tannersharp
First Post
One simple question, is it worth it? And why
Multi classing
- Thread starter tannersharp
- Start date
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Sometimes it is.
One simple example: say I'm interested in being a magical artillery piece who outputs tons of damage. I could be a wizard 11, of course, or a sorcerer 11, and then I could Quickened Fireball + Fire Bolt every round for 8d6 + 3d10 damage (52-ish). But if I multiclassed as a Warlock 2/Sorcerer 9 instead, I could do Quickened Wall of Fire + Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast on three different enemies for 3x(5d8 + (1d10 + 5)) = 99 points of damage instead, and then on the next round I could Quicken my Eldritch Blast to hit twice as many enemies (potentially) and do 198 points of damage. In this case, my two levels of Warlock bought me more effectiveness than an extra two levels of Sorcerer would have.
Other cases where multiclassing can be fun and effective include Ranger 11/Assassin 3 (for critical hit Volleys and Stealth expertise), Paladin/Sorcerer combos (for AoE options and defensive magic like Shield and Blur), Bard/Warlock 2 (for direct damage options), and Barbarian/Rogue (Uncanny Dodge + Resistance stack, and so do Evasion + Danger Sense; and Reckless Attack enables Sneak Attack even if you have no allies around).
One simple example: say I'm interested in being a magical artillery piece who outputs tons of damage. I could be a wizard 11, of course, or a sorcerer 11, and then I could Quickened Fireball + Fire Bolt every round for 8d6 + 3d10 damage (52-ish). But if I multiclassed as a Warlock 2/Sorcerer 9 instead, I could do Quickened Wall of Fire + Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast on three different enemies for 3x(5d8 + (1d10 + 5)) = 99 points of damage instead, and then on the next round I could Quicken my Eldritch Blast to hit twice as many enemies (potentially) and do 198 points of damage. In this case, my two levels of Warlock bought me more effectiveness than an extra two levels of Sorcerer would have.
Other cases where multiclassing can be fun and effective include Ranger 11/Assassin 3 (for critical hit Volleys and Stealth expertise), Paladin/Sorcerer combos (for AoE options and defensive magic like Shield and Blur), Bard/Warlock 2 (for direct damage options), and Barbarian/Rogue (Uncanny Dodge + Resistance stack, and so do Evasion + Danger Sense; and Reckless Attack enables Sneak Attack even if you have no allies around).
Wik
First Post
Well, mechanically? Maybe. You can come up with some fun builds.
But honestly? I'd say no. Most of the character concepts you want can be made simply by picking a background, class, and race. You want a sneaky, indiana jones-like rogue? Take a sage, be a rogue with a thief background, and give him a whip. You want a tough pirate? Fighter with the Sailor background, focus on constitution.
I find that with multi-classing, you get into the point where you need to have a mechanic on your character sheet to represent the idea you want in play. Too many rules in the game puts you into a mindset where you need the rules to express an idea. Over time, this means that you only create characters that the rules allow... and that's where the game begins to be less fun.
My humble opinion, but yeah, you can do without them. My group has no problem that they're not in (except for one player, who actually agrees with me that they shouldn't be in, but wishes they were because he has some builds he'd like to try). Play the game at a simpler level, and don't worry about the complex stuff. It's not needed, and it'll just get in the way.
But honestly? I'd say no. Most of the character concepts you want can be made simply by picking a background, class, and race. You want a sneaky, indiana jones-like rogue? Take a sage, be a rogue with a thief background, and give him a whip. You want a tough pirate? Fighter with the Sailor background, focus on constitution.
I find that with multi-classing, you get into the point where you need to have a mechanic on your character sheet to represent the idea you want in play. Too many rules in the game puts you into a mindset where you need the rules to express an idea. Over time, this means that you only create characters that the rules allow... and that's where the game begins to be less fun.
My humble opinion, but yeah, you can do without them. My group has no problem that they're not in (except for one player, who actually agrees with me that they shouldn't be in, but wishes they were because he has some builds he'd like to try). Play the game at a simpler level, and don't worry about the complex stuff. It's not needed, and it'll just get in the way.
Lancelot
Adventurer
There's no right or wrong answer to the question.
If you're looking for mechanical optimization, then there are some things that you can do with multi-classing that produce interesting outcomes. I haven't yet experienced combos that are broken to the same extent as what I've seen in 3e D&D.
However, after 100+ sessions of 5e D&D (almost all as DM for a group of 4-6 players), I'll make the following observations:
1) As stated by Wik, there's a lot you can do with the whole background/class/race thing. I'll go a step further, and also add feats to the list. One of my players decided to "get religion" by taking the Magic Initiate feat. He was playing a wizard, and wanted to be ordained into the faith of the God of Magic. Rather than taking a level of cleric, he took the Magic Initiate feat and selected cleric spells as his options. I thought this was a brilliant decision by the player; he'd roleplayed his faithfulness and devotion since the character began, and the spells he chose were not "optimal" choices or intended for some kind of combo. It was pure story-telling.
2) Personal Opinion Time: I have a known aversion to multi-classing because of one player in my group. He only plays multi-class characters (or single-class monks, oddly). And it's torturous. He'll create a 1st level Fighter. Then, at 2nd level, he'll go cleric (for three levels). Then, at 5th level, he'll go ranger. And here's the kicker: when I ask him why he's become a cleric, or a ranger, his response is always: "...because I need it for the build. If I combine this with that, then I get a huge AC... or I can use my Bonus Action to do the following... etc". I kind of hate this. The famous literary character Conan may have started out as a Barbarian, then Rogue, then Barbarian again, then finished as a Fighter... but at least that's a progression based on the character's story and life experiences. Planning out your character's multi-classing based on some Internet-posted combo-build just annoys me.
3) Finally, I've seen a few other players attempt "honest" multi-class builds that try to do many different things well. I've seen one player who didn't want to be reliant on other players to heal him, so his fighter took a few levels in cleric - simply so that he could self-heal. I've seen another player who took a level in wizard simply so that he counted as a spellcaster and could use certain wands/staves/scrolls. These weren't power-gaming choices, but they weren't (in my opinion) much better than the combo-building guy above. They ignored the fact that D&D is a team game, and your character probably can't be all things to all people. Some of these multi-class characters ended up creating arguments at the table ("I don't need your cleric! I can heal myself!", "No, I don't agree that the 8th level wizard should get the spell scroll! My Fighter 7 / Wizard 1 is also a wizard!", "Why the heck did you waste a level on wizard? You're our only warrior! Why are you trying to do my job?").
Now, those are just some of my experiences. And, to forestall the inevitable helpful suggestion, I continue to allow multi-classing in nearly every case because I try to be a "Yes DM" rather than a "No DM". And, fortunately, the majority of my players are perfectly happy with single-class characters.
However, if I've learned anything, I'd return the question to the Original Poster: "What are you trying to achieve with multi-classing?". If it's something story-related and non-optimized, such as modelling a genuine change in your character's career or outlook on life, then good for you. On the other hand, if you're looking for power-gaming tips or what produces the most Damage-Per-Round, then I'm the wrong DM to ask... or play with.
If you're looking for mechanical optimization, then there are some things that you can do with multi-classing that produce interesting outcomes. I haven't yet experienced combos that are broken to the same extent as what I've seen in 3e D&D.
However, after 100+ sessions of 5e D&D (almost all as DM for a group of 4-6 players), I'll make the following observations:
1) As stated by Wik, there's a lot you can do with the whole background/class/race thing. I'll go a step further, and also add feats to the list. One of my players decided to "get religion" by taking the Magic Initiate feat. He was playing a wizard, and wanted to be ordained into the faith of the God of Magic. Rather than taking a level of cleric, he took the Magic Initiate feat and selected cleric spells as his options. I thought this was a brilliant decision by the player; he'd roleplayed his faithfulness and devotion since the character began, and the spells he chose were not "optimal" choices or intended for some kind of combo. It was pure story-telling.
2) Personal Opinion Time: I have a known aversion to multi-classing because of one player in my group. He only plays multi-class characters (or single-class monks, oddly). And it's torturous. He'll create a 1st level Fighter. Then, at 2nd level, he'll go cleric (for three levels). Then, at 5th level, he'll go ranger. And here's the kicker: when I ask him why he's become a cleric, or a ranger, his response is always: "...because I need it for the build. If I combine this with that, then I get a huge AC... or I can use my Bonus Action to do the following... etc". I kind of hate this. The famous literary character Conan may have started out as a Barbarian, then Rogue, then Barbarian again, then finished as a Fighter... but at least that's a progression based on the character's story and life experiences. Planning out your character's multi-classing based on some Internet-posted combo-build just annoys me.
3) Finally, I've seen a few other players attempt "honest" multi-class builds that try to do many different things well. I've seen one player who didn't want to be reliant on other players to heal him, so his fighter took a few levels in cleric - simply so that he could self-heal. I've seen another player who took a level in wizard simply so that he counted as a spellcaster and could use certain wands/staves/scrolls. These weren't power-gaming choices, but they weren't (in my opinion) much better than the combo-building guy above. They ignored the fact that D&D is a team game, and your character probably can't be all things to all people. Some of these multi-class characters ended up creating arguments at the table ("I don't need your cleric! I can heal myself!", "No, I don't agree that the 8th level wizard should get the spell scroll! My Fighter 7 / Wizard 1 is also a wizard!", "Why the heck did you waste a level on wizard? You're our only warrior! Why are you trying to do my job?").
Now, those are just some of my experiences. And, to forestall the inevitable helpful suggestion, I continue to allow multi-classing in nearly every case because I try to be a "Yes DM" rather than a "No DM". And, fortunately, the majority of my players are perfectly happy with single-class characters.
However, if I've learned anything, I'd return the question to the Original Poster: "What are you trying to achieve with multi-classing?". If it's something story-related and non-optimized, such as modelling a genuine change in your character's career or outlook on life, then good for you. On the other hand, if you're looking for power-gaming tips or what produces the most Damage-Per-Round, then I'm the wrong DM to ask... or play with.
Wik
First Post
That is my experience with multi-classing as well. "If I do this, then this, and then go here, I'll get x". At its worst, players aren't even playing the game for the game, but for a pre-ordained build. And I always wonder - what's the point? You've already built the character's final draft! It'd be like trying to build a lego castle, putting the whole thing together, and then giving a guy each and every piece so he can parcel them out to you, one piece at a time, over eighteen months so you can show everyone else the wonderful castle you built.
Personally, were I to ever design an RPG, I'd have stats go up through use in play, and have adventures give you class abilities, rather than choices you made. You'd start off with a bog standard fighter, mage, or whatever, and then have the character completely change through play. That time amongst the goblins gave you a big of knowledge of their language and the ability to use your size to move through crowds, while that adventure on the Dark Sea told you how to navigate ships and keep your balance in bad situations. It'd be awesome to have a system that enforced the idea that your character develops in response to his or her experiences, and not in response to some player's pre-ordained idea of who the PC will become.
Last week, I had a new player give me a huge background for all the things his character had done (this guy knew nothing of my setting, either!), and then told me all the things he wanted his character to achieve and who he was going to be. I got told the PC's story arc. I nodded politely, and said "that's nice, but this is a game where you should have only a basic idea of who your character was, and absolutely no idea on who he'll be."
Before the night was over, his character had picked up a cursed sword and now he's kind of possessed. And loving the curve ball I threw him. So, yeah, there's hope with these types.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Maybe. It depends on how the system is implemented. 5E encourages "build" planning because of ever-increasing opportunity cost: if I spend 5 levels as a barbarian, it is too late for me ever to get 4 attacks per round as a 20th level fighter (unless my DM has rules for levels beyond 20), and even getting a third attack can't happen until 16th level at the earliest, whereas a normal fighter would get a third attack at level 11. You get locked in to early choices, so it's important to think about your eventual destination. This wouldn't be so much the case if AD&D-style dual classing were a thing, because all you'd be losing would be the 6500 XP you spent to get to barbarian 5.
If the "progress by experiences" system were implemented such that early choices didn't lock you out of later rewards, there would be no real need for "builds" and such builds would be less likely.
Similar Threads
- Poll
- Poll
