4
\$\begingroup\$

I have come across posts where contributors (in the comments) state that you cannot use a particular feature from Unearthed Arcana (UA) because the player had already chosen to multi-class.

Where does this notion come from: is there a citation from Jeremy Crawford or Sage Advice, or a quote from UA articles stating that UA is not designed with multiclassing in mind?

I realise the DM has the final say on this, but is there an official statement in the published materials or a tweet to support this, or is it merely based on opinion?

The main argument I've seen is this: It is UA material and not part of the main set of rules yet; it has not been adjusted for multi-classing. Therefore players who multi-class are not allowed to use materials from UA.

I am looking for reliable sources to back up this argument.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ To those voting "Opinion Based", I don't see it. This can be answered with citation from JC/Sage Advice or quote from UA articles themselves stating that UA is not designed with multiclassing in mind. \$\endgroup\$
    – NathanS
    Commented Feb 1, 2020 at 10:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NathanS: I was considering leaving such an answer, but the issue is that OP is not directly wondering "why do people say UA isn't tuned for multiclassing?", but rather asking "do people generally agree that using UA material shouldn't be combined with multiclassing?" The former is answerable, the latter less so. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Commented Feb 1, 2020 at 10:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am not sure such a quote would technically answer the question posed, that being "why do people think this?". If OP is interested whether such a quote exists or not, I advise they rephrase. \$\endgroup\$
    – Szega
    Commented Feb 1, 2020 at 10:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough, I can see that; in that case, @ETgothome, could you rephrase this slightly to remove the opinion part, as per the comments between my two? \$\endgroup\$
    – NathanS
    Commented Feb 1, 2020 at 10:39
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NathanS - Thank you that is what I'm looking for in the answer, i.e. "with citation from JC/Sage Advice or quote from UA articles themselves stating that UA is not designed with multiclassing in mind". I will update, thanks. \$\endgroup\$
    – Senmurv
    Commented Feb 1, 2020 at 11:16

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
\$\begingroup\$

Older UA content used to suggest against multiclassing

UA articles presenting new subclasses used to include the following line in the "This is Playtesting Content" sidebar that precedes every UA content.

As is typical in Unearthed Arcana, the options here haven’t been tuned for multiclassing.

The most recent UA article to include such observation was "A Trio of Subclasses" (article, pdf), released on March 27 of 2017.

Since them, no more articles included such comment (that I've found).

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ So even when it appeared, it was more a suggestion against combining variant rules and not a hard "this isn't allowed"? \$\endgroup\$
    – gatherer818
    Commented Feb 2, 2020 at 20:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .