As the title says...I think my biggest complaint so far is the lack of Multiclassing, even if not all the classes are available yet. I'd rather do a LVL1 Rogue / LVL3 Warlock maybe than play either class straight (mainly to get a better group of Skills for a Face who picks locks and finds traps).

*BUMP!*

Yeah, looking forward to this myself. I normally always play multiclass in pnp so why not here?

Same.

I'm not sure why they can't implement it soon with what they already have in terms of features (unless a lot of coding and design has yet to be done).

Even if you have a very limited class selection, I think dip characters are more interesting, and it would help make most of the classes "Faces" for the story.

Bump

I think you are not getting answers because no one really knows aside from Larian.

they haven't given any indication on when we can expect anything new.

Taking how awful multiclassing in 5e - should be a very low priority for Larian.

Not to be challenging, just curious what makes Multiclassing so bad in 5e specifically?

I would guess multiclassing will only come in a later stage in the EA. I would assume them to first want to see the classes themselves working and being balanced (and working) before they have to worry about combinations. Also multiclassing won't be that interesting when you have such a low level cap.

Same could be said about most of 5e. It's a very poorly defined and not very well thought out system. Doesn't mean this game can't be better.

Actually I'm going to argue that Multiclassing helps to keep it all a bit more interesting.

Multiclassing helps even at low levels when it comes to making most of the races relevant. For example. If you're not picking a class that gets Perception as a skill and you want your character to be the party's Face/Rogue-lite, then you might as well pick Wood Elf (who also gets Perception AND Stealth AND extra movement, all for free) over all of the other classes. Even if you have to wait to fourth level to get another +2 in a primary stat.

Whereas with Multiclassing you can rely on a 1 level dip to gain a better spread of skills for a Face and pick just about any race for more diverse combinations that still net you relevant skills.

This could also be addressed to a lesser degree by adding more backgrounds from supplement books, but I'd much rather play a LVL01 Rogue/LVL03 Warlock, even with the cap at 4, and choose a different race.

I actually love 5e, it brought me back to D&D after being away from it since 2nd Edition.

I think the rules are fine, I just wish we had more of them to lean on (like Multiclassing) from the start to encourage a wide diversity of characters, while still allowing for the fact that it's a video game and not P&P (where you will need a Face and a Rogue no matter what in some combination).

Power balance issue on 3.5 and Pathfinder (not early) was really shock, and DM should organize them with giving poor PCs good items, or prohibit multi-class which is OP, these kind of issues are more terrible than 5e on my opinion, even bad for making game as Computer game.

Multiclass Abominations have always been OP in any game.

I disagree here. I've DM'd a lot of 5e. Multiclasses can be strong, but they also lose out on basic stat and spell progression.

It's mainly skill access and some OK spell/ability combos that helps with Multiclass. And again, it encourages people to use different types of Races more.

A basic Moon Druid can wipe the floor with everyone in an early game of D&D 5e, without needing much of anything, but for every class like that there's a Dozen others which really benefit from a small 1-3 level Dip.

Multiclassing has rarely been a problem in 5e that I'm aware of, with the only serious exception I can think of being the coffeelock (Warlock that turns their spells into sorcery points, short-rests, accumulates more warlock slots, more points, ad infinitum, resulting in endless points and in some cases dipping into paladin for arbitrarily huge smites.) Even if there are issues, multiclassing takes both patience and significant game knowledge to optimize like that, and unless there is a competitive aspect of the game against other players, what would it matter if there are some broken combos? with the element of surprise you can kill everything with enough explosive barrels or other cheesy tactics anyway. You don't have to use them, and multiclassing offers a ton of fun for both theory crafting new interesting builds and new interesting character concepts.

Well, not all as awfully bad in 5e as multiclassing. They could just remove it completely, providing you would almost guaranty screw up your build, by multiclassing instead of soloing singe class.

Then you haven't been building them right. Not the game's fault. You're probably talking about the pen and paper which clearly this game isn't. Not against them changing it to play more like the core ruleset and less like Divinity though.

Generally how restricting it is. You would get all low level things of new class, but would be extremely restricted on whole synergy. Especially since there are no prestige classes in 5e.
It's significantly worse even than 3.5e. And it's night and day compare to pathfinder, especially 2e. Which have very rewarding and yet very well balanced "multiclassing".


Here is entire rules for multiclassing in 5e:



Generally you simply restricting yourself on gaining higher level spells and/or abilities of your original class. Which are significantly more powerful than anything of lower level. No abilities synergy would compensate that. In many cases something might sound cool. But as you hard test it - you would quickly get it's cool only in theory, but crap on practice. Solo-classed party member always outbest any multiclassed character in 5e.

"Generally you simply restricting yourself on gaining higher level spells and/or abilities of your original class. Which are significantly more powerful than anything of lower level. No abilities synergy would compensate that. In many cases something might sound cool. But as you hard test it - you would quickly get it's cool only in theory, but crap on practice. Solo-classed party member always outbest any multiclassed character in 5e."

This is largely true. There are a few classes like ranger where their very top level abilities weren't all that strong, so picking up some versatility might be worth it. I myself am a huge cantrip junkie because I find them very useful out of combat for roleplay and problem solving. Also short games where you aren't expecting to level up could find uses for niche combos that work well at that specific stage of the game. For the most part though multiclassing is done in 5e for fun and flavor, or becoming a jack-of-all because you don't like relying on your party rather than actually making you a monster statistically like in 3.5.

5E really rewards taking only a few levels (sometimes only one) of the extra class. The Sorlock, for example, is almost all Sorcerer.

I miss 2nd edition dual-classing. I really did prefer the earlier editions, even for tabletop play.

100% agree. I haven't played D&D since 2e either until this past summer. 5e is such a huge improvement over THAC0, and the multiclassing system is brilliant compared to 2e, in my opinion. There is plenty of definition around the things that need to be defined. Everything else should be left up to the imagination of the players and the DM.

They are never doing that again.

It was derpy as hell. Pretty much like most things in AD&D. Just random things thrown, and hardly ever balanced.

Personally I didn't love 2nd Edition's multiclassing. And I found Pathfinder to be a swamp in terms of possibilities. I actually MUCH prefer the more basic system for Multiclassing in 5e by a mile to either (and I started playing D&D P&P with 2e way back in the 90s, so I'm pretty intimate with it in particular).

I don't find the Multiclass system of 5e to be "restrictive", I find it to be pretty straightforward and easy to plan for.

But more to the point, since this is a video game, and not a session, the main character needs to either adopt some elements of being a Face or leave it to the NPC's (which feels awkward to me in terms of story telling).

Multiclassing would give most of the races a lot more potential to shine (as again, right now Wood Elf, followed by Half-Wood Elf are essentially the two best choices for most classes ATM by default).

I feel strongly that this would even that out a fair bit, without much hassle. Also the Prerequisites for Multiclassing aren't that crazy to meet (we're not rolling for stats, we're using Point Buy).

Do you play 5e Tabletop? (Also, how would you know if my players are building their characters right)? But yes, I am talking about making things a bit closer to Pen and Paper here because I think more people will have more fun in this case.

I get that some of the classes aren't ready yet, but I don't see why we can't Multiclass with what's already been built. I love this game so far, but find myself really trying to make my skills mirror what a simple Multiclass would give me without much hassle (resulting in having to take Wood Elf or High Wood Elf for most builds).

No one liked AD&D, after 3e was released.
PF1e is pretty much polished 3.5e. Generally simplified and optimised, but still hard to get into, if you not dedicated enough to study all rules.
PF2e right now pretty much a pinnacle of what D&D should be.

As of 5e, generally it's just a "D&D for noobs". And where there is appeal to it as well, it's also unfortunately heavily penalize any minmaxing expert of gaming.
You can both easily make creasily powerful character, that would handle himself easily through any combat encounter DM throw at you, without even worrying about group synergy.
And at the same time restrict you on what possibilities you would have as a whole. After a while you would either have to agree roll characters very similar to those you already played, or just move on to another system.

As a whole, you just can't make system that can be both very easy to learn, and very versatile at the same time. Any really interesting system requires study.

I actually looked at 5e as more of an attempt at merging D&D with a simplified system in the style of White Wolf (Vampire The Masquerade, Werewolf Apocalypse, etc.).

As a fan of those games over 2e and 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e I prefer the limitations (it makes your players more likely to build a party together to support each other instead of being everyman out for themselves/min-maxing in order to see who made the strongest character etc.

I much prefer simpler rules with a heavy emphasis on cinematic story telling and role playing without meta gaming.

Which brings me back to why I think Multiclassing is something that shouldn't be eschewed for BG3. Since most players will have a single player experience, you need to build a party around a main character who can do some of the social dynamics of a face, as well as have as much utility as possible outside of combat.

There's enough characters to avoid scum saving if there's a little overlap in Rogue Skills and at least ONE character is a strong Face.

But it's much harder to build that character without relying on a couple stronger races without the advantage of Multiclassing in order to net better skill lists (something I kept trying to impart on you).

This isn't to power game, it's just to make it easier without having to reload (there's a lot of traps for instance, and a great many social encounters).

So far any character can pick locks as long as you find Thieves Tools (which might get changed), but that means DEX heavy characters are much more valuable than Strength heavy characters for main.


Really this all boils down to Perception being the most valuable skill, and having one to two characters with decent scores in it helps to make things move much more smoothly. But the same can be said of 5e P&P.

Is it perfect? No, not really, but I'm also not sure that adding more complexity before focusing on role playing is ever a good thing.

*BUMP!*

I'm happy just getting all the classes for now, wouldn't be surprised if they only bring multi at launch.

WoD is unique on it's own.
Super comlex rules not required because vast majority of game is social encounters (especially for vampires)
And where rules are simplified. Game lore is INSANELY complex.
And you wouldn't really be able to "Storytell" it right, unless you learn it whole and keep most important facts in your mind.

I don't think multiclassing is weak in 5e , apart of minimun attributes that we usually ignore at my table. (We usually roll so it has no sense for a player to whant a specific concept like sorcerer paladin hexblade and not be able to do it couse it didnt roll enought str).

Still, most of my players dont do multiclass, mostly because it needs a lot of game knowledge to do right, and MOST of my players dont like to spend so much time with it .

But there are other players that do ... vengance paladin, warlock, phoenix sorcerer combos for twinned greenflameblades with smites and so on .. and I did a warrior/ ranger/roque that could be permanently invisible while doing 600+ damage in the first combat round at lvl 11.

I ran VTM games for years using a ton of the lore, while slightly modifying events and NPC's as needed to suit my needs. I do the same with 5e using decades of lore on Faerun (some of which has been retconned, so I reinterpret what would make the most sense, etc.)

I'm huge on immersion and atmosphere, and even more about getting the dice out of the way. Both systems play very similarly to me. Whereas 2nd Edition and 3rd/3.5/Pathfinder 1st Edition all made situations more about character creation from a stat stand point over anything else during my experiences.

I feel the stats aren't as important as the personality you inject in a character, so again, we're back to probably stylistic choices. But I DM more than I play as a character and I want to make it about the story, even if some of the players have NEVER played before so they can quickly get into it and feel immersed.

There's a ton of blatant, but small nods to VTM in the 5e Players Handbook too. Which is what sold me on it to start. It's literally what brought me back to D&D.

There's a lot to play test with Multi builds though. A ton of stuff which might needs slight tweaking in the rules to keep it relatively balanced.

I'm thinking they're better off wheeling it out ASAP so people can really delve into it now, while they're taking player feedback.

Ranger/Rogue can be powerful. But I think excluding a few feats stops things from being insane like that.

what build of fighter/rogue/ranger can be permanently invisible and 600+ damage in the first round?

I believe that's a sharpshooter build, I've never seen it done.

I think, we should wait a lot for multiclass. There is a lot about different things to implement, like using spells via spell slots and pact magic, multiclass abilities requirements etc.

I wouldn't expect multiclassing to come a single second before all basic classes have been included, anyway.

agreed

The game is already extremely poorly balanced, I don't see them including multiclasses anytime soon. In older version you could multiclass or dual class for flavor but in 5e they streamlined it and reduced it to redundancy by making multiclassing always be a heavy tradeoff. They then did the incredibly intelligent thing of front loading certain classes(warlock, divination mage, war mage, swashbuckler etc) with extremely potent skills that become gamebreaking. I can demonstrate a swashbuckler multiclass that has a +20 bonus to initiative or the infamous sorlock, sorcadin or Infernal Darkness rogue build that can solo a campaign without taking damage.

I would like to see multiclassing implemented but with how poor Larian is handling balance and how poorly they have handled it before I think it is for the better that it doesn't make it into the game.

Multiclassing is a core component of DnD, so it should be present before the end of EA. It would be feature incomplete if I do say so.

I have very little opinion on multi-classing in general; I could take it or leave it. But to call it a core component of DnD is entirely misleading. Multi-classing didn't exist in 1st edition, and in 2nd Edition AD&D it worked very differently (just play BG1 or 2 to see). It existed in 3rd/3.5, and that was the only edition where it could have been considered a "core" feature. It technically existed in 4E, but it was terrible and also we don't talk about 4E. And in 5E, while it exists in largely the same manner as it did in 3.5, it's also specifically listed as a variant rule; it's not part of the core experience by any definition.

Short version, multi-classing as it currently exists is not a core feature and its lack would not a missing feature so much as an extra idea that was not implemented.

1. Sven confirmed on reddit, that multiclass wil be implemented the same way, as in PhB
2. Without multiclasss d&d 5 is very poor on build variety. after pc creation, you only choose subclass and 1\2 features, like maneuvers or metamagic. for someone, like rouge, after lvl 3 most your level ups just plain "OK" button.

@panShlyaptor
The optimal rogue multiclass is to have as many levels of rogue as possible, it's one the classes that benefits very heavily with levels alone. I am also really unhappy about hearing that multiclassing will be included despite being a return to source type of person an I am very worried about how it is going to be implemented and how it is going to desolate the combat, and the response to how powerful it is.

I liked playing multiclass Arcane Trickster\Blade Singer. And I played with person, who built fighter\ rogue. I like multiclass in d&d 5 only for choice, that it gives while creating your character. I hope, on release we will have different difficulties, so optimizers can play multiclass builds, like sorlock, sorcadin, 2 level fighter dips and other on very hard. Still, it is not MMO game, so balance is not a great issue