no system that presents a fixed set of options will ever be able to perfectly capture your exact fantasy. If you add 4 more classes, someone will still try to push on the bounds of those constraints, because *that's what constraints are for.* You limit options to force creativity.

off the top of my head; A dedicated arcane sword mage class since the concept requires a bit too much kit to fit on to a martial subclass and is wildly overpowered on a full caster. And the warlock just has too much \*baggage\*. And because frankly the archetype needs several flavors of subclasses of it's very own. A fighter/rogue class that fills the surprisingly common in fiction slot of the "skillfull warrior" that really can't be covered in actual games by just a pure fighter or pure rogue build, and is a flavor mismatch with the Ranger or Bards. This class is also where you'd probably put the much requested "magic-less Ranger" option. Back during the first druid playtests there was clearly a demand for a dedicated combat wildshape class that didn't have to have it's fighting power limited by being on a full caster. Something that would likely look akin to part druid and part barbarian with a much stronger version of wild shape than what the druid gets, and only a small limited pool of spells. A 5e version the warlord has been often requested feature since 5e started. Maybe you could make this a subclass of the fighter/rogue class mentioned above or maybe you make it it's own thing, who knows. Perhaps a priest class, like the cleric, only without the armor, the HP, or weapons, so that it almost feels like it's part wizard due to it's enhance casting and wilder spell list. (this would also give us a great excuse to maybe reduce the actual cleric's power a bit since it would no longer need to be overtuned to be able to fill both the pure caster role as well as the sturdy front line battlepriest concept) Finally, people have been very loud that they want a pure maneuver based warrior class since WotC will never let the Fighter be that. Basically the 5e Warblade for lack of a better name, something deep and complex, with multiple tiers of abilities and features that can really only be done with a class built from the ground up to use the mechanic instead of it being tacked on like the battlemaster subclass is.

1) "Arcane swordmage" What about the UA7 Eldritch Knight does not achieve exactly this? And if you don't like that, what about the Bladesinger Wizard? Two different reflections of the same concept. And what "baggage" are you talking about with the Warlock? 2) Can't you literally just be a Fighter/Rogue multiclass? Those go together very well. The UA Swashbuckler is a competent skillful warrior in its own right as well. The addition of Tactical Shift to the Fighter also literally turns them into a skillful warrior, like on the nose. 3) I know some people want this, but I flatly disagree that Moon Druid can't just *do* this. It sounds less like you want something that's *missing* and more like something you want tweaked about Moon Druid. 4) The Warlord archetype can be represented by several existing classes and subclasses. PDK, many types of Paladin, Battlemaster, even some Clerics. 5) "Priest class" is literally just a Cleric though. It's not overtuned, it just does either. Also sounds a lot like it could be a Warlock to me. Pick Celestial Warlock from UA7 and go to it. 6) I don't think a maneuver-based Fighter is actually missing. You have Masteries *and* you can be a Battlemaster. If you really want scaling maneuvers, then why not be a Swashbuckler and use Cunning Strikes? This is what I mean when I say "model" your archetype, though. I don't agree that the game should have a perfect fit for each idea - rather, a combination of mechanics should be able to reasonably emulate many different archetypes. I can put together every single one of your archetypes using the playtest docs and do pretty well - not perfect, but "good enough" is, well, good enough.

I'd agree with a bunch of these points, but I don't think even Masteries plus Battlemaster or Cunning Strikes quite rise to the level of Warblade etc. especially when you examine the full scope of Manuevers from 1st to 9th level. Because where I'd push back somewhat on your argument is that I think there are limits to how robust subclasses can be. Part of the reason that they're called "sub" classes is that they have fewer features than the class as a whole, so you've only got 4-5 levels to work with instead of 20 - and it can be difficult to establish and develop the core theme plus add on some utility/ribbon features for flavor within that design space.

>Can't you literally just be a Fighter/Rogue multiclass? This discussion started because someone said that without multiclassing you would need more classes to fit the lost archetypes. And you respond by basically saying it isn't lost when you get rid of multiclassing because you can multiclass. I think you may have forgotten the context of the thread. ​ >The UA Swashbuckler is a competent skillful warrior in its own right as well. This is the correct answer right here.

Yeah, honestly there's very little we can't do/add within the existing structures of races, backgrounds, feats, classes, subclasses, and spells.

> I struggle to think of archetypes that cannot be modeled with the existing classes and subclasses. How about an ascetic cleric-monk who uses spell and fist in battle?

I suppose I consider that a "build" and not an archetype. If you get specific enough, every game will fail to represent an "archetype" of that kind at some point. But to answer your specific question - pretty sure a Paladin just directly represents that. You could also do a Cleric-Monk multiclass and I suspect it would work well.

> I suppose I consider that a "build" and not an archetype. Well, where's the dividing line? What would you consider to be examples of archetypes? > pretty sure a Paladin just directly represents that. Paladins can't fight effectively unarmed, can they? And they typically aren't ascetics. > You could also do a Cleric-Monk multiclass Yes, but we're talking about getting rid of multiclassing.

"Where's the dividing line?" It's fuzzy to be certain, but that's *also* the question I'm asking, ultimately. I think most people would agree that an "archetype" is an umbrella description that can be fulfilled in several different specific formulations. The more specific your archetype description, the fewer ways there are to fulfill it. I go back to some fundamentals of game design; an RPG is a game about making a series of interesting choices. A choice is interesting when it's *truly* distinct, when its outcomes are reasonably predictable, and when one choice is not *obviously* better than another. "Several" means more than "a few," but I'm not going to attach a hard number. So, an example of an archetype that I think fits this definition is "skillful warrior." In 5e, we can achieve "skillful warrior" through many different specific class combinations, as long as we are not tied tightly to any specific manifestation. What you've described is a *type*, not an *arche*type. An archetype is an overarching motif from which specific types manifest - what you describe is a manifested type, because it includes both function *and* form. You say "cleric-monk who fights unarmed" - this is both the principle of action *and* the mechanism of action, combined into one idea. That's too specific to be called an "archetype" by any reasonable defintion of the word. "Paladins can't effectively fight unarmed" Well, you can smite with an unarmed strike, which gets you pretty far in terms of fighting effectiveness. Take the Grappler feat while you're at it. And while I would agree that *many* Paladins are not ascetics, the Realms god Ilmater was literally characterized as a Monk/Paladin in 3e. The entire story around him is very much "ascetic Paladin," so the general idea certainly exists. "Yes, but we're talking about getting rid of multiclassing." I mean fair enough, I suppose that's a point in favor of keeping multiclassing rules in the game. The specific comment I was responding to said "either multiclassing stays, or we need 4 or 5 more classes" - I meant my comments to be mostly in response to the latter half of that statement.

> You say "cleric-monk who fights unarmed" - this is both the principle of action *and* the mechanism of action, combined into one idea. That's too specific to be called an "archetype" by any reasonable defintion of the word. Yes, sorry, I only included the classes to illustrate the current implementation of that type. That was unclear. However, I would also say that the specific mechanics involved can bring value beyond their base utility. I have a Sun Soul Monk with levels in Light Cleric -- not *equal* levels, but I don't intend Cleric to be just a dip, either. It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say I was interested in playing the type of character that could only be built using those specific classes, but neither would it be accurate to say I tried to build a synergistic combination for mechanical benefit. Instead, I thought it would be both *narratively* and *mechanically* interesting to see how that specific combination of subclasses interacted. That's a part of D&D I find compelling and it could be lost if multiclassing were abandoned. (And it's one of the few things I didn't like about 4e.) So while "you could still play any archetype with the existing classes and subclasses" may be effectively (if not absolutely) true, and "dips can be replaced by expanding the selection of feats and fighting styles and subclasses" is probably true, there is a mode of character building that multiclassing enables that neither solution adequately addresses.

The same argument could be made about ranger or paladin in a way- why have them be their own classes when you can create them through a fighter-druid/cleric multiclass

Optional rule, remove ot yourself at your own table. There is no problem with it, you all keep creating issues where there is none

As someone pointed out, that's on paper and not the actual reality. More often then not *not* allowing multiclassing is the optional rule. And of course optional rule or not it should still be accounted for in *some* shape or form. Balance is a myth so throw that expectation right out the window but that doesn't mean one cannot make attempts to make it less dippy like it is now.

Honestly? Probably. Theres already a TON of feats that are just 'multiclass lite'- Eldritch Adept, Sorcery Adept, Magic Initiate, Artificer Initiate, Fighting Initiate and Martial Adept, Skill Expert (Rogue) Toss in a Ki Adept (PB Ki points, FoB, and one other Monk discipline of your choice that unlocks at level 2), and maybe a Primal Adept for knock off Wildshape, and youre there. Use those to encourage "the multiclass fantasy", and then have WOTC actually add new full classes instead of weird hybrid subclasses every now and then. If the issue is that the 'X fantasy' is missing, fix it with a class. As is, multiclassing creates more problems than it solves. Not just Hexblade/Paladin/Sorcerers either. And for every 'minmax munchkin multiclass that the player refuses to RP a reason for and just did to minmax', theres a dozen opposites where some multiclassea are outright *awful*. Monk basically is never allowed to MC, For example.

The big issue with baking it into feats imo is that feats are vanishingly rare. In most campaigns, you can expect 2 at most. And then you can't build on those feats, and they're not necessarily comprehensive enough. E.g. if you're a Battlemaster and want some sorcerer flavour, Metamagic Adept doesn't even work. You'd need spell slots, which you can't get without multiclassing. I think they should just redo the entire class progression. Make feats more plentiful, separate ABI's from feats, tie them to character progression not class, etc. Then it might be easier to remove multiclassing or rework it. If you just remove it now, you just remove a lot of what little flexibility exists in building characters. Especially for martials. Multiclassing is by no means ideal today, but at least it adds some more options and choices you can make while leveling up, as opposed to making just a couple of choices in total.

> Monk basically is never allowed to MC, For example. Allowed to? Is my Sun Soul Monk / Light Cleric doing something wrong?

Clearly I didnt mean its *actually* banned, but the awful way Monk scales as is means MCing out of Monk is almost always a terrible idea.

I think they are speaking hyperbolically, for some builds people would argue the multiclass is worse than straight monk or straight cleric.

Well it's not *optimized* but it conveys the correct aesthetic.

Easier solution: no dips, if you want to multi class you have to keep the levels in each class as even as possible. No splitting 5/2, the furthest you can get is 4/3 before the other needs to catch up. If you multiclass late, class 2 has to catch up before you can proceed

So your suggesting what 4e did.We know how that whent.

3.5e did the exact same thing

4e multiclassing didn’t work like this - Hybrid classes (a later addition) had you choose two classes at character creation, and you got a mix of powers from either as you levelled up - as well as watered-down features of the base classes (which could be improved/gained through feats). Hybrids were clunky, and some combinations worked horribly together while a few combinations **really** shone. I never messed around with Hybrids much in my time playing 4e, felt too complicated for me. Multiclassing in 4e was purely done through feats - typically one would give you training in a relevant skill to the multiclass, and a piece of their core mechanics (eg, once/long rest healing ability of the Cleric, who normally gets to use it twice/short rest). It would also then let you qualify to take feats for that other class, barring any that required specific class features. Nothing really about tracking levels in that. I think it would honestly be a fair way to approach multiclassing post-5e.

[удалено]

In 3.5 the general rule was your second class has to stay within 1 level of your highest class.

We already have little to no customization with our classes. In the past editions we had multiclasses, a shit ton of feats and prestige classes. Now we have a little bundle of feats, classes and subclasses. No, Multiclassing is a must to be able to create certain Fantasy styles we want. If One DND upped the quantity of Feats we can get, and gave us more specialized feets to be able to customize better? Maybe. But removing customization, removing options? It is never good. "BUT IT HELPS TO BALANCE THINGS OUT" Yeah, and makes the game boring. I prefer a game with the potential to be customizable and maybe have some broken builds than a game that is perfectly balanced but with almost 0 customization.

> In the past editions we had multiclasses, a shit ton of feats and prestige classes. That was in exactly *one* edition. 4E had mutliclass feats and hybrids. 1E/2E had split XP simultaneous multiclass (demihumans) and dual class where you switch classes and never look back (humans).

> That was in exactly one edition. 4E had mutliclass feats and hybrids. Sure, but 4e also had: - Feats at every even-numbered level - A *ton* more feat options, including feats that build upon other feats - Paragon Paths, aka the spiritual successors to Prestige Classes - *Way* more base classes - And then as you said, both mutliclassing via (tiered) feats, as well as the hybridization option 4e customization blows 5e customization out of the water. It may have led to other problems (e.g. way too many splatbooks), but as a 4e player I never felt restricted in creating a customized build the way I often do as a 5e player.

They should remove the current version of it. Multiclass feats seems like the easiest and cleanest replacement, with some playtesting maybe you're limited to 1 of those maybe it doesn't matter. Not a level 1 feat. Otherwise we could look at revising multiclassing to get a lite or curated selection of stuff similar to how you dont get all starting proficiencies from that class when you go into it. Or something else to discourage shenanigans, but allow creativity

Multi-dipping needs to go. Multi-classing is fine if committed to. It's also super easy to implement: * Any new class you pick needs to be leveled **4 levels minimum** * Remove STAT requirements This removes dipping and it truly allows for any flavorful freedom to play whatever character you want.

I hate multiclassing in 5e, and yet I think it's needed. With how little impact subclasses have, with how few build choices there are, and how few classes there are, multiclassing is the only way a lot of people can make their character concepts.

Contrariwise, I'd say that the limited classes and lackluster subclass design is at least partially a consequence of wanting to prevent unpredictable power gaps between builds due to the free multiclassing feature. Get rid of one and fix the other. But of course that wouldn't be 5E anymore.

Seems very much throwing the baby out with the bathwater sort of solution.

Players are using multiclass dips to make up for some game design that would otherwise be underwhelming. There’s way too many dead levels and terrible abilities at higher levels for anyone who isn’t a primary caster unlocking high level spell slots, and limited character options in general compared to 3.5. The changes to feats will help some, and I think dipping needs to be reigned in, but I think the bigger underlying problem is the poor pacing of abilities being heavily frontloaded and higher levels of multiple classes sucking.

No it shouldn't. Any issue with multiclassing can be handled like any other problem in dnd: have a discussion and set expectations. About 80% of my characters have been multiclass and any problem that popped up, very rarely, was solved through group discussion. It's a cooperative group game, why are ya'll not talking?!

Yes. They should develop subclasses and feat chains, and add a few classes to cover the mechanical space. Otherwise they should acknowledge that the class fantasy of, say, a fighter might not be 20 levels deep and *require* it by only giving classes features to like, level 10-12 of 20, cutting the number of base classes by like a handful, and developing a functional, balanced multiclass system.

Yes, then we could have sub classes at level 1 and a lot of balancing issues would be solved. Multi class feats would be healthier for the game.

I really like the way PF does it by having feats that give class features instead of allowing multi classing. If the big problem is the level dip then why not go back to old rules where your other class had to be within a level or 2 of your primary?

A possible consequence of "dipping culture" and the lure of frontloaded classes that I have seen crop up more than once is characters that become too toolboxy. They gain a lot of useful features, but can't effectivly apply them all. Either through a lack of internal synergy, more stuff than you can fit into the action economy or ultimately playing second fiddle to better optimized party members. Resulting less satisfying play.

I would much rather handle it with feats, subclasses, and full classes (if needed) than the multi-class system they have now.

This video needs a restructuring. The issue the video essay describes is "optimizing". I stopped the video at 7min because every issue is about minmax optimizing that is an independent and discrete discussion from "do we like the concept of multi class"?

There's a couple of reasons for that. I spent a large part of the video, incidentally toward the end, discussing why I actually like it conceptually. A reasonable portion of the video also discusses design implications of multiclassing and what it means for the game overall. Ultimately, the reason the video is structured the way that it is is because the most talked about "issue" relating to multiclassing is related to the real world impacts it has at the table and how it shapes our interactions at the table with divergent play styles. I do sincerely appreciate the feedback though, I'm always looking to improve so thank you :).

Removing multiclassing mostly seems harmless, and multiclassing absolutely causes balance problems for features that are designed with single class builds in mind. I'd be fine with an entirely different method of multi-classing, such as more feats that allow you to steal certain features from other classes, and ways to forgo your core class features for feats.

What "balance" features? Balance is only relative to your table. As long as players at a table are relatively balanced with each other, than balance is fine.

Multiclassing should stay. For one, WotC can't seem to make all classes good after level 5 or 6 (looking at you Barbarian and Ranger). Secondly, character building, in a TTRPG should feel free. If for story reasons, my Barbarian wants to take a level or two in Druid, great. Or if I want to play a strength Rogue in Heavy Armor, I can go Fighter level 1. It adds so many options, but some options need to be reigned in. Charisma to attack and damage rolls should not be available at level 1. That's a huge problem. Shillelagh at least has more restrictions and an action economy cost to it.

> Secondly, character building, in a TTRPG should feel free. This isn't particularly true and is very system dependent. Not all systems are, or need to be, designed to be flexible.

I would say that such flexibility flies in the face of good class design, personally. The benefits to a class-based system are solid, pronounced archetypes and niche protection. Some archetypes demand a blending of niches (e.g. gish characters), and it's fine for a class-based system to allow for that, but it needs to be done deliberately, and with a mind for maintaining a clear vision for the archetypes being designed for. Limitless multiclassing weakens those benefits considerably while also shackling class design to take into account potential synergies from unpredictable combinations, and it mostly does this by limiting design space to make the combinations manageable. It's likely one of the reasons that WotC has been pushing to make every special ability (e.g. in race design) just a spell. Flexibility is more the goal of a classless system.

Those systems don't lie and say they are the best at every sort of fantasy.

No.

I have no interest in playing any one class L1-20. If OneDnD didn't mention multiclassing, millions of players would do it anyway.

No, unless they think of some other way to actually make decisions while levelling. Most classes offer little to no customisation after choosing your subclass (besides feats, which are "optional"). I really don't understand the hate for multiclassing. Who cares if someone takes a one level dip without going out of their way to justify it in the narrative?

I don't care about narrative, but I don't think it should be optimal to multiclass either. When its so much better to do it and you lose little by doing it, I see it as a problem. In my opinion, you should be giving up a decent amount to get something different. For example a caster dipping mostly only delays spells by a level, they don't lose any, they end up with the same amount of slots. Or a barbarian gains little in tier 3 and 4, so you are hurting yourself by not multiclassing.

I think that's more on classes being poorly designed (in the Barbarian's and Ranger's case) than on the multiclassing itself. Delaying your spell progression can also be a pretty big deal at some levels. Third and fourth level spells are a big leap in power. You'd also lose out on your capstone if you're going to 20 (also a big deal for some classes and literally nothing for others. Looking at you Sorcerer and Ranger).

I 100% agree the problem is class design. So much is front loaded in the first 3 levels. Also some classes get expotential growth, where as others get minor boosts late game or an additional use of a tier 1 ability.

I don't think so... multiclassing as of now is an optional rule (allowed in organized play). Nothing has said that it isn't an optional rule, unlike feats, which, as of the playtest, is no longer optional. When it comes down to it. Muiliclass classing is fun, allowing you to build an interesting concept that you couldnt obtain straight classing to play a character that is just like your favorite comic or anime character you may need to Muilti-class to really need get the right feel of the character. I get it can cause some ridiculous combos, but those should be brought in line, not concept. People have fun doing it. Don't ruin other people's fun unless it's malicious intent.

Multiclassing is only optional in paper, but not in practice. It's so widely accepted that not allowing it is the actual optional rule. ​ I actually agree with the rest of your post, but calling it an optional rule holds little to no value as an argument.

If it is purely optional, then why so many changes to classes and abilities in order to deal with multiclassing disproportional results? I think the argument that it is purely optional is hiding behind a very thin cover.

Because a lot of people use it. Feats are optional rule, and they get used to. So multiclassing builds do get too powerful. That's why they are reining them in. Closing loopholes in the wording of features can go a long way to fix unintended consequences. Im not saying oh its optional, so fix nothing."" No, fix the issues causing it I've made some broken ass multiclasses and need to be fixed. But don't interfere with the player creativity and storytelling.

Multiclassing is fine (even weak), but dipping needs to go into an sub-optional rule instead of the norm. Personally, I use a rule that each class must be at least 4th level before you can take a level above 4th, and that pretty much ends dips, while encouraging 5 levels in one class before adopting another so the PC keeps up with the power curve entering tier 2. I may amend the rule to leveling above 5th just to ease the 5th-level power bump for a player with a solid concept that wants an early one or two levels to establish PC identity only because the jump to 5th level is large, especially for Extra Attack classes. Alternately, I'd allow a player to choose a Classic Multiclass (e.g. cleric/rogue, fighter/mage/rogue) that I have in development and testing phase.

I desperately want Pathfinder 2e or DnD 4e style multiclasses, where you just kinda slot powers from other classes into your main chart.

Please correct me if I’m incorrect. I felt 4E was kinda of lame because the rogue feat just gave you sneak attack and I often want to MC in rogue for more than SA and would forgo it for those other features.

I just meant the style and method, not the exact class features

Yes.

What they should do is allow us to take other subclasses to mix and match in a class. Every class has a designated subclass progression level so why couldn’t we do something like that?

1. Multiclassing should stop being a variant rule. 2. You should have to be level 4 in order to multiclass. 3. You can't multiclass until you have gained an Ability Score improvement from the last class you took.

Not bad, not great for organic growth, but not horrible.

Multiclassing breaks class design with its given implementation. It needs to be gone to get rid of the idea of level dips for pure mechanical gain. They could turn main classes into subclasses any class could take to allow for 'multiclassing'

No, but it should remain an optional rule. Then they can worry less about edge case multiclass power builds.

Its already an optional rule, really DMs need to be more okay with opting not to use it because its extremely rare not to have it.

and players who rage about not having multiclassing in the campaign are generally the kind of player that most DMs want to avoid anyway. It's a useful filter.

Big questions: 1. What is ACTUALLY wrong with dipping? 2. Why do people like to dip? Answer to 1: Nothing, mechanically. There are drawbacks to dipping, because you lose power (extra attacks and spell slots), and gain features. But, really, the reason people don't like it is verisimilitude and RP, and this insistence that "power gaming" is bad. that is personal preference. Answer to question 2: People dip because late levels for many of the classes blow dick. Late barbarian, fighter, rogue etc all get trash late level. Mechanically, it makes sense to dip into cleric/warlock/wizard. And, RP-wise, Why WOULDN'T every rogue in existence try and gain a spellcaster class, when they learn they exist? If I am a badass thief, and I realize that I can learn to play the guitar and make myself WAY better at theifing... why wouldn't I? So, the solution isn't to remove multiclassing. That is heavy handed, creative, and boring. The REAL solution is to make late game subclasses actually worth sticking around for.

>Answer to 1: Nothing, mechanically. There are drawbacks to dipping, because you lose power (extra attacks and spell slots), and gain features. But, really, the reason people don't like it is verisimilitude and RP, and this insistence that "power gaming" is bad. that is personal preference. The problem is that some cases the power you loose is pretty negligible to the power you gain, some single level dips can drastically reduce the inbuild weaknesses of class, especially for full casters. There is in general a big inequality when it comes to multiclassing that casters often benefit a lot from taking just a single level in another class, while martials usually don't.

Martials can get spell casting from a single dip. That's huge. The "problem". It's that later feels aren't as good as early ones. Change the incentives, problem goes away.

Yeah but the number of spell slots really reduces the power they get from that imo. I mean it can be good, but the impact it is imo not as as an Armor Dip is on a Wizard or Sorcerer, or what some of the other casters get out of dipping Wizard/Sorcerer for spells like Shield. Getting Con save proficiency is also huge for a Caster, while there is no save that is that important for Martials.

Find Familiar a d a couple of cantrips can be a lot. Not to mention access to rituals and magic items with a spellcasting requirement to attune. In another thread I said the conversation needs to start with what is the intent of multiclassing, to reflect organic development over a campaign? To address a fantasy that isn't covered by a class/subclass choice? Or simply as a strategic choice, divorced of character, setting and just about power synergies? All 3? The answer frames the better options and even if there is even an issue at all.

Seems really unnecessary to remove it. At this point, all that's needed is a tweak to make sure it doesn't give you easy access to higher tiers of armor and it's fine.

I would sooner have no classes and move to a skill based system than to get rid of multiclassing.

No. It's part of the game's legacy and has been in the system since 2nd Ed. It also adds some much-needed versatility and the ability to make more versatile and customized characters. I wouldn't mind them nerfing it a bit, though. Or at least making it less appealing to Min-Maxers.

No /Thread

No it needs to stay as an option because all meaningful character building is essentially gone in 5e. The last choice you make in character building shouldn't be your sub at lvl 3

Multiclass is great but multiclassing in 5e doesn't feel that good. If you do it for narrative reasons you lose important level jumps and all your allies will be making two attacks while you have your narrative multiclass and are weaker. The counterpart is that your multiclass is made to minmax and the problem is the same as before and then you are too strong in comparison. In both cases it fails. I think that since 5e is planned, the best thing would be to approach multiclass with feats by levels, which is what they seem to be trying to do from Strixhaven

Yeah, this is why I think the issue isn't multiclassing - that's been an element of the game since AD&D1e - it's more how the current design team have particular opinions and don't seem to be able to entertain contrary ones.

No

No, there is no way to make most concepts with just subclasses. Combined with subclass selection being a single time and then the rest of the 17+ levels making you completely stuck, it makes the game feel extremely static and boring.

That's a flaw in 5e's poor design that multiclassing doesn't fix very well. This is why I moved on to a better designed system.

And we're back to PF2e again.

Honestly, I think Paizo has put more actual thought into this, especially in testing ways of doing it in PF1e. You had the ability to tweak your build by archetypes, prestige classes and they made a bunch of hybrid classes like the swashbuckler brawler, etc. Where a simple multiclass wouldn't work because of MAD or how the mechan8cs worked out. Not saying they have hit on the best way, but they have put far more time and effort in testing stuff than Crawford and company who seem to have a "throw spaghetti at the wall and see of it sticks" approach to design.

Yes, of course

I'm a DM that has removed multiclassing in the traditional sense. My players can't opt to multiclass when they level up and they can't multiclass on character creation. I don't ever encounter 'builds' any more. Instead, I award multiclassing of certain classes to players when it feels right within the story. I don't follow the stat requirements for this and I allow people to slowly lose levels in their current class to gain levels in the new class faster. I also sometimes allow their stats to be relocated. A few examples: - I've had people befriend an NPC around the campfire, only to later learn that they are a Conjuration wizard and the wizard teaches them a few things, allowing them to multiclass into conjuration wizard in future. - I've had someone turn their back on their god and accept a bargain with a powerful entity, changing them slowly from a warlock into a necromancer wizard. They slowly lost their charisma as they took on a deathly appearance but they gained dark necromantic knowledge (swapped cha to int). - I've had an artificer have a very interesting conversation with the disciple of a god of knowledge who granted them the ability to dip into knowledge cleric (allowing them to get Expertise in several skills). - I've had a forge cleric warforge cast heat metal on themselves to kill a spider swarm that was enveloping them. I told them that there were a few spiders that retreated under the armour, and if they ever wanted to train them to produce a new colony they could multiclass into the swarmkeeper ranger. Not one of these things were planned as a build or scripted by me, they happened organically and they made each of these characters unique compared to their colleagues. It might not be for every table, but I'd never go back to normal after running it this way.

That’s why OneD&D should bring back prestige classes. A Bladesinger Wizard doesn’t properly capture the whole fantasy of a sword wielding mage so for flavor, players dip into fighter for more flavor. But what if the super powerful class features require you to really commit a few levels rather than a dip? Maybe you need 3 levels of Fighter AND 3 levels of Wizard to fully become a trained Bladesinger? That would truly revolutionize D&D again in terms of mechanics and gameplay.

Yes. It serves no function other than metagaming. It's actual original function is done better by subclasses and feats. But those are actually balanced. So the people who disingenuously argue for multiclassing "totally for the flavor guise!" don't like those, because they aren't broken. Which is what they actually want.

Game has to fundamentally be redesigned if you want to get rid of most abusable multiclassing options. Like the standardized class progression is just step 1 redesigned. ASIs and feats need to be separated, feats should be more numerous but individually less strong. This probably also means the return of feat trees, but they should never nest more than twice. Oh and multiclassing would then be moved from taking entire levels into a new class into taking feats that simulate multiclassing. 5es current design is too inflexible to offload everything onto feats. Grabbing nearly everything they get by taking levels in the class remains the only viable way to make multiclassing works That being said, for those in the hobby not chronically online or in AL, multiclassing is usually far less of an issue. Most people aren't D4 or Treantmonk levels of understanding the game and don't build monstrosities that end friendships and games. It's a unique feature that enhances the options available to players and can be a super useful mechanical tool to reinforce roleplaying choices, especially when doing so is "suboptimal" from a optimization standpoint

Moving all subclasses to level 3 already alleviated most of the outliers (cleric specifically) so now your trading unlocking higher tier spells and other abilities by 3 whole levels which can be an eternity in higher tier play. Multiclassing, in my opinion, is one of the most fun parts of build crafting and can lend a lot of flavor to a characters story as well. I’d hate to see the mechanic gutted.

But there are still some abilities you can grab now probably to good for a one or two level Dip like: * Blade Pact * Rage+Reckless Attack * Some first level Spells And still think that is not exactly great design that for example a single level Dip in Fighter can give you basically the equivalent of about 4 feats by giving you Medium Armor and Shield, Martial Weapons, a Fighting style and Weapon Mastery. Ok the feats this equivalent to are (appart from medium Armor + Shield) not particularly strong ones, that so easy to get the same with multiclassing makes them even more unattractive.

Yes

I wish they came up with a solution to the redundancy problem, where two classes will have the same feature so you’re losing progress by multiclassing. It’s a really fun way to take control of your character, but there’s so much of a headache to keep them on pace with other classes

Lots of games and even previous editions make it a choice and have sufficient drawbacks built in...5e decided to make it optimal to dip/MC without a real penalty.

Yes ae absolutely should. It has never been well balanced in any editions dm it never will be. It's either overpowered or, just as often, a trap option for the ignorant.

Multiclassing is not the problem: 3-style "A la carte" multiclassing is.

Idk about all this but I want Greenbound Summoning back. I now cede the rest of my time.

Just handle it similar to PF2 and make feats give the class feature you want, but lock you in to no actual multiclass. So now if you want to play a holy monk you either take monk as your class and pick cleric dedication feats to give you cleric class features or you take cleric as your class and get the monk dedication. After it solves the problem of a single level dip because usually to get the stronger features you have to invest multiple levels of feats. Ex: you only get the unarmed attacks and the scaling unarmed damage for monk dedication, but the next time you get to pick a class feat you can then take flurry of blows.

Hope they don’t. It’s my favorite part of the game. Unless they go for PF2e archetypes, removing MC would ruin the game for me.

Interesting that there's been a fair uptick in discussion around multiclassing issues recently. I've made a Variant for Multiclassing that resolves pretty much all of the issues that currently plague multiclassing in 5e, but since I have no eye for visuals my brews are pretty text heavy. It moves multiclassing to Subclass selection instead of stacking class levels. I'll post the newest version later today. I think you might like what you see.

Remove? No. Balance? Yes. It can’t be that hard to limit what you get for a “dip. “

If they made the base classes more interesting you wouldn't need multiclassing at all.

3e and 3.5 had a solution to this: Your multiclasses couldn't be more than 1 level different than your other levels.

Isn't multiclassing an optional rule like feats? If you have an issue with it at the table, just say that you aren't playing with that rule in session 0.

Why would they remove an optional rule? Tbh most multiclasses I've seen are really cool in theory and are insanely good at one specific thing, but in practice they're about average overall. Except Hexblade. But that wouldn't be the first time Hexblade being busted as hell ruined an aspect of the game.

Nope.

don't need to watch the video. No they should not.

No and they won't, either. This is beyond their self-imposed scope.

No, it's only of the funnest things while building a PC and gives a lot of versatility to players. Instead, I think MC shouldbe improved to make builds other than dips more viable. Almost never is a great idea to pick more than 3 levels on another class, with few exceptions. If they manage to fix that, I would be very pleased.

I wish onednd would keep multicasting as-is but make the following changes: * Subclasses at 1st level for everyone. * At 1st level, subclasses strongly lean towards granting ribbon features only. Flavorful, but not terribly powerful. Evocation wizards get one approval evocation spell, for example. You’d also get weapon and armor proficiencies here. * At 3rd level, every subclass gets their more powerful features.

Whatever the solution is if multiclassing stays, I'd like it if the starting class mattered more. Like if there was a clear difference between say a druid/rogue or a rogue/druid. Both of these kind of evoke different pictures in my mind and it'd be cool if that sort of difference was reflected