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.
That would be incredibly powerful for any sufficiently front-loaded class, generally the ones that subclass at level 1 - so Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Clerics, especially.
I don't know what the rules for 'necroposting' are on this forum, but after reading through these answers, I'm wondering if some of the issues could be solved by requiring additional ability score minimums in order to multi-subclass. For example, under normal multiclassing rules you need a strength of 13 in order to pick up Barbarian. For existing Barbarians, it's a reasonable assumption that they already have a Strength of 13, so in order to multi-subclass, let's say they need a Constitution of 13 AND a Strength of 15. That way, they already have to be pretty good at the core ability of the class and, at least for the Barbarian, they'd need the higher durability of Constitution to take the strain of a second barbarian dip. I'm by no means an experienced DM so balance isn't my forte, but at least from a lore-based perspective, this would still line up.
Yes, people could still abuse the heck out of it, people will always abuse the mechanics if min/maxing is their goal, as they already do with Multiclassing RAW. And Barbarians needing high CON isn't a great example because most already do, maybe Wisdom as a second requirement? It seems to be the Primal Magic focus (Using One D&D terminology), being the ability score minimum for Druid multiclass, so I could see that working lore-wise. As stated previously, this is more a homebrew question than RAW, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. This may all be irrelevant when the One D&D/5.5e/6e/whatever playtest period is over, it just caught my attention.
Honestly this is where the homebrew would come in. The most balanced way to do this would be to treat all Hit Dice, Proficiency, Spells Known/Slots, Cantrip Scaling, and Spells Prepared as using character level, as you are still the same class.
Then, start the multi-subclass from level 1. The 2nd class would not obtain any class features that are not specifically Ability Score Increase or Subclass Features - this prevents a lot of the comments about "stacking slots" for wizards/warlocks. For instance you'd have:
Character Level (CL) 1 - Rogue 1 (All features of the class)
CL 2 - Rogue 2 (All features)
CL 3 - Assassin Subclass (All features)
CL 4 - Multiclass Rogue 1 (No class features gained; statistics that scale off character level still scale)
CL 5 - Multiclass Rogue 2 (No class features gained; character level scaling applies)
I'd probably say though that most classes just wouldn't work -- such as Warlock Patrons (they could I guess); Cleric Domains (would need to be adjusted to list "overlapping" domains), Druids (doubt you could be in two Circles at once); Paladins (Would be difficult to have unwavering conviction for the oaths of one path and a second path at the same time); Monks (again, a discipline and dedication thing); and Sorcerer (you'd only have 1 'source' for your sorcererous origin since it is an origin)
Really, multi-subclassing only makes sense for Artificer, Fighters, Rogues, and Wizards; with maybe some argument for Bard, Barbarian, and Ranger.
EDIT: Additional option to just do single class leveling and at every 'Subclass Feature' for the class, allow the player to take a second subclass if they haven't -- and if they do, they start receiving the subclass features of that class starting from their 3rd-level features --- so using Rogue that gets Subclass Features at 3/9/13/17 - if at 9th-level the player took a 2nd subclass, then they would receive the 2nd subclass's 3rd-level features at 9th-character-level; the 9th-level features at 13th-character level; and the 13th at character level 17. Probably for balancing on this one, they'd have to give up taking the features of their main subclass in order to get the features of the second subclass (otherwise there'd be no reason not to multi-subclass).
Frankly the real issue here is that the people who made D&D did something stupid by not considering this as a thing and making it a reality in some official way. I mean really, what is an archmage if not someone who has mastered multiple paths (subclassses) of wizadry? Similarly what is a "battlemaster" if not someone who has done the same in the ways of the fighter? What about a Barbarian who has united multiple clans into a massive Barbarian horde and is preparing to assault the civilized lands? What about the "wandering monk" who travels the world seeking new truths, wisdom and learnings? Who visits many temples on his journey of enlightment? Hell, even the "combat monk" works. Look at fighters in real life who make their own fighting style. How do they usually do it? By learning multiple styles, and combining portions into a single cohesive style of their own!
The fact that this has been brought up in every single edition since sub-classes even existed shows it only makes narrative sense and frankly, is more likely than multiclassing into things outside your main class. Look at real life, does a doctor suddenly become a laywer, or do they expand their craft by learning other types of medicine? Sure, both things happen, but which happens more often? I'll tell you. More often, the doctor goes and gets a second specialty to expand their current practice. Typically, the doctor who becomes a lawyer, does so because they weren't as successful as they wished as a doctor, or because they hated it and never want to practice again. Or because they lost their license.
The idea of multiclassing into various sub-classes being somehow "a big no no" vs multiclassing into entirely different classes is ******* absurd, and frankly, D&D as a whole has been stupid to not have fixed this long ago. Yet another reason people jump to Pathfinder... Really, this should have long been handled.
Quite simply, they need to make rules for this, and it needs to be done in a way that makes playing this way viable rather than just a shittier option compared to multiclassing as-is. Maybe let class abilities stack if they're from different sub-classes or something. Figure it out.
in my game you may take the same class twice but basic class abilities do not stack. the only thing you get is the second subclass that has unique abilities. if they share a unique ability then you take which ever one is the most potent. they do not stack. The rules are there to serve you and you're players, not the other way around.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That would be incredibly powerful for any sufficiently front-loaded class, generally the ones that subclass at level 1 - so Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Clerics, especially.
How about different Domains as a Cleric? Light with Tempest could be a lot of fun.
I don't know what the rules for 'necroposting' are on this forum, but after reading through these answers, I'm wondering if some of the issues could be solved by requiring additional ability score minimums in order to multi-subclass. For example, under normal multiclassing rules you need a strength of 13 in order to pick up Barbarian. For existing Barbarians, it's a reasonable assumption that they already have a Strength of 13, so in order to multi-subclass, let's say they need a Constitution of 13 AND a Strength of 15. That way, they already have to be pretty good at the core ability of the class and, at least for the Barbarian, they'd need the higher durability of Constitution to take the strain of a second barbarian dip. I'm by no means an experienced DM so balance isn't my forte, but at least from a lore-based perspective, this would still line up.
Yes, people could still abuse the heck out of it, people will always abuse the mechanics if min/maxing is their goal, as they already do with Multiclassing RAW. And Barbarians needing high CON isn't a great example because most already do, maybe Wisdom as a second requirement? It seems to be the Primal Magic focus (Using One D&D terminology), being the ability score minimum for Druid multiclass, so I could see that working lore-wise. As stated previously, this is more a homebrew question than RAW, just thought I'd throw in my two cents. This may all be irrelevant when the One D&D/5.5e/6e/whatever playtest period is over, it just caught my attention.
Honestly this is where the homebrew would come in. The most balanced way to do this would be to treat all Hit Dice, Proficiency, Spells Known/Slots, Cantrip Scaling, and Spells Prepared as using character level, as you are still the same class.
Then, start the multi-subclass from level 1. The 2nd class would not obtain any class features that are not specifically Ability Score Increase or Subclass Features - this prevents a lot of the comments about "stacking slots" for wizards/warlocks. For instance you'd have:
I'd probably say though that most classes just wouldn't work -- such as Warlock Patrons (they could I guess); Cleric Domains (would need to be adjusted to list "overlapping" domains), Druids (doubt you could be in two Circles at once); Paladins (Would be difficult to have unwavering conviction for the oaths of one path and a second path at the same time); Monks (again, a discipline and dedication thing); and Sorcerer (you'd only have 1 'source' for your sorcererous origin since it is an origin)
Really, multi-subclassing only makes sense for Artificer, Fighters, Rogues, and Wizards; with maybe some argument for Bard, Barbarian, and Ranger.
EDIT: Additional option to just do single class leveling and at every 'Subclass Feature' for the class, allow the player to take a second subclass if they haven't -- and if they do, they start receiving the subclass features of that class starting from their 3rd-level features --- so using Rogue that gets Subclass Features at 3/9/13/17 - if at 9th-level the player took a 2nd subclass, then they would receive the 2nd subclass's 3rd-level features at 9th-character-level; the 9th-level features at 13th-character level; and the 13th at character level 17. Probably for balancing on this one, they'd have to give up taking the features of their main subclass in order to get the features of the second subclass (otherwise there'd be no reason not to multi-subclass).
Frankly the real issue here is that the people who made D&D did something stupid by not considering this as a thing and making it a reality in some official way. I mean really, what is an archmage if not someone who has mastered multiple paths (subclassses) of wizadry? Similarly what is a "battlemaster" if not someone who has done the same in the ways of the fighter? What about a Barbarian who has united multiple clans into a massive Barbarian horde and is preparing to assault the civilized lands? What about the "wandering monk" who travels the world seeking new truths, wisdom and learnings? Who visits many temples on his journey of enlightment? Hell, even the "combat monk" works. Look at fighters in real life who make their own fighting style. How do they usually do it? By learning multiple styles, and combining portions into a single cohesive style of their own!
The fact that this has been brought up in every single edition since sub-classes even existed shows it only makes narrative sense and frankly, is more likely than multiclassing into things outside your main class. Look at real life, does a doctor suddenly become a laywer, or do they expand their craft by learning other types of medicine? Sure, both things happen, but which happens more often? I'll tell you. More often, the doctor goes and gets a second specialty to expand their current practice. Typically, the doctor who becomes a lawyer, does so because they weren't as successful as they wished as a doctor, or because they hated it and never want to practice again. Or because they lost their license.
The idea of multiclassing into various sub-classes being somehow "a big no no" vs multiclassing into entirely different classes is ******* absurd, and frankly, D&D as a whole has been stupid to not have fixed this long ago. Yet another reason people jump to Pathfinder... Really, this should have long been handled.
Quite simply, they need to make rules for this, and it needs to be done in a way that makes playing this way viable rather than just a shittier option compared to multiclassing as-is. Maybe let class abilities stack if they're from different sub-classes or something. Figure it out.
Multi-class into Rogue. Each level.
5 levels of 1st level rogue - 6d6 sneak attack. (instead of 3d6 at lvl 5 rogue)
mWAHAHAAHAH.
You can't stack the same feature your 5*1st level rogue only does 1d6 sneak attack.
Alternativle you couulld say sneak attack is based on total roague class level as you have 5 levels of rogue you get 3d6
Anyway you can't get 5d6
I know. It's was funny.
in my game you may take the same class twice but basic class abilities do not stack. the only thing you get is the second subclass that has unique abilities. if they share a unique ability then you take which ever one is the most potent. they do not stack. The rules are there to serve you and you're players, not the other way around.