D&D 5E Arcane multiclassing... does it make sense?

[Satyrn]

The only reason I can see that you'd go from warlock to wizard is if you're looking for a way to betray your patron and break the pact.

Nice work coming up with reasons for everything else. Let me fill in this gap:

A warlock turned wizard wouldn't necessarily be aiming to betray his patron. He could just decide that the best way to further his patron's goal is to gather power that his patron can't give him. Or maybe the patron can form a connection to his warlock, so that as the warlock gains wizard powers his patron can siphon off a piece of that power for itself.

 

[Satyrn]

Or maybe the patron can form a connection to his warlock, so that as the warlock gains wizard powers his patron can siphon off a piece of that power for itself.

Oh! I just thought of something with this concept.

If the patron has tasked the warlock with learning wizard secrets, then every level of he gains that isn't a wizard level means he's not fulfilling his half of the bargain. And more, every level of warlock could represent him betraying his patron, as he siphons power from his patron.

There is no limit to how we can view arcane multiclassing.

 

[FrogReaver]

The part that doesn't make sense is the 3E-style multi-classing, where advancing in a second class makes it harder to advance in your first class. We know that gaining three levels of warlock after gaining three levels of wizard will make it much harder to gain the next three levels of wizard, but it's not necessarily portrayed that way consistently in the narrative. The narrative wants us to think that multi-classing is a brief detour that will only slow us down temporarily, while giving exciting new powers to augment the old ones, rather than permanently dropping us behind so that we'll never be able to catch up to what we could have been.

That particular narrative would make a lot more sense if the rules gave us separate level tracks for each different class.

In some other game maybe. I think D&D front loads to much on most classes to make that feasible.

 

[Sunseeker]

Oh! I just thought of something with this concept.

If the patron has tasked the warlock with learning wizard secrets, then every level of he gains that isn't a wizard level means he's not fulfilling his half of the bargain. And more, every level of warlock could represent him betraying his patron, as he siphons power from his patron.

There is no limit to how we can view arcane multiclassing.

Are we really even talking about multiclassing at this point?

I mean, if we're fluffing it, the Wizard studies magic. The Warlock is granted it from their patron. The Sorcerer has an innate magical connection.

What's to say the magic being studied isn't being provided by a patron? Or the innate connection is to a patron? Or the pact is is with a patron of knowledge.

If we're "fluffing" to the point where being a warlock means not taking levels in being a warlock, why not just refluff the entire class you want to be, skip out on multiclassing between arcane classes (which is ineffective and poorly supported by the rules) and then just be a "Warlock" using the Wizard class? Or Sorcerer class?

 

[Satyrn]

Are we really even talking about multiclassing at this point?

Well I am, yes.

In that example, I'm not saying the warlock isn't being a warlock when he gains warlock levels. He very much is. But he wouldn't be serving his patron, because his patron doesn't want him to grow as a warlock. He wants the warlock to gain power in wizardry by taking wizard levels. That's very much a warlock/wizard multiclass.

But I don't understand why you're asking "what's to say . . .?" and other what ifs. Of course those things could apply. Or not That's my point. Endless variations are available, limited only by our collective creativity.

 

[TwoSix]

If we're "fluffing" to the point where being a warlock means not taking levels in being a warlock, why not just refluff the entire class you want to be, skip out on multiclassing between arcane classes (which is ineffective and poorly supported by the rules) and then just be a "Warlock" using the Wizard class? Or Sorcerer class?

Why not indeed?

 

[James Gasik]

Well what is the argument here? That it doesn't "make sense" for spellcasters to multiclass based on effectiveness, or personal bias? Effectiveness is highly variable, but I've seen Sorcerer/Warlock builds that game the system and don't seem terribly upset by the loss of spell slots.

Personal bias? Everyone has something that triggers them. 2017 and I still know people who are put out that Dwarves can be Wizards or Elves can be Paladins. The most common complaint comes down to a lack of justification based on the story.

If a DM wants to say that characters can't have multiple 'power sources' because it's not done in his setting, hey that's fine. But to say there's no logic in a character already drawing from one source to seek out another is overly simplistic. There are lots of reasons why a character might do such a thing. It's entirely possible, for example, to have a Fiendish pact with a powerful Archdevil, like Asmodeus, who actually has Clerics in some settings.

So a Fiendlock is offered new powers from his patron, and gets Cleric casting? Sure, why couldn't that be a logical progression for a cultist?

Heck, at that point, he could cast cleric spells using his Warlock slots, and while he won't have as high level spells to call upon, he can cast cure wounds all day long! So now we have a situation where multiclassing as a caster can both be effective and justifiable.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why not indeed?

It was sort of rhetorical, I think this is a great solution to the problem. It certainly takes more work and a very agreeable DM, but I think just about anything is a better solution to multiclassing.

 

[TwoSix]

It was sort of rhetorical, I think this is a great solution to the problem. It certainly takes more work and a very agreeable DM, but I think just about anything is a better solution to multiclassing.

In general, I think you're always better off with liberal reskinning and houseruling to get the concept you want. But I've never been one to view class fluff as anything other than a starting point to build your own vision of the character.

 

[Croesus]

This leads me to well, question arcane multi classing, on a "fluff" level. Once you have succeeded in attaining power, why would you seek a different route to the same arcane power? You already found it! Keep going!

Because some folks are dilettantes. I have a friend who has multiple undergraduate degrees. One might just as well ask, "Well, why didn't you put all that effort into getting a single PhD?" To which he'd likely respond, "Because I found all this other stuff more interesting."

If you think of wizard, sorcerer, warlock, bard, etc. as different sciences, then multiclassing is no more remarkable than someone who has multiple degrees.