D&D General Class vs Identity

[DEFCON 1]

It's why I never understood the resistance to multiclassing. I'm not a fighter or a rogue, I'm a mercenary ready to work for the highest bidder.

I'm not a huge fan of multiclassing as a DM for a couple reasons (which have nothing to do with the rules for multiclassing themselves.)

One, multiclassing tends to depower a PC a bit, and I don't want my players to ever feel like they are below the curve. Usually if a player wants to multiclass it's because they want a specific game mechanic for their PC and multiclassing is the only way within the printed rules for them to get it. For instance, the Cleric who wishes to dual-wield because their deity does, but they can't get the Two-Weapon Fighting Style without multiclassing (or at least they couldn't before they added the feat in Tasha's). Ordinarily they'd have to postpone their spellcasting a level in order to just take a level in Fighter for that one mechanic... but because I never want to do that to my players I always let them do feature swaps instead. That way they can remain Cleric for their entire career, while still getting Two-Weapon Fighting Style to keep their dual-wield combat power online. I will always default to doing feature swaps over multiclassing whenever possible.

Second, with the size of my games in terms of player count... multiclassing tends to just create overlaps in niche rather than filling holes (which I think is oftentimes what multiclassing is good for.) If my tables were only four players, someone deciding to multiclass to Rogue because the group wanted a PC capable of doing rogueish things would be useful and helpful. But at my tables-- where I'm running six, seven, eight PCs-- there's usually no hole to fill, and thus that multiclass will just water down the PC who does it, duplicating a niche already filled. Thus they will usually be less well off as a character, with new additional features that won't often get used because there's a more effective PC at the table. So I make sure to always point this out to the player before they do it, to make sure it's something they are okay with.

That being said... if it makes sense narratively within the story for a PC to multiclass and the player goes into it knowing the mechanical pitfalls that often come with it... I have no problem allowing them to do so if they are happy with it. It's never my first choice to get the player what they want for their PC, but I'm fine with it if they are.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm not a huge fan of multiclassing as a DM for a couple reasons (which have nothing to do with the rules for multiclassing themselves.)

One, multiclassing tends to depower a PC a bit, and I don't want my players to ever feel like they are below the curve. Usually if a player wants to multiclass it's because they want a specific game mechanic for their PC and multiclassing is the only way within the printed rules for them to get it. For instance, the Cleric who wishes to dual-wield because their deity does, but they can't get the Two-Weapon Fighting Style without multiclassing (or at least they couldn't before they added the feat in Tasha's). Ordinarily they'd have to postpone their spellcasting a level in order to just take a level in Fighter for that one mechanic... but because I never want to do that to my players I always let them do feature swaps instead. That way they can remain Cleric for their entire career, while still getting Two-Weapon Fighting Style to keep their dual-wield combat power online. I will always default to doing feature swaps over multiclassing whenever possible.

Second, with the size of my games in terms of player count... multiclassing tends to just create overlaps in niche rather than filling holes (which I think is oftentimes what multiclassing is good for.) If my tables were only four players, someone deciding to multiclass to Rogue because the group wanted a PC capable of doing rogueish things would be useful and helpful. But at my tables-- where I'm running six, seven, eight PCs-- there's usually no hole to fill, and thus that multiclass will just water down the PC who does it, duplicating a niche already filled. Thus they will usually be less well off as a character, with new additional features that won't often get used because there's a more effective PC at the table. So I make sure to always point this out to the player before they do it, to make sure it's something they are okay with.

That being said... if it makes sense narratively within the story for a PC to multiclass and the player goes into it knowing the mechanical pitfalls that often come with it... I have no problem allowing them to do so if they are happy with it. It's never my first choice to get the player what they want for their PC, but I'm fine with it if they are.

I mainly multiclass as I'm trying to replicate a class identity and mechanics which isn't present in 5e. Though I understand the resistance to it as the 5e multiclassing system is just downright awful. Your method of swapping out class features to duplicate the multiclassing without damaging character balance seems so much better. Pathfinder 2e also has a great multiclass system, which doesn't interrupt class progression.

I've been running an eldritch knight/wizard/forge cleric build which isn't particularly effective, but I'm trying to replicate an elemental swordmage. Need the levels in wizard to get up to half caster status. But also need to grab spells like searing smite from elsewhere as the wizard/EK list lacks spells which merge with melee combat.

The result is a class which barely has the scraped together abilities and flavour which I want. But is also a MAD mess. If there was a single class equivalent, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

 

[jgsugden]

My description depends upon whether we are in game or out of game.

In game, I rarely use a reference to mechanics as I often reskin the PCs so that from a story perspective they are different that the story elements laid out in the PHB, but from a mechanics perspective they follow a class. When I tell other players what I am playing, I start with the mechanics as a short hand and then give the story afterwards.

 

[Maxperson]

Second, with the size of my games in terms of player count... multiclassing tends to just create overlaps in niche rather than filling holes (which I think is oftentimes what multiclassing is good for.) If my tables were only four players, someone deciding to multiclass to Rogue because the group wanted a PC capable of doing rogueish things would be useful and helpful. But at my tables-- where I'm running six, seven, eight PCs-- there's usually no hole to fill, and thus that multiclass will just water down the PC who does it, duplicating a niche already filled. Thus they will usually be less well off as a character, with new additional features that won't often get used because there's a more effective PC at the table. So I make sure to always point this out to the player before they do it, to make sure it's something they are okay with.

My players don't look at it that way. The way they and I look it it, if there's a Rogue 7/Cleric 1 in the party, he's not going to be watering down the Cleric 7/Rogue 1 in the party or vice versa. They just aren't going to be anywhere near as good at the class they are dipping into as the one who is primarily that class. Second, rather than view the level dip as stepping on the toes of their character, they are like, "Great! If I roll poorly we now have someone else in the group than can help us succeed where I failed." and "Great! Now we have someone else who can cast light and do a little bit of healing to help us out."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A fighter is just someone who fights(usually with weapons), so it really doesn't have much of an identity in the same way that cleric and wizard do. The war vet, barroom brawler, and palace guard can all be fighters. The wizard, though, is often called a wizard in the fiction. He can still be an arcanist or whatever, or he can be wizard as part of his identity. So my answer to your question is, it depends.

This is why I am making an Archer class, and am considering a Knight or maybe Warrior class that focuses the fighter a bit more.

I’m glad the generic fighter exists for people who just wanna play and not think about the mechanics much, but I’d like alternatives that are more focused, and where the mechanics of my character are more focused than 80% “I fight good” and 20% whatever my actual concept is.

 

[Maxperson]

This is why I am making an Archer class, and am considering a Knight or maybe Warrior class that focuses the fighter a bit more.

I’m glad the generic fighter exists for people who just wanna play and not think about the mechanics much, but I’d like alternatives that are more focused, and where the mechanics of my character are more focused than 80% “I fight good” and 20% whatever my actual concept is.

I'm not sure those need to be full classes. It seems to me that subclasses of fighter might be a better fit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not sure those need to be full classes. It seems to me that subclasses of fighter might be a better fit.

That rather directly ignores the entirety of my post, but okay.

 

[Maxperson]

That rather directly ignores the entirety of my post, but okay.

I don't see subclasses as 20%. They have more influence than that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't see subclasses as 20%. They have more influence than that.

Eh, whatever percentage you want to put on it, the majority of what a fighter does lives in the base class. And Eldritch Knight is mostly just a fighter, with a splash of gish.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My players don't look at it that way. The way they and I look it it, if there's a Rogue 7/Cleric 1 in the party, he's not going to be watering down the Cleric 7/Rogue 1 in the party or vice versa. They just aren't going to be anywhere near as good at the class they are dipping into as the one who is primarily that class. Second, rather than view the level dip as stepping on the toes of their character, they are like, "Great! If I roll poorly we now have someone else in the group than can help us succeed where I failed." and "Great! Now we have someone else who can cast light and do a little bit of healing to help us out."

Heh... well, when a table has 8 PCs... the comment that gets made at mine isn't usually "Great! If I roll poorly we now have someone else in the group than can help us succeed where I failed"... it's "Okay. Well, if I roll poorly, and the other two PCs that have mechanics which are functionally on par with what I have ALSO roll poorly (as unlikely as it is for all three of us to blow it)... maybe the new guy might be able to get a use of their ability in."

But the odds of when that needs to happen is usually so low that it wasn't really worth it in the long run for the player to take the multiclass (for purely the mechanics) in the first place. But hey... YMMV.