I will say as things currently stand I expect a lot of ranger dips And more complaints "there's no reason to stay ranger"
However I am not sure the way forward is as op described. 5e already had some traits "while not wearing armor...." o "can't concentrate while..." ect each with various degrees of success.
I think the main thing they need are consistent and good benefits as you level. Full spell casters don't MC much in optimizer circles outside of maybe one level dips here and there. And that is because every 2 levels they get that sweet sweet next spell level. Way too many martials drop out of getting useful features around level 5 so multi classing looks good. But if every level you were getting something awesome and the things you got were more powerful than your previous levels benefits you'd stick around as it would usually be better than 2 low level benefits.
Basically fix the core class design for martials so they power up every couple levels like they were gaining a spell level.
I am against multiclasses because, in my opinion, they spoil the theme of the classes. There are usually subclasses that can fit your character concept without turning your main class theme into a joke. And then there are backgrounds, feats, and your own narrative to complete whatever concept you want to play without multiclassing. Also, most multiclasses you see out there are actually less effective than a singleclass, no matter how hard people try. That said, I don't like the solution proposed in this thread to make multiclasses less attractive. Firstly because in most cases, multiclassing is already less attractive except at very high levels where you have achieved almost everything that your main class can give you. And people don't care. So even if you penalize multiclassing more, already highly penalized, people will continue to do it. And second because losing things is not a good thing for the game. You talk about hitpoints, but realize that if you multiclass you don't lose hitpoints, you stop gaining them. Literally all the drawbacks of a multiclass are that you stop gaining things, or that you delay their acquisition. But never lose things, which would be a terrible design.
I think the main thing they need are consistent and good benefits as you level. Full spell casters don't MC much in optimizer circles outside of maybe one level dips here and there. And that is because every 2 levels they get that sweet sweet next spell level. Way too many martials drop out of getting useful features around level 5 so multi classing looks good. But if every level you were getting something awesome and the things you got were more powerful than your previous levels benefits you'd stick around as it would usually be better than 2 low level benefits.
Basically fix the core class design for martials so they power up every couple levels like they were gaining a spell level.
This is a theme I'm seeing - martials suck as they get to higher levels. There's what you've mentioned, but also the main thing I gather from the martial v caster debate is that casters get really cool stuff at higher levels whereas martials generally don't. In some ways, I think the latest UA exacerbates this by bringing in the capstones earlier.
My feeling is that the martials just need to be fixed. Give them some cool high end abilities and MCing becomes less attractive and the martial a caster debates will subside - two birds with one stone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The issues in multiclassing need addressing within the features that create the overpowered builds, and that is all. IIRC Jeremy Crawford said they are taking the opportunity to streamline multiclassing within one D&D. Why would WotC want to streamline multiclassing? Because the feature is popular with player but it is a little janky in implementation, multiclassing fundamentally is good for the game and trying to destroy or remove it only makes the game worse.
What needs addressing is that the costs to MC need to return to the front end of the concept rather than the backend as has been the norm since 3e. As I asked up thread how much of a "price" is that OP build at lower levels if the "cost" is deferred to a level of the game the player knows they will never see?
Then you're not reading what people are saying. There is an IMMEDIATE COST, features are delayed. If a level 4 Paladin takes a level in warlock to get hexblade, they are pushing back extra attack to level 6, they are pushing back aura of protection until level 7, they are pushing back a sub class feature to level 8, the 3rd level paladin spells until level 10 and their subclass. It is not just the Epic Boon that is the cost but the fact that class features come online later.
I will say as things currently stand I expect a lot of ranger dips And more complaints "there's no reason to stay ranger"
However I am not sure the way forward is as op described. 5e already had some traits "while not wearing armor...." o "can't concentrate while..." ect each with various degrees of success.
I do think the new Favored Enemy should have been delayed until level 2, so it is at least a 2 level dip, and some might even be tempted for the 3rd level for a subclass feature. I would say going by the current expert classes tho a ranger 5/rogue 5 does seem quiet viable. From ranger you get extra attack, hunter's mark, 2nd level primal spells and from rogue you get sneak attack, cunning action and uncanny dodge. Then from subclasses you're get climb speed, dexterity based jump, and potentially an extra 1d8 damage.
Some good spell choices for it too
cantrips: Message, Mending, Guidance
level 1: Healing word, Entangle, Hunter's Mark (permanently prepared), Ensnaring Strike, Thunderwave, Fog Cloud
Does multiclassing break the balance of the game utterly and completely? No, it doesn't. Thus does it really need to be fixed? Not really. Even with the most optimized of multiclass builds at 20th level, you still aren't going to break the game anymore than it already is at those levels. Multiclassing is fine as it is, even the 1 level dips. If people enjoy doing those dips, let them. If you don't like them doing those dips, just don't allow them at your games or show them that they aren't needed by making more effective characters without those dips.
Though, I think it is worth noting that currently, you can obtain the Epic Boons as a multiclass characters as all of the boons are listed as 20th level feats. Meaning if you gain a feat at 20th level (1/19, 4/16/, or 8/12 level splits), then you would be able to pick a boon for your last feat. You are giving up a feat doing it this way, but you can still get the epic boon.
[...] If a level 4 Paladin takes a level in warlock to get hexblade, they are pushing back extra attack to level 6, they are pushing back aura of protection until level 7, they are pushing back a sub class feature to level 8, the 3rd level paladin spells until level 10 and their subclass. It is not just the Epic Boon that is the cost but the fact that class features come online later.
That's actually one of the cases where what you gain from multiclassing is worth it beyond slowing down your progress. I'm sure that multiclass, as well as Warlock + Sorcerer, are going to be limited in some way. And my bet is that they're going to tweak the warlock enough that a single level of warlock won't give you that much.
[...] If a level 4 Paladin takes a level in warlock to get hexblade, they are pushing back extra attack to level 6, they are pushing back aura of protection until level 7, they are pushing back a sub class feature to level 8, the 3rd level paladin spells until level 10 and their subclass. It is not just the Epic Boon that is the cost but the fact that class features come online later.
That's actually one of the cases where what you gain from multiclassing is worth it beyond slowing down your progress. I'm sure that multiclass, as well as Warlock + Sorcerer, are going to be limited in some way. And my bet is that they're going to tweak the warlock enough that a single level of warlock won't give you that much.
It is, that is why I choose that example, what you get is more than the delayed progression but the delayed progression is still a "cost", which goes back to a fundamental point I made earlier which is that in these cases, what needs fixing isn't "multiclassing", it's the features that allow for overpowered builds. You don't actually need multiclassing to get overpowered builds in the first place, some features are just broken, which is why Hexblade without multiclassing is also overpowered. It can do more damage with Eldritch blast than pretty much any other warlock build and yet is supposed to be the martial weapon user.
In truth multiclassing works best when the value of net gain is equal to the value of net loss, but getting a "perfect" balance will never happen, however that is already an issue between classes and subclasses anyways.
[...] If a level 4 Paladin takes a level in warlock to get hexblade, they are pushing back extra attack to level 6, they are pushing back aura of protection until level 7, they are pushing back a sub class feature to level 8, the 3rd level paladin spells until level 10 and their subclass. It is not just the Epic Boon that is the cost but the fact that class features come online later.
That's actually one of the cases where what you gain from multiclassing is worth it beyond slowing down your progress. I'm sure that multiclass, as well as Warlock + Sorcerer, are going to be limited in some way. And my bet is that they're going to tweak the warlock enough that a single level of warlock won't give you that much.
It is, that is why I choose that example, what you get is more than the delayed progression but the delayed progression is still a "cost", which goes back to a fundamental point I made earlier which is that in these cases, what needs fixing isn't "multiclassing", it's the features that allow for overpowered builds. You don't actually need multiclassing to get overpowered builds in the first place, some features are just broken, which is why Hexblade without multiclassing is also overpowered. It can do more damage with Eldritch blast than pretty much any other warlock build and yet is supposed to be the martial weapon user.
In truth multiclassing works best when the value of net gain is equal to the value of net loss, but getting a "perfect" balance will never happen, however that is already an issue between classes and subclasses anyways.
Yeah, it has to be noted that most multiclass combinations are weaker than single classing. Very few are on par and even fewer are slightly better, and hexblade multiclass. Even if you look at hexblade multiclassing, call it broken or overpowered is an exaggeration; they don't warp the game's overall balance.
So honestly, multiclassing is fine in 5E, always has been.
The problem in D&D5e that is no restrictions and hardness to take multiclass. In reality if you want to learn a profession (not take new job), it is a lot of time and not just a simple decision. To learn wizzard, it would take ten years. A sorcerer can be inner power so it can awaken in yourself immediately. Learning priest also not a minute, but a god can choosen you. When you can learn a tool in x days or month, you can learn a whole profession in very short time. An this is a very big problem. At lvl 1 and 2, there are classes which get a lot of classfeats, and that should be avoided. For example: should spread them to higher levels.
I'm still not sure what the problem with MCing really is beyond "ewww, I don't like it".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The problem in D&D5e that is no restrictions and hardness to take multiclass. In reality if you want to learn a profession (not take new job), it is a lot of time and not just a simple decision. To learn wizzard, it would take ten years. A sorcerer can be inner power so it can awaken in yourself immediately. Learning priest also not a minute, but a god can choosen you. When you can learn a tool in x days or month, you can learn a whole profession in very short time. An this is a very big problem. At lvl 1 and 2, there are classes which get a lot of classfeats, and that should be avoided. For example: should spread them to higher levels.
There is a restriction, 13+ in one or more stats for both your current class and the class you want to multiclass into. The average commoner has 10 across the board so even the bare minimum requirement has you above average. In the more likely case, you have a 16 in the primary stat, which puts you in like the top 1% when it comes to that stat.
Adventurers are special and it is not like they are necessary learning from scratch. They are likely applying prior experience to help them.
There is no big problem with 5E multiclassing, never has been.
This is a good view. Never considered this way before.
But still i would spread at some class the lvl1-lvl2 classfeats to 3 or 4 levels for balancing reasons.
By what has been said and the changes we have already seen, what we seem to be seeing is the following
Level 1: Keystone (class) feature + Group Feature
Level 2: Class feature
Level 3: Subclass
Level 4: Feat
With an additional class feature at 1st or 2nd, Bard does mess it up slightly since they get expertise at 2nd level instead of 1st, and I see no reason why that is the case.
As of the Expert Classes, the only one that has an issue is Ranger who at first level get Spellcasting (keystone), Expertise(group feature) and Favored enemy (class feature). Favored enemy should be moved to 2nd level with the fighting style (class feature)
As of 5E, the two most abused level 1 features are likely both Cleric and Warlock, both of which got an archetype feature at level 1(domain and patron, respectively), so the overpowered parts of those archetypes should hopefully be pushed back to level 3 and personally I don't think having class features be higher is necessary, a 2 level dip is already big and salivates the glands with the subclasses right there with just 1 more level.
This is a good view. Never considered this way before.
But still i would spread at some class the lvl1-lvl2 classfeats to 3 or 4 levels for balancing reasons.
By what has been said and the changes we have already seen, what we seem to be seeing is the following
Level 1: Keystone (class) feature + Group Feature
Level 2: Class feature
Level 3: Subclass
Level 4: Feat
With an additional class feature at 1st or 2nd, Bard does mess it up slightly since they get expertise at 2nd level instead of 1st, and I see no reason why that is the case.
As of the Expert Classes, the only one that has an issue is Ranger who at first level get Spellcasting (keystone), Expertise(group feature) and Favored enemy (class feature). Favored enemy should be moved to 2nd level with the fighting style (class feature)
As of 5E, the two most abused level 1 features are likely both Cleric and Warlock, both of which got an archetype feature at level 1(domain and patron, respectively), so the overpowered parts of those archetypes should hopefully be pushed back to level 3 and personally I don't think having class features be higher is necessary, a 2 level dip is already big and salivates the glands with the subclasses right there with just 1 more level.
I don't think they will be changing how Cleric and Warlocks subclasses work due to how they work lore wise. They pick their archetype immediately because of how they are gaining their spellcasting.
Plus, I wouldn't call ANY current 5E multiclassing overpowered. Single Classes can keep up with the sweatiest of multiclass combos.
This is a good view. Never considered this way before.
But still i would spread at some class the lvl1-lvl2 classfeats to 3 or 4 levels for balancing reasons.
There really isn't too much of an issue balance wise because there are always some trade offs. For example, any spellcasting multiclassing has you delaying your spell progression which is huge. This isn't like 3.5E where multiclassing puts you heads and shoulders above; optimally built single classes can easily keep up with the most optimized multiclass combinations.
This is a good view. Never considered this way before.
But still i would spread at some class the lvl1-lvl2 classfeats to 3 or 4 levels for balancing reasons.
By what has been said and the changes we have already seen, what we seem to be seeing is the following
Level 1: Keystone (class) feature + Group Feature
Level 2: Class feature
Level 3: Subclass
Level 4: Feat
With an additional class feature at 1st or 2nd, Bard does mess it up slightly since they get expertise at 2nd level instead of 1st, and I see no reason why that is the case.
As of the Expert Classes, the only one that has an issue is Ranger who at first level get Spellcasting (keystone), Expertise(group feature) and Favored enemy (class feature). Favored enemy should be moved to 2nd level with the fighting style (class feature)
As of 5E, the two most abused level 1 features are likely both Cleric and Warlock, both of which got an archetype feature at level 1(domain and patron, respectively), so the overpowered parts of those archetypes should hopefully be pushed back to level 3 and personally I don't think having class features be higher is necessary, a 2 level dip is already big and salivates the glands with the subclasses right there with just 1 more level.
I don't think they will be changing how Cleric and Warlocks subclasses work due to how they work lore wise. They pick their archetype immediately because of how they are gaining their spellcasting.
Plus, I wouldn't call ANY current 5E multiclassing overpowered. Single Classes can keep up with the sweatiest of multiclass combos.
They may still have choices at level 1, but I'd suspect they will be lessened to at most just spell selection. I suspect the whole, Hex Warrior on hexblade at level 1 or Disciple of Life on life cleric at level 1 kind of stuff will be gone (or moved to later levels), but the way the interviews went, made it sound like they are standardizing everything around subclasses and their levels, so all classes get subclass at level 3, and then features at levels 6, 10 and 14, for all classes.
That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
Erm no, Multiclassing does not do that, the fact classes were poorly designed did that. Which is why we see in UA that Ranger got some massive buffs because Ranger was underpowered, Monk also was massively underpowered, meanwhile Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric were all overpowered and Druid and Bard were basically above average too. Paladins top the martials while some of the Barbarian subclasses got near no more features for DPR after level 5. The classes weren't working as intended, which again was shown by the critical change they tested in character origins playtest. 5E had some big issues with class balance, not that perfect balance is needed; Multiclassing however didn't break things worse than could already be done without multiclassing.
This again, is just about your personal bias and not about what is good for the game. You don't like multiclassing, we get it, but again, the changes you purpose are just terrible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
I will say as things currently stand I expect a lot of ranger dips And more complaints "there's no reason to stay ranger"
However I am not sure the way forward is as op described. 5e already had some traits "while not wearing armor...." o "can't concentrate while..." ect each with various degrees of success.
I think the main thing they need are consistent and good benefits as you level. Full spell casters don't MC much in optimizer circles outside of maybe one level dips here and there. And that is because every 2 levels they get that sweet sweet next spell level. Way too many martials drop out of getting useful features around level 5 so multi classing looks good. But if every level you were getting something awesome and the things you got were more powerful than your previous levels benefits you'd stick around as it would usually be better than 2 low level benefits.
Basically fix the core class design for martials so they power up every couple levels like they were gaining a spell level.
I am against multiclasses because, in my opinion, they spoil the theme of the classes. There are usually subclasses that can fit your character concept without turning your main class theme into a joke. And then there are backgrounds, feats, and your own narrative to complete whatever concept you want to play without multiclassing.
Also, most multiclasses you see out there are actually less effective than a singleclass, no matter how hard people try.
That said, I don't like the solution proposed in this thread to make multiclasses less attractive. Firstly because in most cases, multiclassing is already less attractive except at very high levels where you have achieved almost everything that your main class can give you. And people don't care. So even if you penalize multiclassing more, already highly penalized, people will continue to do it.
And second because losing things is not a good thing for the game. You talk about hitpoints, but realize that if you multiclass you don't lose hitpoints, you stop gaining them. Literally all the drawbacks of a multiclass are that you stop gaining things, or that you delay their acquisition. But never lose things, which would be a terrible design.
This is a theme I'm seeing - martials suck as they get to higher levels. There's what you've mentioned, but also the main thing I gather from the martial v caster debate is that casters get really cool stuff at higher levels whereas martials generally don't. In some ways, I think the latest UA exacerbates this by bringing in the capstones earlier.
My feeling is that the martials just need to be fixed. Give them some cool high end abilities and MCing becomes less attractive and the martial a caster debates will subside - two birds with one stone.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Then you're not reading what people are saying. There is an IMMEDIATE COST, features are delayed. If a level 4 Paladin takes a level in warlock to get hexblade, they are pushing back extra attack to level 6, they are pushing back aura of protection until level 7, they are pushing back a sub class feature to level 8, the 3rd level paladin spells until level 10 and their subclass. It is not just the Epic Boon that is the cost but the fact that class features come online later.
I do think the new Favored Enemy should have been delayed until level 2, so it is at least a 2 level dip, and some might even be tempted for the 3rd level for a subclass feature. I would say going by the current expert classes tho a ranger 5/rogue 5 does seem quiet viable. From ranger you get extra attack, hunter's mark, 2nd level primal spells and from rogue you get sneak attack, cunning action and uncanny dodge. Then from subclasses you're get climb speed, dexterity based jump, and potentially an extra 1d8 damage.
Some good spell choices for it too
cantrips: Message, Mending, Guidance
level 1: Healing word, Entangle, Hunter's Mark (permanently prepared), Ensnaring Strike, Thunderwave, Fog Cloud
level 2: Find traps, Locate Object, Barkskin, Pass without Trace, Spike Growth
Then just continue with rogue from then on. That is as per the UA, I believe to be quiet a viable multiclass.
Does multiclassing break the balance of the game utterly and completely? No, it doesn't. Thus does it really need to be fixed? Not really. Even with the most optimized of multiclass builds at 20th level, you still aren't going to break the game anymore than it already is at those levels. Multiclassing is fine as it is, even the 1 level dips. If people enjoy doing those dips, let them. If you don't like them doing those dips, just don't allow them at your games or show them that they aren't needed by making more effective characters without those dips.
Though, I think it is worth noting that currently, you can obtain the Epic Boons as a multiclass characters as all of the boons are listed as 20th level feats. Meaning if you gain a feat at 20th level (1/19, 4/16/, or 8/12 level splits), then you would be able to pick a boon for your last feat. You are giving up a feat doing it this way, but you can still get the epic boon.
That's actually one of the cases where what you gain from multiclassing is worth it beyond slowing down your progress.
I'm sure that multiclass, as well as Warlock + Sorcerer, are going to be limited in some way. And my bet is that they're going to tweak the warlock enough that a single level of warlock won't give you that much.
It is, that is why I choose that example, what you get is more than the delayed progression but the delayed progression is still a "cost", which goes back to a fundamental point I made earlier which is that in these cases, what needs fixing isn't "multiclassing", it's the features that allow for overpowered builds. You don't actually need multiclassing to get overpowered builds in the first place, some features are just broken, which is why Hexblade without multiclassing is also overpowered. It can do more damage with Eldritch blast than pretty much any other warlock build and yet is supposed to be the martial weapon user.
In truth multiclassing works best when the value of net gain is equal to the value of net loss, but getting a "perfect" balance will never happen, however that is already an issue between classes and subclasses anyways.
Yeah, it has to be noted that most multiclass combinations are weaker than single classing. Very few are on par and even fewer are slightly better, and hexblade multiclass. Even if you look at hexblade multiclassing, call it broken or overpowered is an exaggeration; they don't warp the game's overall balance.
So honestly, multiclassing is fine in 5E, always has been.
The problem in D&D5e that is no restrictions and hardness to take multiclass. In reality if you want to learn a profession (not take new job), it is a lot of time and not just a simple decision. To learn wizzard, it would take ten years. A sorcerer can be inner power so it can awaken in yourself immediately. Learning priest also not a minute, but a god can choosen you. When you can learn a tool in x days or month, you can learn a whole profession in very short time. An this is a very big problem.
At lvl 1 and 2, there are classes which get a lot of classfeats, and that should be avoided. For example: should spread them to higher levels.
I'm still not sure what the problem with MCing really is beyond "ewww, I don't like it".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There is a restriction, 13+ in one or more stats for both your current class and the class you want to multiclass into. The average commoner has 10 across the board so even the bare minimum requirement has you above average. In the more likely case, you have a 16 in the primary stat, which puts you in like the top 1% when it comes to that stat.
Adventurers are special and it is not like they are necessary learning from scratch. They are likely applying prior experience to help them.
There is no big problem with 5E multiclassing, never has been.
This is a good view. Never considered this way before.
But still i would spread at some class the lvl1-lvl2 classfeats to 3 or 4 levels for balancing reasons.
By what has been said and the changes we have already seen, what we seem to be seeing is the following
Level 1: Keystone (class) feature + Group Feature
Level 2: Class feature
Level 3: Subclass
Level 4: Feat
With an additional class feature at 1st or 2nd, Bard does mess it up slightly since they get expertise at 2nd level instead of 1st, and I see no reason why that is the case.
As of the Expert Classes, the only one that has an issue is Ranger who at first level get Spellcasting (keystone), Expertise(group feature) and Favored enemy (class feature). Favored enemy should be moved to 2nd level with the fighting style (class feature)
As of 5E, the two most abused level 1 features are likely both Cleric and Warlock, both of which got an archetype feature at level 1(domain and patron, respectively), so the overpowered parts of those archetypes should hopefully be pushed back to level 3 and personally I don't think having class features be higher is necessary, a 2 level dip is already big and salivates the glands with the subclasses right there with just 1 more level.
I don't think they will be changing how Cleric and Warlocks subclasses work due to how they work lore wise. They pick their archetype immediately because of how they are gaining their spellcasting.
Plus, I wouldn't call ANY current 5E multiclassing overpowered. Single Classes can keep up with the sweatiest of multiclass combos.
There really isn't too much of an issue balance wise because there are always some trade offs. For example, any spellcasting multiclassing has you delaying your spell progression which is huge. This isn't like 3.5E where multiclassing puts you heads and shoulders above; optimally built single classes can easily keep up with the most optimized multiclass combinations.
They may still have choices at level 1, but I'd suspect they will be lessened to at most just spell selection. I suspect the whole, Hex Warrior on hexblade at level 1 or Disciple of Life on life cleric at level 1 kind of stuff will be gone (or moved to later levels), but the way the interviews went, made it sound like they are standardizing everything around subclasses and their levels, so all classes get subclass at level 3, and then features at levels 6, 10 and 14, for all classes.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
Abide.
Erm no, Multiclassing does not do that, the fact classes were poorly designed did that. Which is why we see in UA that Ranger got some massive buffs because Ranger was underpowered, Monk also was massively underpowered, meanwhile Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric were all overpowered and Druid and Bard were basically above average too. Paladins top the martials while some of the Barbarian subclasses got near no more features for DPR after level 5. The classes weren't working as intended, which again was shown by the critical change they tested in character origins playtest. 5E had some big issues with class balance, not that perfect balance is needed; Multiclassing however didn't break things worse than could already be done without multiclassing.
This again, is just about your personal bias and not about what is good for the game. You don't like multiclassing, we get it, but again, the changes you purpose are just terrible.