Warlock: I promised my soul in exchange for great power.
Rogue: To which great power?
Warlock: All of them. Let them fight over it when I am dead.
Ahh, an Elder Scrolls protagonist
Hide out in Sovngarde
I knew a wizard that had traded his soul for favors so many times he was effectively immortal. He never went adventuring any more, just oversaw research in our flying screened tower. Since old age was the only feasible way he was going to die, which would cause a war between all the outer planes over ownership of his soul, no one would cause his death. He was 218 when I met him, and he was over 5000 years old, and a demigod of secrets, when I met him again, because of a mixup we had while inventing portal magic. We ended up 5000 years in the past and I went back to the present, but he stayed behind. Pagiathrakatos was an interesting dude. Got a compliment from a dwarf on his impressive beard.
Big John Constantine energy.
Rogue: Waitasec, how many boons do you have?!
Warlock: I dunno, a bunch. I lost count.
Remember the one rule of D&D everybody forgets, no matter how much Gygax emphasized it: if you don't like a rule, don't use it in your campaign. In my game I allow any and all combinations of classes. I might even allow a Paladin/Assassin, but the player would have to come up with a really good in-world rationale for it.
FR. My Battle Smith Artificer can suddenly learn the Wizarding arts and summon a spell book mid-dungeon crawl despite most wizards spending their life learning those things. But despite being able to harness the weave into mundane objects, including armor, to enhance them, or create magic items wholecloth, and even create a living construct, I cannot actually create a magic suit of armor and become an armorer artificer, no matter how much I try.
Pathfinder 2.0 sidestepped this issue by having class-specific feats instead of subclasses. Just pick which features you want dude, no need to be silly about it. And you get a new choice of class specific feats often.
Mutants and Masterminds (and I think GURPS) sidesteps it entirely by having point buy with all the abilities and stats. You don't even have classes.
Sometimes restrictions breed creativity, though.
Or Savage Worlds where you literally build your "class" from the ground up
Or Pathfinder for Savage Worlds, which is Savage Worlds with Pathfinder classes converted into Edges (limited to one per rank).
Took me longer than it should have to realize this was about D&D, not programming.
I thought it was about programming and was wondering why the words only half seemed to mean something.
No I want to see a programming language with multiclassing. Not just inheritance or Interfaces, but properly being able to make an object from any two classes.
I'm gonna respect to 1/1/1/1/1 fighter/fighter/fighter/fighter/fighter so I can action surge 5 times in a round.
Your fighter is gonna be very disappointed when they find out which level they get action surge at
Didn't say they were good at math
Unfortunately the DMG says that if a character somehow acquires the same feature more than once, only one counts.
The joke's on you: thanks to min-maxing, the fighter can't count in the first place!
The short answer is the game wasn't balanced around it.
I feel like Rogues (sneak attack) and Wizards (spell sculpting) in particular could abuse this heavily. Also any class that gets their subclass at level 1 or 2.
Also any class that gets their subclass at level 1 or 2.
To be fair those are also troublesome for regular multiclassing, or at least they are if you're not using the 2024 "definitely not 5.5E" classes. The paladin with one level in warlock or sorcerer is a perennial favourite for a reason.
I'll always love a paladin rouge multi even if it's not the "best". there's just so many interesting story possibilities there.
Multiclassing because it's fun even if it doesn't work that well will always have a place in my heart. I'm currently playing a barely-functional monk/druid. I think I can get him to work, but right now his tiger wildshape is more of the paper variety
I've done monk/druid before. The mechanics are bad for it, but I love the story flavor of the two most likely to be utterly unarmed classes joining together to make someone whose body IS the weapon, in all of its forms.
This is the anwer. You could always homebrew your own game and try to balance it, and you'd start to find where the game breaks. Play 10,000 games like that, and patterns will emerge. Game developers spend a lot of time playtesting, and they still miss things. Just thinking of a new twist and asking why it doesn't work is like asking why cars don't have six wheels.
Shit, I thought this is an anti-marxist meme then I read the community. It's good to see lemmy gaining popularity. :'D
(Assuming D&D 5E here)
I wonder what the best way to go about it would be? It can't just work the same way as regular multiclassing since you'd effectively get no base class features for your second subclass
Pretty simple, just treat it like spellcaster multiclassing. Wizard/sorcerer/cleric/ 1/1/1 translates to a level 3 spellcaster for the sake of spell slots. Rogue 3/3 translates to class features level 6 and archetype feature level 3/3
That doesn't work.
A Spellcaster multiclassing always gets something on level up, be it a feature, more spell slots, or higher level slots.
A rogue multiclassing into rogue and splitting the levels would have dead levels at each subclass level.
To explain what I mean: a Rogue gets its subclass features at 3rd, 9th, 13th and 17th level. By going with your math, a 9th level rogue would classify as a 4/4 rogue (by rounding down) as far as the subclass is concerned, which means that the rogue gets nothing at 9th level.
Not only that. A 50/50 split for the multiclass progression would imply that a multiclassed rogue is precluded from getting any subclass feature higher than the 9th level one. By comparison, a Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric multiclassed character can absolutely attain 9th level spell slots (although not 9th level spells, confusingly enough).
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
