Taking a new class does not remove your old class. If you are a Cleric1/fighter1, your current class(es) include cleric and fighter. Cleric is not a new class. Intentionally misunderstanding rules is clever, but if you are going to do it, try harder.
Does it break the game? Yes. Each class gets subclass abilities at certain levels, and those subclass abilities are sometimes comparable and sometimes not. The early subclass abilities tend to be much more game-changing and powerful than the later ones for many classes. Skipping the fluff level 10 ability to take another crunch level 2 ability obviously breaks the game. Even within that, some level 10 abilities might be totally situational or useless whereas others are more generally applicable, and this is sometimes balanced with the applicability of other features within the subclass. It is a total powergaming move, and sure it is fine if that is the game you want to play. But there is no way to balance it against players following the rules, so you might as well let everyone in the group play gestalt characters at that point.
Taking a new class does not remove your old class. If you are a Cleric1/fighter1, your current class(es) include cleric and fighter. Cleric is not a new class. Intentionally misunderstanding rules is clever, but if you are going to do it, try harder.
If you Took Cleric, then Fighter... Cleric isn't your current class, it is your old/first one. Fighter is your current class. You just took it. Current.
lol. Again, just joking.
Does it break the game? Yes. Each class gets subclass abilities at certain levels, and those subclass abilities are sometimes comparable and sometimes not. The early subclass abilities tend to be much more game-changing and powerful than the later ones for many classes. Skipping the fluff level 10 ability to take another crunch level 2 ability obviously breaks the game. Even within that, some level 10 abilities might be totally situational or useless whereas others are more generally applicable, and this is sometimes balanced with the applicability of other features within the subclass. It is a total powergaming move, and sure it is fine if that is the game you want to play. But there is no way to balance it against players following the rules, so you might as well let everyone in the group play gestalt characters at that point.
This is an argument against multiclassing in general TBH. If you don't want people to have multiple low level abilities all in one character then just disallow multiclassing in your games, it is an optional rule for a reason. That said, allowing someone to multiclass subclasses doesn't break the game. It shifts the power scales, absolutely, but "break the game"? No. You'd have to be really bad at DMing for something like this to break your game. Add a few more HP, and extra + to hit, or even another enemy or two. Upscale their encounters slightly if your party is stronger mechanically. Game keeps on going without an issue. "Breaks the game" lol.
Generally, multiclassing comes with drawbacks such as being MAD, or delaying spell level/class feature progression that are simply not present with "multi-sublcassing."
Sure low level abilities are good. But with a traditional multi-class, you have to make some sacrifices to get them and generally end up much worse off than you'd have if you'd just continued in one class (except for a few specific builds). Unless you're putting some sort of similar limitations for a multi-subclass, they're much stronger than any multiclass.
This is an argument against multiclassing in general TBH. If you don't want people to have multiple low level abilities all in one character then just disallow multiclassing in your games, it is an optional rule for a reason. That said, allowing someone to multiclass subclasses doesn't break the game. It shifts the power scales, absolutely, but "break the game"? No. You'd have to be really bad at DMing for something like this to break your game. Add a few more HP, and extra + to hit, or even another enemy or two. Upscale their encounters slightly if your party is stronger mechanically. Game keeps on going without an issue. "Breaks the game" lol.
This ignores the complexities involved when your PCs are at wildly different power levels relative to each other: a combat designed to be difficult for a weak build may be a pushover because the stronger build is in the party, and if you challenge the stronger build, the weaker build may have no way to meaningfully contribute, or potentially even survive. It's one thing if a PC is choosing to be weak and accepting the consequences, but it's quite another for one PC to become incredibly powerful and then the others are weak by comparison without their consent. Resolving this situation well can be challenging for any GM.
Another hazard to be aware of is that the rules are not designed for this, and their wording won't be able to cope with it, natively. For example, suppose you're just being allowed to multiclass Fighter into itself. For clarity purposes, refer to each time you do this with a new letter, so your first Fighter class is FighterA, your second is FighterB, and so on. One of the first questions that will come up when comparing someone with 2 levels of FighterA as opposed to 1 level each of FighterA and FighterB is how Second Wind is even intended to work - the multiclassing rules cover abilities with the same name stacking, like Extra Attack, but not in a generic way. Does FighterA 1/FighterB 1 mean the same second wind, i.e. 1/short rest heal 1d10+2? That's more or less how multiclassing spell slots work. Two copies, so 2/short rest heal 1d10+1? Channel Divinity explicitly doesn't work like this, implying this should not be allowed. Two overlapping copies, so 1/short rest heal 1d10+1, like what happens with stacking Extra Attack? These decisions may radically change the balance of your entire table.
This is an argument against multiclassing in general TBH. If you don't want people to have multiple low level abilities all in one character then just disallow multiclassing in your games, it is an optional rule for a reason. That said, allowing someone to multiclass subclasses doesn't break the game. It shifts the power scales, absolutely, but "break the game"? No. You'd have to be really bad at DMing for something like this to break your game. Add a few more HP, and extra + to hit, or even another enemy or two. Upscale their encounters slightly if your party is stronger mechanically. Game keeps on going without an issue. "Breaks the game" lol.
This ignores the complexities involved when your PCs are at wildly different power levels relative to each other: a combat designed to be difficult for a weak build may be a pushover because the stronger build is in the party, and if you challenge the stronger build, the weaker build may have no way to meaningfully contribute, or potentially even survive. It's one thing if a PC is choosing to be weak and accepting the consequences, but it's quite another for one PC to become incredibly powerful and then the others are weak by comparison without their consent. Resolving this situation well can be challenging for any GM.
This isn't an issue with allowing this to happen any more than it already exists. Put a PHB ranger in with a Twilight Cleric. Watch the power dynamic. If you haven't figured out how to resolve these kinds of issues you shouldn't be running games with all kinds of character options anyway. You're right that it can be difficult for new GMs, but new GMs should be the ones considering homebrewing all kinds of player customization to begin with, not opting into all kinds of optional rules and supplements.
It isn't ignoring the problem of balance that a GM needs, it is saying "Hey, if you're already going ham with crazy subclasses and optional rules or homebrew, this ain't going to break it any further than you already have".
Another hazard to be aware of is that the rules are not designed for this, and their wording won't be able to cope with it, natively. For example, suppose you're just being allowed to multiclass Fighter into itself. For clarity purposes, refer to each time you do this with a new letter, so your first Fighter class is FighterA, your second is FighterB, and so on. One of the first questions that will come up when comparing someone with 2 levels of FighterA as opposed to 1 level each of FighterA and FighterB is how Second Wind is even intended to work - the multiclassing rules cover abilities with the same name stacking, like Extra Attack, but not in a generic way. Does FighterA 1/FighterB 1 mean the same second wind, i.e. 1/short rest heal 1d10+2? That's more or less how multiclassing spell slots work. Two copies, so 2/short rest heal 1d10+1? Channel Divinity explicitly doesn't work like this, implying this should not be allowed. Two overlapping copies, so 1/short rest heal 1d10+1, like what happens with stacking Extra Attack? These decisions may radically change the balance of your entire table.
No. You wouldn't do it like that. And I said this already. You would only multiclassing the subclass. Second Wind isn't a feature of the subclass, it is a feature of the class. You wouldn't get it twice any more than any other fighter gets it twice. You're a Fighter.
Think Fighter 6 (Champion3/Ek3) not Fighter-Champion 3/Fighter-Ek 3.
The goal is to pick up the capabilities of a different subclass of your same class, not start all over on the same class again. Starting all over on the same class again doesn't make any sense. Like, we're all aware this is fully into the weeds of homebrew, but that's the way to do it and make sense of the whole thing.
Generally, multiclassing comes with drawbacks such as being MAD, or delaying spell level/class feature progression that are simply not present with "multi-sublcassing."
Sure low level abilities are good. But with a traditional multi-class, you have to make some sacrifices to get them and generally end up much worse off than you'd have if you'd just continued in one class (except for a few specific builds). Unless you're putting some sort of similar limitations for a multi-subclass, they're much stronger than any multiclass.
Multiclassing almost always results in a far more powerful character in actual practice. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Look at ANY d&d optimization guides on how to build the most powerful character and they are ALL multiclasses.
That's not a "almost always", that's a "almost never". Pull up a randomizer and randomize some multiclasses and you will very quickly realize the D&D Optimization guides exist for a reason.
Multi-classing is hard to do in a way that actually works (unless it's something like taking 2/1 levels in another class to avoid a terrible capstone, which I don't really count cause that's at max level and at worse you just get a useless feature compared to a useless capstone).
In addition, most of those optimization guides are often white-boxes that aren't optimizing for things like skills, fluff, or actual use, but purely damage (Granted, not always the case). There's almost some sacrifice that happens in one of the other pillars to compensate. As for it being more powerful, I mean, usually they're pretty bad in the early-game (lots of setup before the build becomes active) and are usually pretty bad in practice in the end-game. (I don't care of your build does 1000+ damage, my wizard has Invulnerability).
Edit: So they specialize heavily in one thing, which they do very well in the middle/late game. Then they get outclassed by spellcasters with 9th level spells cause those are gamebreaking (Invulnerability is a pretty ehh 9th level spell compared to like, Wish). This is all assuming your following a good optimization guide with the intentions of breaking the game, which most people aren't.
That's not a "almost always", that's a "almost never". Pull up a randomizer and randomize some multiclasses and you will very quickly realize the D&D Optimization guides exist for a reason.
Multi-classing is hard to do in a way that actually works (unless it's something like taking 2/1 levels in another class to avoid a terrible capstone, which I don't really count cause that's at max level and at worse you just get a useless feature compared to a useless capstone).
In addition, most of those optimization guides are often white-boxes that aren't optimizing for things like skills, fluff, or actual use, but purely damage (Granted, not always the case). There's almost some sacrifice that happens in one of the other pillars to compensate. As for it being more powerful, I mean, usually they're pretty bad in the early-game (lots of setup before the build becomes active) and are usually pretty bad in practice in the end-game. (I don't care of your build does 1000+ damage, my wizard has Invulnerability).
Edit: So they specialize heavily in one thing, which they do very well in the middle/late game. Then they get outclassed by spellcasters with 9th level spells cause those are gamebreaking (Invulnerability is a pretty ehh 9th level spell compared to like, Wish). This is all assuming your following a good optimization guide with the intentions of breaking the game, which most people aren't.
....
If a single multiclass build exists that is more powerful than other single class builds, you have widened the power gap between players.
No one randomly generates a mix of classes. That's such a weird argument.
Multiclass opens your game up to increased power levels. This is objectively true. More options never means less powerful possible characters. This is such an obvious thing I can't believe I even need to reiterate it.
More options = More powerful combinations. Objective fact.
Sorry then, got hung up on the "Multiclassing almost always results in a far more powerful character in actual practice. I'm not sure what you're talking about" which doesn't at all address any of the points of quindraco so I elaborated that power comes at a price (which you still haven't addressed).
My argument of randomly generating a mix of classes makes sense compared to your statement above (which I even referenced in said argument, with the "almost always" being "almost never", I did say almost), as it proves that all multiclassing does not "almost always" make a character better, and in fact can make a character worse if done incorrectly (and even if you do it correctly).
In either case, this doesn't reflect the points we've made that all multiclass combinations come at a heavy drawback that doesn't exist as much with subclass multi-classing which was the point of quindraco's argument. Quindraco's argument was that the multi-subclassing was more powerful than multi-classing, as it allowed you to gain similar benefits to multi-classing without losing any power like with multi-classing.
I do see your current point that the imbalance of allowing people to selectively choose subclasses isn't game-breaking or a massive imbalance compared to other options, even if it's a almost direct buff, because those who want to massively imbalance the game will do so regardless of homebrew rules or not.
Which is something I agree with and have said in the past.
More options = More powerful combinations. Objective fact.
If you understand this, then you must understand that adding options with fewer drawbacks and better upsides is objectively better than existing options with more downsides and worse perks. Certainly you can’t be arguing that adding the ability to take multiple subclasses doesn’t increase the power of the available combinations above what is available in the rules at the same time as you are stating this objective fact.
I'm way late, but just searching this now for myself, as you said a different subclass isn't a new class, so the spell preparation should still be counted as being a level 10 wizard, you're basically saying they're the same class but they're not the same class where it suits your needs
More options = More powerful combinations. Objective fact.
If you understand this, then you must understand that adding options with fewer drawbacks and better upsides is objectively better than existing options with more downsides and worse perks. Certainly you can’t be arguing that adding the ability to take multiple subclasses doesn’t increase the power of the available combinations above what is available in the rules at the same time as you are stating this objective fact.
No, all options increase possible number of combinations resulting in an increased power threshold. It is often referred to as 'power creep'. Over the lifecycle of a game like D&D as a new edition comes out there is an established baseline of power, and this baseline continued to gradually go up over time with every successive supplemental book that is released.
Any option increases the potential for a more powerful character to be generated.
What I'm saying, is that if you DM for a group and have already been dealing with this kind of potential power discrepancy, you already know how to manage it in your games, and if so, allowing multi(sub)classed characters isn't going to break anything. You already know how to deal with it. You've been dealing with it because your Ranger player thinks his dog is cute when it barks, and your Order Cleric is doubling your Rogue's DPR meanwhile the Wizard ends encounters without even a proper fight when the whim strikes him. Letting the Champion Fighter take a 3 level detour from advancing champion to instead pick up some battlemaster maneuvers isn't going to break your game.
I'm way late, but just searching this now for myself, as you said a different subclass isn't a new class, so the spell preparation should still be counted as being a level 10 wizard, you're basically saying they're the same class but they're not the same class where it suits your needs
Raw and Rai it isn't allowed. That said, yeah, that's how I'd do it in my games if I had a player who wanted to do this.
So I keep seeing the same statement being the Only retort ever given, but there is a fine clue into how go about doing it.
OPTION. You have the Option of going into a new class.
So as writ, there is no reason to Not play a Wizard of two or more Domains of study,or a Rogue who specializes as both a Trickster and an Assassin.
You're specializing a different subCLASS.
You've already studied in the class once, so the base features are out of reach to repeats (unless said feature states it is able to be taking multiple times((if you match the prerequisites))
So really. I'm starting to think that the people who say No, are people whom deem it OP. Yet I haven't met a DM who cannot be talked to an understanding of the rules as writ, it is an Option to choose a different class.
Now if you have the Exp and level capable of Multiclassing, who can deny you that(I mean, if your DM says Multiclassing is a No, well..it's a No.)
So yea, if you're level 10 and want 3 levels in Wizardry Abjuration, 3 levels in Conjuration, and 4 levels in Necromancy
Well you've already studied the basics of Wizardry, so the base stats are not redone, your specializing in different studies of Wizardry, which in and of itself is a DIFFERENT CLASS.
Wowsers. I don't understand how all that seems undoable.
Need to find the reference but one of the game designers has clarified you cannot take multiple subclasses of the same class.
More options = More powerful combinations. Objective fact.
If you understand this, then you must understand that adding options with fewer drawbacks and better upsides is objectively better than existing options with more downsides and worse perks. Certainly you can’t be arguing that adding the ability to take multiple subclasses doesn’t increase the power of the available combinations above what is available in the rules at the same time as you are stating this objective fact.
No, all options increase possible number of combinations resulting in an increased power threshold. It is often referred to as 'power creep'. Over the lifecycle of a game like D&D as a new edition comes out there is an established baseline of power, and this baseline continued to gradually go up over time with every successive supplemental book that is released.
Any option increases the potential for a more powerful character to be generated.
What I'm saying, is that if you DM for a group and have already been dealing with this kind of potential power discrepancy, you already know how to manage it in your games, and if so, allowing multi(sub)classed characters isn't going to break anything. You already know how to deal with it. You've been dealing with it because your Ranger player thinks his dog is cute when it barks, and your Order Cleric is doubling your Rogue's DPR meanwhile the Wizard ends encounters without even a proper fight when the whim strikes him. Letting the Champion Fighter take a 3 level detour from advancing champion to instead pick up some battlemaster maneuvers isn't going to break your game.
The problem is that the person who wants to optimize probably isn’t the champion fighter, it is the Order cleric who is already doing the most damage and also wants to take the Peace CD too, and then the Twilight one after that, etc. Giving (much) better options to the min-maxers makes the power gap worse, not better, and the only way to fix that as a DM is to put an end to it or further marginalize the non-optimized characters.
To me the biggest issue is that a subclass only has certain levels associated with it, so if you multi-subclass, what do you do for the "dead" levels in between? Your options would be 1) to redo the main class levels or 2) you have a dead level where you gain absolutely nothing.
Only Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Clerics get their subclass at 1st level, Druids and Wizards at 2nd, and the rest at 3rd. So unless you are one of the first 3 that get a level 1 subclass, you either are wasting 1-2 whole levels or you are duplicating main class abilities that may wind up incredibly unbalanced (for example, martial classes with more extra attacks than usual or spellcasters with too many spell slots and spells known).
The best bet is to, as many others have said, make a custom subclass that substitutes other subclass abilities at the appropriate levels.
So in my mind, how this plays out is that you basically get your normal levels, then at every 3 levels you pick a new subclass. The subclasses level as normal, along side your main class. So at level 18 you have a level 15 subclass (1), a level 12 subclass (2), level 9 subclass (3), etc...
OR the even more "fun" get to level 18 and have 6 subclasses with the level 18 bonus from each subclass...
So in my mind, how this plays out is that you basically get your normal levels, then at every 3 levels you pick a new subclass. The subclasses level as normal, along side your main class. So at level 18 you have a level 15 subclass (1), a level 12 subclass (2), level 9 subclass (3), etc...
OR the even more "fun" get to level 18 and have 6 subclasses with the level 18 bonus from each subclass...
Not every subclass follows a "every three levels" approach (in fact none of them do?). Cleric is at 1, 6, 8, and 17; Monk 3, 6, 11, and 17. Warlock is at 1, 6, 10, and 14. Others are just as variable. But the gist of your concept is exactly what a lot of people have been saying; a custom subclass with different features at each subclass level.
The main issue with the above is that subclasses do not work based off every 3 levels. Also that is a insane amount of subclass bonuses. That would make for one very interesting character I'll give you that.
I think what most people do is that they just homebrew a subclass that has features from different subclasses. Like the first subclass feature from one subclass, then the second subclass feature from a different one, etc. Discuss with your DM how you want each subclass feature to be, and you can homebrew it in D&D beyond (probably can't publish it obviously, but you can still use it).
So, as a DM late to the discussion ill say this after reading everyones answers.
You can not "Multi-class" by its very definition, however there is also no ruling against taking diffrent specializations its simply not Multi-Classing its somantics really, you take the word at its face value to multi class is to be multie classes which you are not
Now for my games (to balance since there was some problems folks pointed out) I would allow double specialization in a single class but like multi-classing you would have to keep track of individual levels. IE (Rouge assassin 3, Rouge trickster 3) youd be a 6th level Rouge but youd only have access to the lvl 3 abilities of the subclasses. There fore to get the level 6 abilities you would have to get to level 12 and bring the subclasses up respectively. Your levels reflect your training and charecter development.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Taking a new class does not remove your old class. If you are a Cleric1/fighter1, your current class(es) include cleric and fighter. Cleric is not a new class. Intentionally misunderstanding rules is clever, but if you are going to do it, try harder.
Does it break the game? Yes. Each class gets subclass abilities at certain levels, and those subclass abilities are sometimes comparable and sometimes not. The early subclass abilities tend to be much more game-changing and powerful than the later ones for many classes. Skipping the fluff level 10 ability to take another crunch level 2 ability obviously breaks the game. Even within that, some level 10 abilities might be totally situational or useless whereas others are more generally applicable, and this is sometimes balanced with the applicability of other features within the subclass. It is a total powergaming move, and sure it is fine if that is the game you want to play. But there is no way to balance it against players following the rules, so you might as well let everyone in the group play gestalt characters at that point.
If you Took Cleric, then Fighter... Cleric isn't your current class, it is your old/first one. Fighter is your current class. You just took it. Current.
lol. Again, just joking.
This is an argument against multiclassing in general TBH. If you don't want people to have multiple low level abilities all in one character then just disallow multiclassing in your games, it is an optional rule for a reason. That said, allowing someone to multiclass subclasses doesn't break the game. It shifts the power scales, absolutely, but "break the game"? No. You'd have to be really bad at DMing for something like this to break your game. Add a few more HP, and extra + to hit, or even another enemy or two. Upscale their encounters slightly if your party is stronger mechanically. Game keeps on going without an issue. "Breaks the game" lol.
I got quotes!
Generally, multiclassing comes with drawbacks such as being MAD, or delaying spell level/class feature progression that are simply not present with "multi-sublcassing."
Sure low level abilities are good. But with a traditional multi-class, you have to make some sacrifices to get them and generally end up much worse off than you'd have if you'd just continued in one class (except for a few specific builds). Unless you're putting some sort of similar limitations for a multi-subclass, they're much stronger than any multiclass.
This ignores the complexities involved when your PCs are at wildly different power levels relative to each other: a combat designed to be difficult for a weak build may be a pushover because the stronger build is in the party, and if you challenge the stronger build, the weaker build may have no way to meaningfully contribute, or potentially even survive. It's one thing if a PC is choosing to be weak and accepting the consequences, but it's quite another for one PC to become incredibly powerful and then the others are weak by comparison without their consent. Resolving this situation well can be challenging for any GM.
Another hazard to be aware of is that the rules are not designed for this, and their wording won't be able to cope with it, natively. For example, suppose you're just being allowed to multiclass Fighter into itself. For clarity purposes, refer to each time you do this with a new letter, so your first Fighter class is FighterA, your second is FighterB, and so on. One of the first questions that will come up when comparing someone with 2 levels of FighterA as opposed to 1 level each of FighterA and FighterB is how Second Wind is even intended to work - the multiclassing rules cover abilities with the same name stacking, like Extra Attack, but not in a generic way. Does FighterA 1/FighterB 1 mean the same second wind, i.e. 1/short rest heal 1d10+2? That's more or less how multiclassing spell slots work. Two copies, so 2/short rest heal 1d10+1? Channel Divinity explicitly doesn't work like this, implying this should not be allowed. Two overlapping copies, so 1/short rest heal 1d10+1, like what happens with stacking Extra Attack? These decisions may radically change the balance of your entire table.
This isn't an issue with allowing this to happen any more than it already exists. Put a PHB ranger in with a Twilight Cleric. Watch the power dynamic. If you haven't figured out how to resolve these kinds of issues you shouldn't be running games with all kinds of character options anyway. You're right that it can be difficult for new GMs, but new GMs should be the ones considering homebrewing all kinds of player customization to begin with, not opting into all kinds of optional rules and supplements.
It isn't ignoring the problem of balance that a GM needs, it is saying "Hey, if you're already going ham with crazy subclasses and optional rules or homebrew, this ain't going to break it any further than you already have".
No. You wouldn't do it like that. And I said this already. You would only multiclassing the subclass. Second Wind isn't a feature of the subclass, it is a feature of the class. You wouldn't get it twice any more than any other fighter gets it twice. You're a Fighter.
Think Fighter 6 (Champion3/Ek3) not Fighter-Champion 3/Fighter-Ek 3.
The goal is to pick up the capabilities of a different subclass of your same class, not start all over on the same class again. Starting all over on the same class again doesn't make any sense. Like, we're all aware this is fully into the weeds of homebrew, but that's the way to do it and make sense of the whole thing.
I got quotes!
Multiclassing almost always results in a far more powerful character in actual practice. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Look at ANY d&d optimization guides on how to build the most powerful character and they are ALL multiclasses.
I got quotes!
That's not a "almost always", that's a "almost never". Pull up a randomizer and randomize some multiclasses and you will very quickly realize the D&D Optimization guides exist for a reason.
Multi-classing is hard to do in a way that actually works (unless it's something like taking 2/1 levels in another class to avoid a terrible capstone, which I don't really count cause that's at max level and at worse you just get a useless feature compared to a useless capstone).
In addition, most of those optimization guides are often white-boxes that aren't optimizing for things like skills, fluff, or actual use, but purely damage (Granted, not always the case). There's almost some sacrifice that happens in one of the other pillars to compensate. As for it being more powerful, I mean, usually they're pretty bad in the early-game (lots of setup before the build becomes active) and are usually pretty bad in practice in the end-game. (I don't care of your build does 1000+ damage, my wizard has Invulnerability).
Edit: So they specialize heavily in one thing, which they do very well in the middle/late game. Then they get outclassed by spellcasters with 9th level spells cause those are gamebreaking (Invulnerability is a pretty ehh 9th level spell compared to like, Wish). This is all assuming your following a good optimization guide with the intentions of breaking the game, which most people aren't.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
....
If a single multiclass build exists that is more powerful than other single class builds, you have widened the power gap between players.
No one randomly generates a mix of classes. That's such a weird argument.
Multiclass opens your game up to increased power levels. This is objectively true. More options never means less powerful possible characters. This is such an obvious thing I can't believe I even need to reiterate it.
More options = More powerful combinations. Objective fact.
I got quotes!
Sorry then, got hung up on the "Multiclassing almost always results in a far more powerful character in actual practice. I'm not sure what you're talking about" which doesn't at all address any of the points of quindraco so I elaborated that power comes at a price (which you still haven't addressed).
My argument of randomly generating a mix of classes makes sense compared to your statement above (which I even referenced in said argument, with the "almost always" being "almost never", I did say almost), as it proves that all multiclassing does not "almost always" make a character better, and in fact can make a character worse if done incorrectly (and even if you do it correctly).
In either case, this doesn't reflect the points we've made that all multiclass combinations come at a heavy drawback that doesn't exist as much with subclass multi-classing which was the point of quindraco's argument. Quindraco's argument was that the multi-subclassing was more powerful than multi-classing, as it allowed you to gain similar benefits to multi-classing without losing any power like with multi-classing.
I do see your current point that the imbalance of allowing people to selectively choose subclasses isn't game-breaking or a massive imbalance compared to other options, even if it's a almost direct buff, because those who want to massively imbalance the game will do so regardless of homebrew rules or not.
Which is something I agree with and have said in the past.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
If you understand this, then you must understand that adding options with fewer drawbacks and better upsides is objectively better than existing options with more downsides and worse perks. Certainly you can’t be arguing that adding the ability to take multiple subclasses doesn’t increase the power of the available combinations above what is available in the rules at the same time as you are stating this objective fact.
I'm way late, but just searching this now for myself, as you said a different subclass isn't a new class, so the spell preparation should still be counted as being a level 10 wizard, you're basically saying they're the same class but they're not the same class where it suits your needs
No, all options increase possible number of combinations resulting in an increased power threshold. It is often referred to as 'power creep'. Over the lifecycle of a game like D&D as a new edition comes out there is an established baseline of power, and this baseline continued to gradually go up over time with every successive supplemental book that is released.
Any option increases the potential for a more powerful character to be generated.
What I'm saying, is that if you DM for a group and have already been dealing with this kind of potential power discrepancy, you already know how to manage it in your games, and if so, allowing multi(sub)classed characters isn't going to break anything. You already know how to deal with it. You've been dealing with it because your Ranger player thinks his dog is cute when it barks, and your Order Cleric is doubling your Rogue's DPR meanwhile the Wizard ends encounters without even a proper fight when the whim strikes him. Letting the Champion Fighter take a 3 level detour from advancing champion to instead pick up some battlemaster maneuvers isn't going to break your game.
I got quotes!
Raw and Rai it isn't allowed. That said, yeah, that's how I'd do it in my games if I had a player who wanted to do this.
I got quotes!
Need to find the reference but one of the game designers has clarified you cannot take multiple subclasses of the same class.
The problem is that the person who wants to optimize probably isn’t the champion fighter, it is the Order cleric who is already doing the most damage and also wants to take the Peace CD too, and then the Twilight one after that, etc. Giving (much) better options to the min-maxers makes the power gap worse, not better, and the only way to fix that as a DM is to put an end to it or further marginalize the non-optimized characters.
To me the biggest issue is that a subclass only has certain levels associated with it, so if you multi-subclass, what do you do for the "dead" levels in between? Your options would be 1) to redo the main class levels or 2) you have a dead level where you gain absolutely nothing.
Only Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Clerics get their subclass at 1st level, Druids and Wizards at 2nd, and the rest at 3rd. So unless you are one of the first 3 that get a level 1 subclass, you either are wasting 1-2 whole levels or you are duplicating main class abilities that may wind up incredibly unbalanced (for example, martial classes with more extra attacks than usual or spellcasters with too many spell slots and spells known).
The best bet is to, as many others have said, make a custom subclass that substitutes other subclass abilities at the appropriate levels.
So in my mind, how this plays out is that you basically get your normal levels, then at every 3 levels you pick a new subclass. The subclasses level as normal, along side your main class. So at level 18 you have a level 15 subclass (1), a level 12 subclass (2), level 9 subclass (3), etc...
OR the even more "fun" get to level 18 and have 6 subclasses with the level 18 bonus from each subclass...
Not every subclass follows a "every three levels" approach (in fact none of them do?). Cleric is at 1, 6, 8, and 17; Monk 3, 6, 11, and 17. Warlock is at 1, 6, 10, and 14. Others are just as variable. But the gist of your concept is exactly what a lot of people have been saying; a custom subclass with different features at each subclass level.
The main issue with the above is that subclasses do not work based off every 3 levels. Also that is a insane amount of subclass bonuses. That would make for one very interesting character I'll give you that.
I think what most people do is that they just homebrew a subclass that has features from different subclasses. Like the first subclass feature from one subclass, then the second subclass feature from a different one, etc. Discuss with your DM how you want each subclass feature to be, and you can homebrew it in D&D beyond (probably can't publish it obviously, but you can still use it).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
So, as a DM late to the discussion ill say this after reading everyones answers.
You can not "Multi-class" by its very definition, however there is also no ruling against taking diffrent specializations its simply not Multi-Classing its somantics really, you take the word at its face value to multi class is to be multie classes which you are not
Now for my games (to balance since there was some problems folks pointed out) I would allow double specialization in a single class but like multi-classing you would have to keep track of individual levels. IE (Rouge assassin 3, Rouge trickster 3) youd be a 6th level Rouge but youd only have access to the lvl 3 abilities of the subclasses. There fore to get the level 6 abilities you would have to get to level 12 and bring the subclasses up respectively. Your levels reflect your training and charecter development.