D&D 5E Addicted to multiclassing

[Bill Zebub]

Without multiclassing though, "magical street thief" requires you to be a Wizard who can pick locks and stealth. Or wait til level 3. Or have your race choice locked.

Seems to me that's quite a few options.

(Also, vHuman Rogue with Magic Initiate feat. Or Bard.)

Going with the sample set of: a) the people I play with, and b) the builds I see posted on forums like this, I rarely see multiclassing with bad mechanical synergy that's done just for the concept. Almost inevitably there's a power thing going on.

And not that there's anything wrong with going for power, I just wish people would admit it and not claim it's for "the concept".

P.S. To elaborate, I think it's fine to start with a cool set of mechanics and then rationalize the concept, but let's just be clear that mechanics drove concept and not the other way around.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Seems to me that's quite a few options.

(Also, vHuman Rogue with Magic Initiate feat. Or Bard.)

Going with the sample set of: a) the people I play with, and b) the builds I see posted on forums like this, I rarely see multiclassing with bad mechanical synergy that's done just for the concept. Almost inevitably there's a power thing going on.

And not that there's anything wrong with going for power, I just wish people would admit it and not claim it's for "the concept".

P.S. To elaborate, I think it's fine to start with a cool set of mechanics and then rationalize the concept, but let's just be clear that mechanics drove concept and not the other way around.

I have multi classed for armor. It fit the concept but frankly the medium armor would have too. Just wanted heavy armor. It’s not a sin. At all.

 

[James Gasik]

Seems to me that's quite a few options.

(Also, vHuman Rogue with Magic Initiate feat. Or Bard.)

Going with the sample set of: a) the people I play with, and b) the builds I see posted on forums like this, I rarely see multiclassing with bad mechanical synergy that's done just for the concept. Almost inevitably there's a power thing going on.

And not that there's anything wrong with going for power, I just wish people would admit it and not claim it's for "the concept".

P.S. To elaborate, I think it's fine to start with a cool set of mechanics and then rationalize the concept, but let's just be clear that mechanics drove concept and not the other way around.

I mentioned having to lock in a specific race, lol.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I have this dream of getting to 20th level and being able to pull out that massive L20 feat.

Never happens because campaigns just don't get to 20th level but just like the lottery, if I don't multi-class, at least I have a CHANCE of it happening.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mentioned having to lock in a specific race, lol.

I thought you meant a race like drow or tiefling or even high elf that comes with some magic.

And with Tasha’s any race can start with Magic Initiate feat.

Basically lots of ways to build the concept.

And, to my point about concept vs mechanics, the concept itself works 100% even fine even if you don’t get spells until 3rd level.

So, yeah, many options without multiclassing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have this dream of getting to 20th level and being able to pull out that massive L20 feat.

Never happens because campaigns just don't get to 20th level but just like the lottery, if I don't multi-class, at least I have a CHANCE of it happening.

Actually, you can multiclass 1 level-- the last feat is at 19th level.

 

[Maxperson]

I voted never, but that's mostly because I've only gotten to play 5e three times as a player, and I like to learn classes before I start multiclassing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Actually, you can multiclass 1 level-- the last feat is at 19th level.

I think they meant “feat” in a generic sense. I believe “capstone” is the generally accepted term.

 

[Ancalagon]

Seems to me that's quite a few options.

(Also, vHuman Rogue with Magic Initiate feat. Or Bard.)

true, true

Going with the sample set of: a) the people I play with, and b) the builds I see posted on forums like this, I rarely see multiclassing with bad mechanical synergy that's done just for the concept. Almost inevitably there's a power thing going on.

And not that there's anything wrong with going for power, I just wish people would admit it and not claim it's for "the concept".

P.S. To elaborate, I think it's fine to start with a cool set of mechanics and then rationalize the concept, but let's just be clear that mechanics drove concept and not the other way around.

Now to be fair... multiclassing in 5e without some kind of synergy is a ... bad idea. I've only seen it done with casual players who don't have a good grasp of the system.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I think they meant “feat” in a generic sense. I believe “capstone” is the generally accepted term.

Ah - I actually meant "Class Feature" as they care called in the PHB; which I erroneously have been calling "Feats" for quite some time. I learned something new today - a good day.