D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Charles Rampant]

If you say so, mate. You've expended a huge number of words trying to prove that the sky is blue, when I never said it wasn't, but instead said that I prefer my own worlds to have red skies.

 

[hejtmane]

That's a very.. romantic way of imaging the Character Builds & Optimization. Aside from the various class optimization guides, where the emphasis is power - and typically combat power at that - the majority of the posts are: Class/race/misc combo presented, followed by requests to make them the most effective, in other words, a request for advice regarding the best numbers/returns through option choice. And often a 'dip' is recommended, which obviously involves multiclassing.

Those dips, most of the time, are not about the roleplay optimization of a character but instead about getting the best numbers/most powerful options. As your say in your reply, ''The optimization board usually starts off like this: I have this concept of blah and blah help me optimize this build around that concept.'' Those asking for advice on optimization are not looking for role-play advice. Nobody is replying, ''Well, try to imagine what motives your character, what drives them'' or ''Have you considered what responsibilities define your character?'' Replies are, the vast majority of the time, advice regarding which options to choose for the best possible mechanical performance of a character, typically with regards to combat, be it through direct damage, control or utility.

Multiclassing present options - and often those options synergise to present particularity powerful builds. So naturally, when asked for advice, there are often suggestions to multiclass (..regardless of the validity of said suggestion). With multiclassing being a key component, via dipping or by simply taking X levels, in the advice on how to 'optimize my character concept', is it any wonder that multiclassing is so strongly associated with 'power gaming'?

Kind of funny since most the guides suggest straight class I know I read most of them and people who do multiclass also do not want to suck so hence to make sure not to because generally a multiclass dip in 5e cost you more than straight class. The reason most people i can tell pick only certain races in their guide is point buy. I Do not use point buy in my games we do 4d6-L and I have guys using non optimal races because of not worried because they generally have one really good roll for their main stat and several good rolls for the other stats.

5e Multiclassing is weird it encourages a dip for a concept because of the delays on asi and extra attacks which I am fine with it prevents a lot of the horror story of 3.5 I here about; way better than the old 1e system. 5e multi-classing is far from power gaming their are a few builds that work while but nothing compared to straight class especially if you include feats. Yes because of delay of power you only want to take so many levels and you see a recommended for only 2-3 levels depending on the main class is the cap stones powers of those straight classes at 17-18 are so good. See 5e favors single class in most ways with capstone powers at certain each class is a little different and some better than others.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Whether multiclassing does actually lend itself to building better characters is a moot point. The fact is that multiclassing is often given as advice to get the best returns on a build and each has their reasons for making such a suggestion. For example, multiclassing can provide options and a few classes are particularly frontloaded in terms of abilities they offer, making for great dips. Your point on capstones is sound, if of course players are expecting to ever reach those levels which is not a given (for example, if a group does not intend to play until 17-18). I'd argue that campaigns that reach such high levels of play are in the minority and as a result multiclassing is an attractive option to many groups where higher level abilities of single classed character will not be enjoyed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying power gaming is a some how 'bad wrong fun' - and it may simply be a matter of semantics (often people prefer the term 'optimizer' than 'power gamer' due to the latter being perceived negatively. Folks are welcome to hash out the differences in their own time). The point I'm making is that multiclassing is often advised as a way of getting more out of a build, often by advising a 1-3 level dip, with the intent of providing more power to a build through additional options and/or certain synergies. As such, multiclassing is often associated with power gaming. Whether it actually makes for powerful characters is obviously up for debate and often depends on the context the build is intended to operate within.

 

[hejtmane]

Whether multiclassing does actually lend itself to building better characters is a moot point. The fact is that multiclassing is often given as advice to get the best returns on a build and there are many reasons why people make such suggestion: multiclassing can provide options and a few classes are particularly frontloaded in terms of abilities they offer, making for great dips. Your point on capstones is sound, if of course players are expecting to ever reach those levels which is not a given (for example, if a group does not intend to play until 17-18). I'd argue that campaigns that reach such high levels of play are in the minority and as a result multiclassing is an attractive option to many groups where higher level abilities of single classed character will not be enjoyed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying power gaming is a some how 'bad wrong fun' - and it may simply be a matter of semantics (often people prefer the term 'optimizer' than 'power gamer' due to the latter being perceived negatively. Folks are welcome to hash out the differences in their own time). The point I'm making is that multiclassing is often advised as a way of getting more out of a build, often by advising a 1-3 level dip, with the intent of providing more power to a build through additional options and/or certain synergies. As such, multiclassing is often associated with power gaming. Whether it actually makes for powerful characters is obviously up for debate and often depends on the context the build is intended to operate within.

If you are power gaming in 5e except in a few spots then straight class is more powerful

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

If you say so/believe so great! But that has nothing to do with the perceived relationship between multiclassing and powergaming.

 

[Blue]

I'm starting this off with: I am very pro-multiclassing, and thing that 5e has worked out the balance nicely unless you start a character in the teens. I am not trying to disagree with that.

The DM really does have a choice about the in-game things he allows in his game, but MCing is not in-game, it's metagame.

But the DM does also have control over mechanics because of how it effects the game. And this is both for in-world reasons and for non in-world, play reasons.

You can say you don't allow warlocks, you can say you won't allow fighters, but if you allow those classes and the abilities that they have then you cannot disallow MC fighter/warlocks on the grounds that it doesn't fit the vision for your campaign. You already do allow those things in your campaign!

Maybe a DM says "The gods of fickle whom they grant power - you can't MC warlock with either paladin or cleric in this world". Even though warlock, clerics and paladins all exist, there can be in-world reasons that disallow the multiclass.

Let's go for a non in-game reason. Say a DM wants to include a number of UA classes/subclasses (or DM's Guild, or whatever) but doesn't feel that they are as balanced vs. cherry-picking as the great job done on the PHB classes. (Mearls has even said that multiclass balancing comes at a later point then the first UA draft.) Saying "once you take a UA class you need to go to at least 3rd before you can take levels in anything else". Right there you have a DM doing due diligence (justified or not) for allowing playtest/3rd party products in to allow the players more choice.

If you allow training in weapons and armour, and you allow warlocks, you cannot say that warlocks with weapon/armour training are against the laws of physics! What in-game reason prevents them?

There are literally decades of D&D play in earlier editions that say that armor messes with magical physics and arcane casters can't wear it. Blanket prohibition. And even when it start being allowed, there was a failure chance that you'd just lose the spell. This was as real in-game as "metal is rare and valuable" is in Dark Sun.

We also had clerics unable to use any weapons except bludgeoning ones regardless of who the worshiped, and we STILL have Druids who can't/won't wear metal armor.

There's plenty of reasons why a DM customizes their own game for the setting, campaign, and mechanical feel they want. Including at the mechanical level that's not observable in-game. There should still be player buy-in - DM & players all come to have fun. But having the rules support the setting and theme for a particular game makes sense to me.

To turn it around, I'm definitely with you about the rules supporting multiclassing. I'm for more options so that each table can choose what works best, including "everything and the kitchen sink". Let each game find what works for them, and let the game mechanics be wide enough to cover everything and anything a table could want.

 

[hejtmane]

If you say so/believe so great! But that has nothing to do with the perceived relationship between multiclassing and powergaming.

See that is the issue we have perceived relationship because of all the 3.5 history, me personally I never had to deal with it played it once period so I do not have that bias against it because of that never played 4.0 barley played any 2.0. I am old school as they come from D&D and 1E but I also forgotten a lot from those days happens when you get old it's a (filter) getting old. I get that but that does not change the reality yes some of the multiclassing is strong usually early levels but it tapers off and they even fall behind it is not a liner progression. Part of the issue is concepts and the cost of those concepts to build.

If you want to build a Battlemage (heavy armor spell caster) there are issue you have very limited asi's as a wizard/sorc 4,8,12 so you could use a feat if allowed but that cost you precious asi's which are very important especially on a point buy. Then the thought process goes hey I can multiclass for my theme.

1-2 levels fighter to start then wizard the rest of the way hey bonus I get concentration saving throw and heavy armor and for a 2nd level I get action surge as while, instead of taking a feat that would have given them heavy armor hence a 1-2 level dip to open to build their character. It would take 8 levels and 2 feats to get the same thing even though it is possible with feats. The feat tax is high is the issue for a lot of concepts (outside of fighter) and those feats are not necessarily supper strong (cough cough compared to the power 4). That is a flaw in the current 5e system; it is not all bad but if you want a battle mage a small dip is a better return then taking the heavy armor feat and you get more benefits.


I have a battle mage in my current game we went less optimal for theme reason and did cleric tempest/to go with his storm sorcerer.

Yes some multi-class builds are strong but the 5e design on multi-class is not the power gaming mecca of the 3.5 system that everyone is so hell bent on projecting on to the 5e system. hence why on the UA article when I do give feed back I include that in my feedback on surveys

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Oh aye, I'm not saying that the perceived relationship between multiclassing and power gaming is accurate, but as you say, it is still there, even in 5E. Hence many folks shy away from MC/worry about allowing the optional rule as part of their game.

 

[Blue]

Whether multiclassing does actually lend itself to building better characters is a moot point. The fact is that multiclassing is often given as advice to get the best returns on a build and each has their reasons for making such a suggestion. For example, multiclassing can provide options and a few classes are particularly frontloaded in terms of abilities they offer, making for great dips. Your point on capstones is sound, if of course players are expecting to ever reach those levels which is not a given (for example, if a group does not intend to play until 17-18). I'd argue that campaigns that reach such high levels of play are in the minority and as a result multiclassing is an attractive option to many groups where higher level abilities of single classed character will not be enjoyed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying power gaming is a some how 'bad wrong fun' - and it may simply be a matter of semantics (often people prefer the term 'optimizer' than 'power gamer' due to the latter being perceived negatively. Folks are welcome to hash out the differences in their own time). The point I'm making is that multiclassing is often advised as a way of getting more out of a build, often by advising a 1-3 level dip, with the intent of providing more power to a build through additional options and/or certain synergies. As such, multiclassing is often associated with power gaming. Whether it actually makes for powerful characters is obviously up for debate and often depends on the context the build is intended to operate within.

Let me paraphrase what I'm getting out of this to make sure that I understand. It seems this post is putting forth that there is only one reason to multiclass, which may have negative feelings in the community with the caveat that it doesn't matter if they are true, then uses that as an argument again multiclassing.

If that is the general gist of it, I'd like to expand it with other reasons you can multiclass that don't have any perceived stigma against them.

My go-to visual aid for classes is like dropping coins on an index card. (Why an index card? It's geekier.) The area under the coins are concepts that can be mechanically realized with the classes. Sometimes coins end up overlapping and there is more than one class that can do a good job, such as an archer.

But there is also space between coins - if you can take from multiple coins you can build those concepts. A church inquisitor, a city urchin who ran away and was taken in my a kindly druid in the forest, the warrior who uses magic to help their fighting (oh look, there is also a subclass for that, so archetypes combining classes are a thing).

There's also space between the coins and the edge, which currently aren't covered by any classes. These are just concepts that don't fit well into D&D classes, but that's another point.

Basically, multiclassing can allow a lot of iconic concepts that don't fit well into the existing class structure. Literature is full of them.

Multiclassing also fulfills an additional role of allowing more flexibility to grow your character in response to the unfolding story of the campaign. When you pick a class at character creation, without multiclassing that's the only direction you can go with the most potent of your character growths - levelling. But what about the character who finds religion and takes cleric or paladin levels, or makes a dark pact after a near TPK and becomes a warlock.

Some examples of this in fiction would be "The Deeds of Paksenarrion", the best becoming-a-paladin series I've ever read hands down. More recently acclaimed is Patrick Rothfuss' "The Name of the Wind" and "Wise Man's Fear", where Kvothe starts as an actor / (non-caster) bard, becomes a street urchin rogue, picks up one of that world's type of magic (Sympathy), even later gains fae related powers as well as becoming an expert armed and unarmed combatant. As well as showing signs of picking up a completely different type of magic (Naming). To put him in D&D terms he's earned a lot of levels and gone back and forth in what he is studying. Heck, if classic Dragonlance was originally done with 5e rule set, Goldmoon was a barbarian princess well before she became a Cleric of the True Gods.

In conclusion, there are plenty of reasons to multiclass that have nothing to do with optimization, and at least in the groups I'm in "burn the min-maxer!" isn't the first impression when someone does so.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Let me paraphrase what I'm getting out of this to make sure that I understand. It seems this post is putting forth that there is only one reason to multiclass, which may have negative feelings in the community with the caveat that it doesn't matter if they are true, then uses that as an argument again multiclassing.

While I enjoyed reading your post, my post was certainly not about there being one reason to multiclass!