This has been bubbling in the back of my mind since I read the classes chapter.

What would it take, above and beyond the normal multiclassing rules, to allow a character to "multiclass" within the same class? So if, you were a ranger for example, and you wanted to focus on having more favored terrains via Natural Explorer, and being more of a broad ranger than a specialist? You could go, say, 10 levels deep twice, and get 7 levels deep into both Hunter and Beastmaster. It seems within the spirit of the multiclass rules- trading "focus for versatility".

I suspect something might break, and that it could be heavily abusable (in some unforseen way), but I'm not sure. It could also be that it's a bad idea because it's worthless. I don't have the deep knowledge of the game to know yet.

What do you think?

What about just foregoing spell gains to pick up more of the terrain bonuses or even just spending more exp per level up to each level gain another terrain type? Say 200 more than normal each level you add another terrain?

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783742This has been bubbling in the back of my mind since I read the classes chapter.

What would it take, above and beyond the normal multiclassing rules, to allow a character to "multiclass" within the same class? So if, you were a ranger for example, and you wanted to focus on having more favored terrains via Natural Explorer, and being more of a broad ranger than a specialist? You could go, say, 10 levels deep twice, and get 7 levels deep into both Hunter and Beastmaster. It seems within the spirit of the multiclass rules- trading "focus for versatility".

I suspect something might break, and that it could be heavily abusable (in some unforseen way), but I'm not sure. It could also be that it's a bad idea because it's worthless. I don't have the deep knowledge of the game to know yet.  With your current parameters I would go Hunter Ranger/Moon Circle Druid and a feat or two.

What do you think?

No taking multiple subclasses of the same class. My current suggestion is a Ranger/Druid. Tell me which Ranger subclass you prefer though. Dipping is bad, your multiclass decision points are 2/6/10/14/18.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783742This has been bubbling in the back of my mind since I read the classes chapter.

What would it take, above and beyond the normal multiclassing rules, to allow a character to "multiclass" within the same class? So if, you were a ranger for example, and you wanted to focus on having more favored terrains via Natural Explorer, and being more of a broad ranger than a specialist? You could go, say, 10 levels deep twice, and get 7 levels deep into both Hunter and Beastmaster. It seems within the spirit of the multiclass rules- trading "focus for versatility".

I suspect something might break, and that it could be heavily abusable (in some unforseen way), but I'm not sure. It could also be that it's a bad idea because it's worthless. I don't have the deep knowledge of the game to know yet.

What do you think?

No taking multiple subclasses of the same class. My current suggestion is a Ranger/Druid. Tell me which Ranger subclass you prefer though.

It was just an example; I'm a DM considering this as an option. Is there a specific prohibition against it in the PHB?

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783816It was just an example; I'm a DM considering this as an option. Is there a specific prohibition against it in the PHB?

No but Mearls said so. Just try it via multiclassing go ahead and show me... your fighter will get 2 fighting styles at level 6 yay! But only 1 attack and no feats (oh no!). Your typical fighter will have 2 attacks, 2 feats and might be an EK with cantrips and spells....

Can't see why this wouldn't work. The character would have "weaker" abilities, due to duplicate non-stacking things (Some of the wording is very, very good at shutting down exploits), but everything else should be okay.

If you don't like that, you could try allowing taking lower-level features instead of higher-level ones when leveling, or picking lower-level abilities as feats, or creating a custom sub-class.

Quote from: Ladybird;783877Can't see why this wouldn't work. The character would have "weaker" abilities, due to duplicate non-stacking things (Some of the wording is very, very good at shutting down exploits), but everything else should be okay.

If you don't like that, you could try allowing taking lower-level features instead of higher-level ones when leveling, or picking lower-level abilities as feats, or creating a custom sub-class.

I don't think there's any indication that you can choose what level to take (much less take a level you already have) when you level up in a class.  If you are a 3rd level fighter and you take another level in fighter, then you're a 4th level fighter, and you get features based on that. So I think with RAW this isn't supported.

I personally like your option for trading a feature you gain at a higher level for a lower level one in a subclass you didn't choose, where it makes sense.    The feat thing works as well, and they've already provided some that can act as templates for that, but it may not be a fast enough pace for some.

I'm staying largely silent to see what everyone comes up with and says about the issues involved in this kind of thing, but I'd love to read what Mearls said. I'd like details on why he said no. Is there a link?

I think that if the worst that happens is that you get a "suboptimal" character, then there's no reason to disallow it or something like it at my table.

I was mostly concerned with game-breaking exploits and mechanical cheese.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783888I'm staying largely silent to see what everyone comes up with and says about the issues involved in this kind of thing, but I'd love to read what Mearls said. I'd like details on why he said no. Is there a link?

From what I remember it was directly about using multi-classing to get multiple sub-classes, and he said there was something about combining sub-classes in the DMG.

Quote from: jadrax;783898From what I remember it was directly about using multi-classing to get multiple sub-classes, and he said there was something about combining sub-classes in the DMG.

Ok, so there might actually be a solution there. Very cool.

Quote from: Marleycat;783819No but Mearls said so.

I don't think Mike Mearls will be playing in their game.

I'd say that it doesn't matter if it is allowed by the rules or not. Try expiramenting with it in game and observe the results. If they work for you and your group, then keep them. Just please report back to us on what worked and what didn't.

Quote from: jeff37923;783900I don't think Mike Mearls will be playing in their game.

I'd say that it doesn't matter if it is allowed by the rules or not. Try expiramenting with it in game and observe the results. If they work for you and your group, then keep them. Just please report back to us on what worked and what didn't.

yep.  This

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783888I'm staying largely silent to see what everyone comes up with and says about the issues involved in this kind of thing, but I'd love to read what Mearls said. I'd like details on why he said no. Is there a link?

I think that if the worst that happens is that you get a "suboptimal" character, then there's no reason to disallow it or something like it at my table.

I was mostly concerned with game-breaking exploits and mechanical cheese.

It's both in Legends and Lore and Twitter it's very explicit no more then one subclass per class. You could just ask him yourself given I have no reason to lie to you. Though go for it understanding it will just weaken your character because you're giving up feats/stat adds, attacks, higher level features etc.

Beyond the fact that it will dilute archetypes overall. It would work better if you have 2-3 players and running a gesault type game.

Quote from: Marleycat;783903It's both in Legends and Lore and Twitter it's very explicit no more then one subclass per class. You could just ask him yourself given I have no reason to lie to you. Though go for it understanding it will just weaken your character because you're giving up feats/stat adds, attacks, higher level features etc.

Beyond the fact that it will dilute archetypes overall. It would work better if you have 2-3 players and running a gesault type game.

I was trying to be explicit in that I didn't think you were lying to me. I just wanted to read the text where he said it, because maybe he gave his rationales.

If it just weakens a character mechanically, I don't see a problem with it. That's a choice a player should be able to make for themselves.

As for dilluting archetypes, I see your point, but it would seem to make the character more broadly iconic as a member of his overall class.