Multi-classing: as good as it seems?

[5ekyu]

Yup - being a warlock should "dominate" your character, RP wise.



I think the celestial pack warlock can make sense if the player and DM work on it ... but it's the only one that makes such sense easily. And min-maxers want *hexblade*...

But paladins and oaths have divorced the paladin from the LG shackles, in 5e which we must be talking as hexblade right?

Don't there exist dieties that have some passing interest or affiliation with say fey like woodys stuff - that could fit the feylord?
Don't their exist deities with affiliations with shadow and that stuff too?
etc etc etc?

even some of the knowledge or explorer could be linked in theory to "old ones", right?

Which patrons in your view are absolutely complete incompatable with any deities so that religiously focused character could not be associating with them in some form of conjunction with or go between divine to devoted?

I did not take the "patrons" as singular unique entities - as in there is a single old one or a single fiend etc - but as representations of a type of entity. Did you take it differently? Are all warlocks of the fiend following a single fiend?

 

[Warpiglet]

It's your concept (and a great one!) and whatever you come up with isn't the "wrong" answer



I think foreshadowing like this is a good idea, but for this specific case it wouldn't have to be because *he's the victim of a crazy experiment*. The power comes from the experiment, no need for explanation. In general, warlock is the most suitable for "sudden magical power" I think. If people had magical powers, they would have pursued that vein, no need for some dodgy pact...

... that being said, my build of that character has 3 levels of fighter to get EK

It is funny you say this...totally agree on the issue with pacts.

I like warlocking for flavor. I have had several, all lower level frankly. Would like to really advance one! I have never subscribed to the idea of pact as written just because I don't like the idea of someone being granted the spells. Rather, I like the idea of s being sharing knowledge (perhaps some that should be forgotten). As a result, if you stop doing what the patron wants, you stall in levels. I have no problem with a few levels for flavor.

As a side note, while I HAVE taken repelling blast (shoving someone off a cliff is epic) I have never craved quickened agonizing blast. Why do I mention this? Often when someone objects to a "dip" of warlock it is because they leave all of the them behind for some numeric advantage.

Hey if you want to do that, fine. However, people should not assume all level dipping is evil and story avoidant. I want a guy with creepy eyes that has consorted with other beings, researched magic in tome etc. and has a weird connection with outsider influences.

I plan to take (as discussed with you!) a warlock who not only had some contact with a creature from the shadowfell and has been influenced but also is learning to control some latent powers maybe awakened by the same...Thematically it is good to multiclass/dip but honestly for raw power I would fare better as a single class?

Dunno. I just want to play a spell caster that fights in melee a lot but is not a cleric or paladin. I want the arcane and creepy. I want more magic than a eldritch knight. I think some armor and weapons via warlock would mesh well for the concept


(An aside....I almost am convinced eldritch knight would be the way to go...its a fun thought...wish I could play it out both ways but then I hardly get to play as it is!)

 

[SkidAce]

I know its not a concept that many (any?) D&Ders follow, but the way my world is set up, deities don't like warlocks.

Things that cant access or grant divine power sponsor warlocks, with boons or secret lore.

If you are powerful enough (or connected to the faith/divine system) you don't deal with warlocks.

I have primordial patrons and esoteric patrons in addition to the PH ones.

This is world flavor and NPCs, if a player wanted to combine the two then they could develop a backstory for it, and the people of the world would react favorably or not as their imaginary standards would cause them to react.

 

[Oofta]

But paladins and oaths have divorced the paladin from the LG shackles, in 5e which we must be talking as hexblade right?

Don't there exist dieties that have some passing interest or affiliation with say fey like woodys stuff - that could fit the feylord?
Don't their exist deities with affiliations with shadow and that stuff too?
etc etc etc?

even some of the knowledge or explorer could be linked in theory to "old ones", right?

Which patrons in your view are absolutely complete incompatable with any deities so that religiously focused character could not be associating with them in some form of conjunction with or go between divine to devoted?

I did not take the "patrons" as singular unique entities - as in there is a single old one or a single fiend etc - but as representations of a type of entity. Did you take it differently? Are all warlocks of the fiend following a single fiend?

Two thoughts (well, at least according to the book your campaign may differ).

First, paladins get their power from their conviction to their oaths, not their deity. They don't have to have a patron deity even if most will. "A paladin swears to uphold justice and righteousness, to stand with the good things of the world against the encroaching darkness, and to hunt the forces of evil wherever they lurk. Different paladins focus on various aspects of the cause of righteousness, but all are bound by the oaths that grant them power to do their sacred work. Although many paladins are devoted to gods of good, a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god."

Second, warlocks specifically have a patron that is an otherworldly being. "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."

So some combinations may make sense, an Oath of the Ancients paladin that has a Arch Fey patron for example. For me though, it's more of a personal and rules-based objection. In cases where people did this, it was just to get a mechanical benefit and had nothing to do with the character which kind of biased me. That, and recovering spells during a short rest can be a pretty huge power bump in my campaigns, albeit one that matters less at higher levels.

As a house rule in my campaign if a PC is dedicated to a deity, I don't allow them to multi-class to warlock. You can't serve two masters. Gods can't be both deity and patron, and if the patron is just a lackey of the deity then they are powered by the deity. No shell-companies allowed, the power comes from either a deity or an other-worldly patron.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

We hardly ever multi-class. The only time i can think of is when one player tried a rogue-monk (going for an acrobatics feel) in a 20th level one shot.

The only other multiclass on the radar is one that I suggested (as DM) to one of my players. He is playing a bard but really wants to hit the loremaster/quasi-wizard angle. He focuses a lot on ritual utility spells like comprehend languages and identify, and currently has little going for him in the combat sphere (except that he's our sole healer). It bothers him that a bard can't wear a robe of the archmagi and things like that. I noticed that the 20th level bard ability is very underwhelming, and 1 level of wizard would both let him use any wizard item he came across, and let him take those ritual utility spells as a wizard, switching them out for more bard spells as he levels up.

In general, a multclass needs a strong concept that fits my vision of D&D to be allowed, and that isn't already satisfactorily found in the game in another form. Fortunately it hasn't really come up.

 

[Warpiglet]

For me the whole equation comes down to whether or not a rule makes it more fun. Period. If the text does not make it more fun, to hell with it.

For example, I do not want to play a character that sold his soul for warlock powers. It does not interest me. I like to make stories about finding forbidden lore and being influenced and guided by fallen angels or alien entities. I don't like the idea of a patron "granting" spells like a cleric but rather giving information to a warlock who gains the power by applying the knowledge that was given.

I can appreciate DMs enforcing rules but honestly if you trust a player you can give them some narrative power. I never abuse it when I play and have never had a PC in my campaign do so either.

I am not disparaging DMs who hew closely to the book or whatever, but neither do I feel totally beholden to it. A character with potential seeking forbidden lore could be represented by multiclassing sorcerer and warlock...I don't always like the idea of sorcerer just being gifted with a power. I like the idea of pursuing and obtaining.

I say all that to say this will influence how you see multiclassing to a great extent. I could even see a LG paladin of devotion with a fiend pact. It begs for a story. Maybe the character was seduced and tricked by a fallen angel. Maybe the evil entity is giving little bits of power to gradually sway the character to evil, etc etc etc.

The book fluff is fluff. Accept it if you wish or modify it. All you need is an agreement between DM and player. I say all this from the perspective of someone who really gets no joy AT ALL in cheese or dominating the game...but multiclassing opens lots of doors. It is not perfectly essential but it can be fun.

And what about dipping? What if I dip fighter for armor and weapons because I want to play a character who fights and casts spells? Did I just wreck the system or create the character I really wanted?

 

[Blue]

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...

The biggest problems with multiclassing is that it's easy to unintentionally shoot yourself in the foot and make a character that is far below the average character when you wanted someone on-par. This is especially true the earlier levels.

They have done a good job of moving back important features from 1-2 level to avoid cherry-picking, and the ASI advancement tied to class level is the other part of it. Multiclassing is pretty balanced in 5e.

The places it isn't is where class design leaves things at low levels. Here's a few:

• Gaining heavy armor proficiency and/or specific saves (usually CON for concentration saves) taking another class for 1st level.
• Cleric giving so much at 1st between domains (that can give proficiencies) and casting.
• Options that advance with class level like Eldritch Blast that can be picked up with a low investment but scale well.
• Hexblade patron CHR to attacks at 1st
• Fighter has a really solid 1, 2 and 3 with features you can take advantage of even with non-martial classes.
• A full caster with a single level of another caster to pick up cantrips and 1st level utilities (shield, bless, guidance, etc.)
• Paladin divine smite at 2nd on a full caster.

When 5e came out all of the optimizers I knew rushed to multiclass characters because that was the path the power in earlier editions. Now they play a mix, favoring single classed characters. But we also usually play in the 1-12 level range - if you're 15th or 18th you can cover a multitude of sins.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Multi-classing: as good as it seems?

It doesn't really seem that good. At first, I saw how MCing worked like 3.x modular MCing, but handled caster level better, and thought it a clear improvement. Then I saw how it worked with Extra Attack &c. So, not a clear improvement, better in some ways, not so great in others.

I'm also ambivalent about how effective MCing is: As a player, I don't see a lot of potential MC builds that are all that interesting or exciting, and they are, as the OP points out, as in 3e, often 'late blooming.' Conversely, a background can give you a hint of another class, right at 1st, and if there's not a background that screams the class you want a hint of, you can always negotiate one with your DM. Backgrounds aren't any great CharOP tool or anything, but they help with class concept. As a DM I see some potential abuses, some potential confusion & disappointment for casual players, and another set of permutations to comb through - and the magic word: 'optional.' So the easiest thing to do is just not opt-in and not worry about it.
Same with Feats, really.

 

[Blue]

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.

I have to disagree. Sure, I can build a character that "at level X only" may be better, not having to worry about getting there or advancing past that point.

But when making a character I am playing over the course of a campaign I don't think that the general statement of "the same multiclass character will be better then a single classed character at levels as they advance through levels at every level of their advancement except for levels 1, 5 and 11".

So I agree with what you specifically said, but think that's applicable to a one-shot and not applicable to a campaign.

 

[Blue]

At levels 2-4, a multi-class character is as powerful as a single-class one, but with greater flexibility. The main thing that you get out of those levels is Hit Points, and multi-classing sacrifices none of that.

The main thing is hitpoints ... and subclasses. And spells known of higher levels. And advancement of things like rages, spell points, combat wildshape, action surge, ki, divine smite, sneak attack damage, invocations, and other features that support the first class. Oh, and your first ASI/feat.

Sorry, let's replace that with "levels 2-4 give a huge amount to making a character work, to the degree that a single class is generally much more powerful than a multiclassed character at those levels.".