Multi-classing: as good as it seems?

[Sunseeker]

There are few reasons I can think to go MC other than to dip a couple levels. Primary casters don't need it, so you're usually rogue picking up some fighter levels or fighter picking up some rogue levels or something along those lines.

Paladin/warlock combos still seem OP, but that's been true for several editions, 'cause charisma synergy ya know.

 

[cbwjm]

I still like making a fighter/mage by mixing fighter and wizard levels even though there is the eldritch knight (which might also be chosen as the fighter subclass). The multiclassing I've seen is tends to be for fun rather than to eke out as much of an advantage as possible in combat.

 

[5ekyu]

In the game i am currently in there is a fighter starting as a rogue for i woulg guess three levels but maybe less. My bet it he will feel it at 5th.

On the other hand my sorc will definitely run thru 5th and i am only about half sure that i might mc at 6 and 7 warlock (bard perhaps with her entertainer focus) and then drop back to sorc for the rest.

I wouldnt even think about delaying the 1-5 progression myself but delaying 6-8 by 2 seems fine if it open up significant gains.

 

[FrogReaver]

For any character levels except 1, 5 and 11, I can generally create a multiclass combo that is "better" than a monoclass option... except for primary spellcasters. By better, I mean is more effective in their primary role.

Yep. You can always add rogue levels for more damage at a specific non 1, 5, or 11th level character, or warlock for hex acces. You can always add barbarian for rage and possibly reckless attack. These are big boosts at the mid levels, however, they are only typically boosts until the next 5 or 11th level breakpoint at which time a solo classed characters is better again.

I think there are some very strong full caster combinations as well and those can often be stronger than solo classed casters. I think blaster casters are usually strong multiclassed at least after they hit level 5-7. Trading high level spells doesn't necessarily make them a better wizard or cleric but if the goal is blasting there are a lot of multiclassed combinations that are arguably better than a solo classed caster.

 

[FrogReaver]

So

When I first read the 5e PHB, I was initially surprised that multiclassing was optional. However, when I saw the flexibility that backgrounds brought to the game, and the number of "pseudo multiclass " options (like the arcane trickster), it seemed that multiclassing wasn't really needed anymore.

The inclination to not allow multiclassing increased when I started seeing things like the sorlock or sorcadin. These seemed op and in some cases quite cheesy.

But lately I am starting to think that these multiclass creations are not as powerful as they might appear. A number of them need several levels before they "come online" . Meanwhile, single class PCs get a big bump at level 5. By the time the multiclass PC reaches that, the others have gained useful abilities like the paladin 's aura, or higher level spells, as well as being ahead ASI/feat wise.

By the time the multiclass PC catches up on those, the others now have the level 11 bump... and not too long after that most campaigns will end!

So while a white room analysis tells us that these creations are really potent, I wonder if that is the case in actual play...

I can't think of any multiclass composition that is going to be hands down better at level 11 than a single classed character. That said I can think of a number that are comparable enough and some of those may actually be better in the levels between 5 and 11.

 

[Ancalagon]

Some further thought on this issue:

1: Opportunity cost. When looking if a spell is good - the "cast round A, act round B" type - you always want to ask yourself "would I have been better off just acting twice"? True Strike is a great example of a spell where it's just not worth it. Well it's one thing wasting a round. Imagine wasting *a level or two*. Painful! I think this cost is under-estimated in a lot of whiteroom builds.

2: While multiclassing can give you a good character, it can also be the road to some reaaaaly mediocre ones, if you don't try to go for some synergy. It's hard to make a truly bad character in D&D accidentally... if it's single class. Multiclass... not so hard.

 

[Ancalagon]

Dipping 1-3 levels can be a big power boost. The only real combo that I've seen be broken is a paladin warlock with hexblade. I don't allow hexblade multi classes. Straight lock hexblade are fine.

I think a few other hexblades can be fine too - like a fighter dip to "stiffen" the class, or maybe swashbuckler? But paladin hexblade is crazy, and hexblade/college of sword is *extremely* flexible.

 

[Ancalagon]

In the game i am currently in there is a fighter starting as a rogue for i woulg guess three levels but maybe less. My bet it he will feel it at 5th.

On the other hand my sorc will definitely run thru 5th and i am only about half sure that i might mc at 6 and 7 warlock (bard perhaps with her entertainer focus) and then drop back to sorc for the rest.

I wouldnt even think about delaying the 1-5 progression myself but delaying 6-8 by 2 seems fine if it open up significant gains.

The problem with this is that it's not always possible from a "story" perspective.

The other day [MENTION=6689161]Warpiglet[/MENTION] came up with a very good character concept and we bounced ideas on how to do it, rule wise. The base concept is a character who's experimented upon by a powerful evil wizard, resulting in warlock levels. I thought I would have the character be a fighter level 2-3, and then move on warlock (hexblade) from there.

But that means your level 5 *will* be delayed! The story dictates the order of levels, and that's not always the "best" one.

 

[5ekyu]

The problem with this is that it's not always possible from a "story" perspective.

The other day [MENTION=6689161]Warpiglet[/MENTION] came up with a very good character concept and we bounced ideas on how to do it, rule wise. The base concept is a character who's experimented upon by a powerful evil wizard, resulting in warlock levels. I thought I would have the character be a fighter level 2-3, and then move on warlock (hexblade) from there.

But that means your level 5 *will* be delayed! The story dictates the order of levels, and that's not always the "best" one.

There are very few things (if any) that are always possible from a story perspective if one considers the set of story perspective to be "anything anyone on the internet can conceive of", right?

But the point is clear enough that the story and development sequence do need to track as much as the group involved requires for such things.

I saw no difference in play (so far) in the gameplay or background beyween the rogue-going fighter and the two other rogues-going-ett-rogue in the game.

On the other hand, my halfling sorcerer entertainer took entertainer background, sings spells verbals and believes ahe shares dreams with potent other-worldly "dragons" and runs dragon card fortune telling readings as part of her performances.

So, when it comes to 6th and she will have that awakening, i think i have sown enough seeds for the bard or warlock flower to bloom.

So, nust not sure i agree with the assessment of the "problem", but hey, to each their own.

 

[Ancalagon]

Another thing, and an important one I think:

I'm not sure that balancing across levels is a good idea, or even fair. It used to be that wizards were quite weak at low levels, compared to say a fighter, and very potent at high levels. This was seen as balanced "overall ", but many felt that this wasn't a good way to balance classes.