Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Serow_Darkstar Aug 17, 2014 7:55:30	Before anything else, I'd like to note that this is simply a matter of curiousity. I'm not trying to say it can or can't be done, I honestly don't have a clue how this would work, if there are any rules for it, or if it's something that has even been considered.   Okay, with that out of the way, here we go.   At level three, you make a choice of which subclass you'll go with. As far as I can tell, this is a career choice - You can't go back and say "Wait, I'd rather be a Beast Master Ranger instead of a Hunter Ranger." I could easily see a DM allowing you to do this, if you're not enjoying the character or whatnot, but I see no mention of it in the rules.   Beyond that, while a 6th level Fighter could Multiclass into Ranger and then chose what specialization to chose for Ranger, why not have a way for a Fighter to take up the Champion Archetype, then "multiclass" in a way to become a Battle Master as well? Essentially, while being a 6th Level Fighter, be a 3rd level Champion / 3rd Level Battle Master?   I think there should certainly be a way to accomplish this, as this would not only allow more choice and diversity in characters, it would also allow for new subclasses to be available to old characters of those classes.
#2 Overpromises Aug 17, 2014 8:19:56	My understanding is that the designers specifically disallowed it to prevent overpowered combinations. Basically the subclasses can be a lot better if each class can only get one of them.   There might also be rules for custom subclasses in the DM Guide.
#3 GladiusLegis Aug 17, 2014 8:22:18	For the Champion Fighter at least, you can take the Martial Adept feat and get a couple of maneuvers and one d6 Superiority die that way.
#4 Veleria Aug 17, 2014 11:04:06	Without houserules this wouldn't work because you cannot be level 3  in the same class twice. It would create some balance issues but mainly it just doesnt work because of this. Best way to handle this is to find a class that is close. For example a warmaster fighter wants to add soe champion, instead take multiclass barbarian. If they wanted to add Eldritch knight take some levels in a caster class instead. If the intent is roleplay then it should suit you fine. If the intent is powergaming then it's probably best that it remain off limits to ensure balance.
#5 Chimerasame Aug 18, 2014 19:06:54	I'm actually having a hard time thinking of a way that this would be remotely overpowered, as long as you actually treat all class features like you're only the level that you are for any single one iteration of the class. It'd actually be rather underpowered. It would be vastly non-simple, though.
#6 Duskwave Aug 19, 2014 7:52:07	I thought of this too, and look at it earlier... retaking the first few levels in the same class is bad (in an underpower, not overpower) way, but splitting it seems to work sort of OK... IE, Rogue (Assassin) 3/Rogue (Thief) 6 Has all the abilities of a Rogue 9, plus the level 3 Assassin and level 6 Thief. I wish they'd considered this when designing it, but I can say that about a LOT of things.
#7 Chimerasame Aug 19, 2014 8:06:00	Duskwave wrote:
#8 shivafang Aug 19, 2014 8:20:43	Chimerasame wrote:
#9 Cerius Aug 19, 2014 8:19:03	I thought I read somewhere that the DMG was going to have methods of custom subclasses.
#10 Jorsanled Aug 19, 2014 10:12:07	As I read somewhere that Mike Mearls mentioned the world 'Gestalt" in an interview. I don't know about 4th edition, but those of us who played 3.5 may remember the gestalt option of rolling characters. Actually, here's part of the interview:    "You’ve mentioned how the design goal was to create a basic system with modular pieces that can add more complexity and option to the game. What are some modular pieces that we might see next and when might we see them? (Mike Mearls) Most of the optional systems will show up in the Dungeon Master’s Guide. They focus on options that people can use to more closely mimic a specific edition or optional rules that people like having available. For instance, stuff like detailed rules for combat, gestalt characters, lingering wounds, and so forth. It feels kind of like a mash up of Unearthed Arcana for 3e and a traditional DMG.   Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1828-A-Chat-With-Mike-Mearls-Magazines-Settings-and-More!#.U_QrB8VdVv8#ixzz3AuC5irj1hety It  I would say that playing a character class with two archetypes, domains, pacts, etc. wouldn't be that far from playing a character with two classes. Then again, there hasn't been time enough to test these options in 5th edition.
#11 Undrhil Aug 19, 2014 10:22:30	Hasn't been time enough?  What were they doing after the public playtest ended?  Surely they've had plenty of time to come up with off-the-wall builds and test them out in their closed playtest sessions.   Everyone acts like when they ended the public playtest there was nothing else done with the game.  That simply isn't true.  They had plenty of time to try out various rules and changes to the rules.  Whether or not they thought of every possible combination of rules is another matter, and specifically why I think closed beta/playtesting sucks.
#12 shivafang Aug 19, 2014 10:30:59	It wasn't a closed playtest.  I'm pretty sure everyone that submitted their email address got in.   They didn't ask about houseruled builds - they weren't really concerned about that.  They were just focused on getting the core rules solid.