Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Dual Class / Multi Class

I haven't bought a rulebook or boxset since 2nd ed sometime in the early 90's (though I have played a lot of computer games and read books). Are dual-class and multi-class characters now extinct?

I played an elven F/M/T for years in my group and a fighter with the sleight of hand that can cast the odd spell doesn't seem the same.

In 5e multiclassing is allowed (every race can multi class if they have appropriate stats for the new class). Currently it is not implemented in BG3. However, given the way ASI's are awarded (every 4th level in an individual class, not total level) multi-classing is considered pretty weak aside from some specific multiclass combos.

That said, in 5e a decent amount of multiclassing has been rolled into subclasses and background. So yeah, in your example a Fighter with the Eldritch Knight subclass and a background granting proficiency in thief's tools/slight of hand will probably be better than a multiclasses F/M/T.

Dual classing is dead. Since 3rd edition multiclassing has worked differently than previous iterations of the game. You can select a new class whenever you level up. In 3/3.5 edition, multiclassing was designed as such that it was expected that characters would choose multiple classes. 5th is more limited (but makes designing a character more interesting in my opinion). Though you can select any class that you meet the stat requirements for, selecting a new class without proper consideration will make you much weaker in the long run. With a few small exceptions, choosing three classes is not advisable, and the level cap probably won’t be high enough to make the few triple class builds viable.

If you want a character who can do lots of different things, use subclasses, feats, and toe dipping (choosing just a few levels in one class while primarily leveling another) to achieve this. Or just play a bard. In all honesty, you are probably just better off picking a narrower profile of abilities to specialize in. If you make a character with a schizophrenic portfolio you will just be mediocre at everything.

I think I'm just old. It took me 5 years to move from first ed to 2nd.

But in BG/BG2 all my humans were mainly dual class (except the pally's) and demi humans were all multi-classed.

My last playthrough was:

Human Pally
Dwarf Fighter/Cleric (multiclass)
Human Fighter 7 / Cleric (dualclass)
Elf F/M/T (Multiclass)
Human Fighter 7 / Mage (dualclass)
Human Fighter 7 /Mage (dualclass)

A lot of fighters in BG and a bit over on the healing in BG 2 but it was just a run through both games while bored last year.

For those about to point out that I am everyone in the party, solo run through's got boring for me well before TOB, especially when starting in BG 1.

I too am a fan of 1st/2nd edition. I really did not like 3rd edition it felt like WOTC was spoon feeding RP to the players. The only experience I have had with 4th edition was Neverwinter MMO.

There are some good things that i like about 5th edition, mostly the spell slot/prepared spell concept, i find superior to 1st edition.

As, far as multi-classing went it was a trade off for demi humans to be level limited, a concept I always thought counter-intuitive, you live 1000 years and your stuck at level 11?

Also there was no level limit in 1st edition, well besides the afore mentioned demi human issues.

So in 3rd edition people made the stupid decision to limit all races to level 20, and to allow all races to multiclass, which was not a good change in my opinion, as it puts an artificial end to the game, and eliminates the individuality of the races.

1st edition had some minor problems. That could have been reworked and fixed, without completely changing the game. For instance armor for mages, leather armor weighs like 15 pounds, and a mage, with a strength of 9, and even lower, would not be able to wear leather armor as it would make it so he could not carry anything else and move at a decent speed. The logic that elves use special "elf magic" was a stupid workaround, and the idea you needed to be proficient in putting piece of leather on that was basically a flak jacket, was also stupid. Then you have the argument that armor interferes with spell casting, except leather doesn't as it does not include gauntlets and thew DMG describes somatic components to be on par with what you see in the tv the magicians.

There were some other issues, that after i grew up and had done my own research i realized did not make sense.

The beauty of 1st edition dnd was the homebrew campaigns. I always allowed my mages to wear any none metallic armor, and even allowed monks to wear light armor, and keep the dexterity bonuses that were stripped from them.

Early game survival in 1st edition was very very low.

Some more info on multiclassing:

When multiclassing in 5E you are basically weighing what upgrades you would miss out on against the benefits of adding a new class. Every class gets something new almost every level, so if you look at their progression charts it is relatively easy to decide when to multiclass. A big factor will be the level cap and attribute point bonuses / feats.

Every class can choose to increase their attributes or pick a feat every 4 levels, with fighters and rogues getting extras. You don’t want to miss out on these power upgrades, so you plan around them. If the level cap is 12, multiclassing 8/4 will probably be the way to go to avoid missing your upgrades. If the level cap is 14, you would usually be better off with 12/2, so you are disadvantaging your primary class as little as possible. Splitting down the middle with 6/6 or 7/7 will probably wreck your build, leaving you with only a large selection of underdeveloped skills.

Don’t multiclass to be a jack of all trades. Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Bards, and Paladins can all do this without multiclasssing.

Multiclass to get something you want to make your character operate better or in a particular way.

For example, one of my favorite tabletop builds is:

4 Arcane Trickster Rogue / 8 Way of Shadows Monk (I’m just capping him at 12 for the sake of example.

I start with Rogue and level to 4, getting myself a 2d6 sneak attack, a small selection of spells, including my favorite reaction Shield (I hope this makes it into BG3) and 1 feat, which I take as Magic Initiate: Warlock (for the spell Hex and more cantrips).

I then level up as a monk. By the time my total level is 12 I am able to apply a Hex, giving me advantage to stunning strike. If the enemy is stunned, on my next turn I can use flurry of blows and sneak attack together to potentially deal a respectable 10d6 + 20 + any magic bonus in damage. On top of that, I can teleport through shadows, cast disguise self, have an invisible mage hand, lots of skill proficiency, and can put low level guards to sleep. This isn’t the sort of thing you can do in BG3, but on table top my character carries around an I inflatable bladder. He casts his cantrip poison spray inside of it and then prestidigitation to rapidly cool it turning the gas to liquid, so he always has access to free poison.

All of this gets you a very flavorful, viable, anime magic ninja.

I hope this gives you a good idea of how to think about your multiclass builds.

Thanks for the input guys.

I'm just old and set in my ways I suppose, although saying that, other than an Arti splash for trapping now and then most of my later DDO lives have been single class.

In this game I'll get used to the new system in time, probably when the level cap raises a bit and at least its not Neverwinter Nights, lol.

It'll be even easier with 6 character slots and an easier way to make all the character's yourself lol (having to start 4 clients to initially create the 4 man party is a bit slow).

hint hint

To build on this, I believe in 1st/2nd edition you considered the exp requirements for each class separately. I.e., if at Fighter 10 you dual-classed into mage, then it would only cost 2000 exp to level up from 1->2 in mage where it would cost 200,000 to get level 11 fighter. In 5e, leveling up is determined by your total level summed from all your classes.

Because of the exponential growth in exp, the equivalent multi-classed builds for a level 10 fighter are:
In 2e: F/M 8/8 -> You are close in power to your level 10 companions, made up for in versatility
In 5e: F/M 5/5 -> Your companions (and enemies faced) are overwhelmingly stronger and better than you in every way

No problem. I also like to plan out fully custom parties. I just beat the EA again last night, this time using an all custom party of a human eldritch knight, half-Drow arcane trickster, tiefling ranger, and dwarf cleric. I have every bit as much fun with a roster of my own making as I do playing with NPCs.

I also didn’t particularly care for 3rd edition and actually gave up on D&D by 4th. 5th edition won me back over. For me it hits the sweet spot where there is enough of a balance between options and limitations where it makes not only designing builds, but designing characters super fun. I have a bunch of custom parties prepared for BG3, and I’m sure that once you learn the rules you will enjoy yourself too.

I found 3rd edition vastly superior to 2nd edition in most ways, I mean I never really enjoyed playing Warhammer or any of those other games where instead of being able to use maths, you were reliant entirely on tables. At least Thac0 used maths, but the saves were just dull in comparison to 3rd edition.

Multiclassing has also improved vastly, though I think 5th edition does it best - especially with giving cantrips to casters that scale with character level, as well as the average player gets 2 or 3 attacks per round instead of the good old 10 for dual wielding fighter/monks with kamas from 3rd or the insanely weird 7/2 2nd edition used. Makes combat feel better. Also the way in which you are able to create builds with purposes more easily in 5th than previous editions where you accomplished this through feats in 3rd, or just didn't accomplish it in 2nd because of the class limits, the insane requirements for Paladins and the fact the edition felt it necessary to make men stronger than women.

Also Neverwinter Nights was so much better than Baldurs Gate so even in video games 3rd edition did better than 2nd.

PF:K and PoE2 were both really punishing for multiclassing characters, locking you out of the best abilities of the classes you picked in exchange for a bunch of lesser powers. I don't think that can be fixed without making multiclassing stronger than any single class, so I'm on the fence on whether or not I want it in.

I guess I am just old school and really enjoy classes with CLEAR well defined distinctions. Never was a fan of Dual Classing. Multi-classing in the older systems was okay as it really slowed down advancement a lot.

So you dont like having a "build" that you like? You prefer it being built for you? So you are telling me you use Wyll as a melee rapier character, he was clearly given martial proficiency in Rapier?




Theres still multiclassing in 5e and it has its own rule system to ensure balance. It starts with you requireing 13 in your baseline stat for the main stat of all classes that you are thinking about dipping into. The required stat entry point is high enough that some class combos are very hard to pull off because some classes require more than 1 main stat. (Rangers require 13Dex/13Wis, Paladin requires 13Str/13Cha).

Every since original D&D I played multiclass characters. I believe the only exception was in 4E where I played a swordmage most of the time. But then I do not look at classes as professions like some people do, I look at them as skill sets to be used/added to as needed.

Guess im the odd one out. I dislike multiclassing. I played Pathfinder to 20 as a sorc because I wanted the bloodline features. Everyone else in the party but the bard multiclassed.

I feel so left out lol.

So you dont like having a "build" that you like? You prefer it being built for you? So you are telling me you use Wyll as a melee rapier character, he was clearly given martial proficiency in Rapier?

I do not look at my character as a build? I look at him as a person. I use skills and abilities base on what make sense for the character not the min/max provided by tables in a game system.

I prefer the older single class system because in that system each character had a role, a purpose. We developed team work and as our characters grew they grew into the role they were classed to play. Todays RPGs are to homogenized, each character has way to much cross over and are basically MINOR variants to the same.

This is of course my opinion and that is the great thing, you can play the way you like.

I agree. Hate when my chars turn into swiss army knives. they really lose their purpose.

Started in 2nd ed at a young age, can't remember any of us ever MCing...

Enter 3/3.5 ed and we were always MCing...

Looks be decent in 5th ed... but from a gaming standpoint here id like to see core classes with all/most of their options before bringing it in... i do hope it is but in a "first things first" sorta way...

I'm not big on multi-classing and prefer pure classes. And I really dislike 'classless' systems (one of the things I didn't enjoy about the Divinity games). I like each character to have distinct skills.

all of the best OP / cookies cutter build are multiclassed even in 5e
https://www.flutesloot.com/5e-multiclassing-combinations/
https://www.gamersdecide.com/articles/dnd-best-archer-builds