D&D 5E Combat styles and multi-classing

[FrogReaver]

Sigh... because he is gaining +2 damage with every melee attack he makes and the player loves that feature.

I could say sigh to. It's frustrating when you bring in an example that has nothing to do with the discussion. It's doubly frustrating when you try to say some other example is the same as that when it obviously isn't.

The case would be the same if the character was a Fighter/Paladin.

No it wouldn't. A fighter/Paladin would already have the +2 to damage style. They would then pick up the +1 AC.

Taking Defensive as a fighter and Dueling as a Paladin, that character would certainly miss the +2 to damage all the time if you weren't allowed to take more than one fighting style.

Sure... but no one really takes defensive style as their first fighting style before picking up dueling style, right?

The point is they are more valuable that you give them credit for IMO and why I thought they shouldn't be restricted.

+1 AC is not very valuable IMO - But suppose you think it is - you can at least admit that it's infinitely less valuable than action surge/divine smite/subclass features/hunter's mark? Right?

You seem to believe them inconsequential compared to the other features as were I argue they can certainly be more important over the long term. Of course, to each their own.

+1 AC which is what the additional fighting style will be used for - IS inconsequential. In fact I think you actually agree with this assessment because the only counterpoint you actually bring up is that the +2 to damage fighting style is consequential. That's something I agree with. It's just that since we are talking only of the case where you can have 2 fighting styles then the consequential one will always already be chosen.

More importantly though, this discussion is supposed to be about whether disallowing 2 fighting styles will impact multiclassing. It won't. +1 AC isn't a feature that get's multiclassed for now. Nor is it such a strong feature in the packages it comes in that someone would forego going for that package just because it isn't present.
​

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, it looks nice at 14th level. But let's look at the whole level range.

The multiclasser brings +1 AC, Action Surge, and the ability to get TWF which isn't among the style options for paladins. The last is notable at 4th level because TWF is busted at low level, and at levels 13+ because it synergizes nicely with Improved Divine Smite. The multiclasser also gets Second Wind, but this will rarely see use above low levels since it is competing for bonus actions with TWF and it only ever heals 1d10+2.

What does the straight paladin get to compensate?

At 4th level: Channel Divinity and an ASI.
At 5th level: An ASI, Extra Attack, and 2nd-level spells.
At 6th level: Extra Attack, 2nd-level spells, and Aura of Protection.
At 7th level: Aura of Protection, and that aura gets a major boost like "immune to charm" or "resistance to spell damage."
At 8th level: Boosted Aura of Protection and an ASI.
At 9th level: An ASI and 3rd-level spells.
At 10th level: 3rd-level spells and another aura boost, granting immunity to fear.
At 11th level: The immunity to fear boost and 1d8 bonus damage with each attack.
At 12th level: 1d8 bonus damage with each attack and an ASI.
At 13th level: An ASI and 4th-level spells.
At 14th level: 4th-level spells and the ability to remove hostile magic.
At 15th level: The ability to remove hostile magic, and a super-powerful defensive ability (e.g., regenerate ~10 hp/round whenever you're at half hit points or less, or permanent disadvantage to hit you for most of the high-level monsters in the game).
At 16th level: The super-powerful defensive ability and an ASI.
At 17th level: An ASI and 5th-level spells.
At 18th level: 5th-level spells and a 30-foot aura.
At 19th level: A 30-foot aura and an ASI.
At 20th level: An ASI and 1/day god mode.

At levels 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, and 19, the straight paladin is better. Extra Attack, Improved Divine Smite, and Aura Improvement are killer features for the paladin that trump everything fighter 2 brings to the table.
At levels 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17, the multiclasser is better.
At the other levels, it's debatable.

All in all, it lines up pretty well. And note also that much of the multiclasser's advantage at 13/14/17 depends on exploiting the benefits of TWF with Improved Divine Smite. If feats are in play, the straight paladin could pick up Polearm Master for a bonus action attack, and most of that advantage would disappear.

I totally agree. Multiclassing discussion always look at the now and never the future states. That's why things look good that actually aren't.

I wanted to add.... A Paladin can TWF without the style. In fact once you get Improved divine smite, it's actually a little stronger to do so even without TWF style if your just looking to be DPR / Smite Machine.

Is it worth going fighter for the style? No. What about second wind? No. It might be worth going fighter for action surge though. The other's are nice perks, but action surge is a strong enough ability to stand on it's own without additional packages supporting it.

 

[FrogReaver]

The reverse, however, does hold: a Paladin gets a lot for one or two levels of fighter. Fighting Style, Second Wind, and Action Surge are all very good. Compare a Paladin 12 / Ftr 2 that has the TWF Fighting Style with a Paladin 14.

The point you arguing against is that it's very unlikely a paladin chooses to multiclass to fighter just for TWF style. Your mention of Action Surge betrays that point. He's multiclassing for action surge. The added perk is nice, but really it's about getting action surge.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I could say sigh to. It's frustrating when you bring in an example that has nothing to do with the discussion. It's doubly frustrating when you try to say some other example is the same as that when it obviously isn't.

It's triply frustrating when I make a point and the connection should be obvious but you act like it isn't.

No it wouldn't. A fighter/Paladin would already have the +2 to damage style. They would then pick up the +1 AC.

LOL why would you think that? Depending on the character's concept the +1 to AC could easily be taken first before the bonus to damage.

Sure... but no one really takes defensive style as their first fighting style before picking up dueling style, right?

My dwarf did.

+1 AC is not very valuable IMO - But suppose you think it is - you can at least admit that it's infinitely less valuable than action surge/divine smite/subclass features/hunter's mark? Right?

Oh, so that is why you think that since you rate the bonus to AC so lowly...

Well, that is fine for your opinion, but no, I disagree. Most of the features you discuss are limited in uses. I much prefer a feature that is constant. Considering the number of attacks against the dwarf I had, that +1 to AC was very useful--all the time. Sure, he could action surge a couple times a day and I am not saying those sort of features don't have their uses (especially in novas), but I would put them on par with the fighting styles or at least equivalent relative to the level the features are obtained.

+1 AC which is what the additional fighting style will be used for - IS inconsequential. In fact I think you actually agree with this assessment because the only counterpoint you actually bring up is that the +2 to damage fighting style is consequential. That's something I agree with. It's just that since we are talking only of the case where you can have 2 fighting styles then the consequential one will always already be chosen.

More importantly though, this discussion is supposed to be about whether disallowing 2 fighting styles will impact multiclassing. It won't. +1 AC isn't a feature that get's multiclassed for now. Nor is it such a strong feature in the packages it comes in that someone would forego going for that package just because it isn't present.​

It would. Look at the analysis people have already done! If you take away a second fighting style, that only limits the attractiveness of mulitclassing. And you are making very broad general assumptions about how other people play their games. Our table values fighting styles and would like to see even more done with them, but if you limited multiclasses to a single style, what would be the point? (that is rhetorical, in case you missed it...)
​

 

[DND_Reborn]

Back to the OP: yes, it would have an impact. How significant that impact is depends vastly on the player and their character concept. To universally believe otherwise is short-sighted. If your table finds little benefit, then go ahead and limit them, but for myself as a player I would be EXTREMELY upset if our DM decided to limit them.

Of course, if they value them so lowly then why bother limiting them since the add so little?

 

[FrogReaver]

I'll leave it at this. No Ranger or Paladin multiclsses for a single level of fighter. They either don't multiclass with fighter or they at least go 2 levels to take action surge. That should be all the evidence anyone needs to assess how consequential most people view a 2nd fighting style.​

 

[Quartz]

The point you arguing against is that it's very unlikely a paladin chooses to multiclass to fighter just for TWF style.

Really? Take a look at the damage output of a level 11+ Paladin with TWF.

Your mention of Action Surge betrays that point. He's multiclassing for action surge. The added perk is nice, but really it's about getting action surge.

No. You're overthinking it. Remember I said one or two levels? Fighting Style comes at level 1, Action Surge at level two. I just listed the abilites.

 

[Quartz]

Sure, it looks nice at 14th level. But let's look at the whole level range.

I think you've forgotten the alternative: get to Paladin 12, then take a level (or two) of Fighter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'll leave it at this. No Ranger or Paladin multiclsses for a single level of fighter. They either don't multiclass with fighter or they at least go 2 levels to take action surge. That should be all the evidence anyone needs to assess how consequential most people view a 2nd fighting style.

To say "no ranger or paladin multiclasses for a single of level of fighter" is unreasonable. I am sure, somewhere out there, someone snagged a single level of fighter just to grab the fighting style and second wind as well.

Otherwise, I completely agree, if another level is available for it they would most likely take a second level, but it is by no means mandatory.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think you've forgotten the alternative: get to Paladin 12, then take a level (or two) of Fighter.

Then you didn’t understand his chart