D&D General Do We Really Need Multiclassing?

[Dannyalcatraz]

The designers for both Pathfinder 1st edition and Level Up put in enough class features into each of the base version of their classes so that their players wouldn't feel the need to multiclass.

SOME of their players.

 

[Maxperson]

One of the things I like about 5th edition is the inclusion of backgrounds which I (naively) thought would eliminate some of the desire for people to multiclass. After all, does my Fighter really need to take a level of Rogue in order for me to meet my vision of a character with who grew up as a gutter snipe stealing things? Or am I just better having the Criminal background which will allow me access to some skills and proficiency in thieve's tools?

Admittedly I grew to hate multiclassing during 3rd edition. Largely beacuse of the way prestige classes worked. In my mind, they took away all spontaneity requiring players to plan ahead to select specific classes and feats in order to get the prestige class instead of choosing such things in response to the events of the game. And as a general rule, I just don't like keeping track of character builds by dipping into other classes. But I recognize that some people just love building characters and multiclassing can be a part of it and there's nothing wrong with that.

I hear multiclassing is optional, but I've never met a player who viewed it as optional. Does everyone allow mutliclassing in their games? I don't like it, but I've never restricted it.

I allow it and like it because single class + background doesn't achieve many concepts. Some concepts require skills and abilities to back them up.

 

[Horwath]

This is not true. You will have less slots than a full caster of 8th level. For example if you are a 4th level Wizard, 4th level Ranger you have the same spell slots as a 6th level full caster or 11th level half caster. You will only have spells of 1st and 2nd level available (and only 1st level for Ranger).

I was talking about my variant for multiclassing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

With Warmagic they are doing it at the same time aren't they?

no, because the cantrip and the attack are still two different actions taking place, you cantrip and then you also get an attack with your bonus action, you are not making a magic-imbued weapon attack (unless you're using a bladetrip but that is entirely your cantrip action nothing to do with the attack), if you can still make distinctions between the 'magic attack' and the 'weapon attack' then your swordmage concept isn't synergising them well enough yet. (at least in quite a few peoples views here)

But the bladetrips basically are what we want, just more of them that do different and more powerful things, you make weapon attacks, they have magical properties, the properties come from the person holding the weapon not the weapon itself, i swing my axe, the blade covers itself in frost as i swing, if i hit the target and they take slashing and cold damage and makes a saving throw to avoid being frozen in place, if they fail they're restrained in place, if they succeed they just have their speed reduced.

 

[Corinnguard]

no, because the cantrip and the attack are still two different actions taking place, you cantrip and then you also get an attack with your bonus action, you are not making a magic-imbued weapon attack (unless you're using a bladetrip but that is entirely your cantrip action nothing to do with the attack), if you can still make distinctions between the 'magic attack' and the 'weapon attack' then your swordmage concept isn't synergising them well enough yet. (at least in quite a few peoples views here)

But the bladetrips basically are what we want, just more of them that do different and more powerful things, you make weapon attacks, they have magical properties, the properties come from the person holding the weapon not the weapon itself, i swing my axe, the blade covers itself in frost as i swing, if i hit the target and they take slashing and cold damage and makes a saving throw to avoid being frozen in place, if they fail they're restrained in place, if they succeed they just have their speed reduced.

So what would the game mechanics for a bladetrip look like? What are it's advantages and disadvantages?

 

[Horwath]

So what would the game mechanics for a bladetrip look like? What are it's advantages and disadvantages?

Frost strike
1st level evocation
Casting time: Free, after you hit with melee attack

deal extra 2d6 cold damage
Target rolls Con save or it is frozen in place until the end of your next turn. and all attacks have advantage vs target.
If target saves, it's speed is halved until the end of your next turn

Upcasting: +2d6 cold damage per spell level.

 

[Corinnguard]

Frost strike
1st level evocation
Casting time: Free, after you hit with melee attack

deal extra 2d6 cold damage
Target rolls Con save or it is frozen in place until the end of your next turn. and all attacks have advantage vs target.
If target saves, it's speed is halved until the end of your next turn

Upcasting: +2d6 cold damage per spell level.

This is how Swordmages did it back in 4e where all of their spells were categorized as At-Will attack spells, Encounter attack spells, Daily attack spells, and Utility spells. I should have phrased the question I posted several minutes ago towards 5e's game mechanics. I goofed.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This is how Swordmages did it back in 4e where all of their spells were categorized as At-Will attack spells, Encounter attack spells, Daily attack spells, and Utility spells. I should have phrased the question I posted several minutes ago towards 5e's game mechanics. I goofed.

it's also how paladin's divine smite works in 5e itself, an at will effect triggerable when you hit an enemy, expend a spell slot to deal additional radiant damage, just a swordmage would be getting more options in what to use when they hit other than the radiant version.

So what would the game mechanics for a bladetrip look like? What are it's advantages and disadvantages?

honestly i don't dislike most of the 'magically enhancing weapon attack' spells that rangers and paladins get, but the classes themselves aren't really built with them as the centrepoint of their mechanical focus and the 'cast spell>make attack>spell effect triggers' process feels very clunky to me to use for a class designed around frequently using magic strikes, the 'make a weapon attack as part of this spell' and 'when you make a successful weapon attack roll you can trigger this effect' both feel much smoother to me.

a swordmage IMO should be dealing some form of energy damage as part of their basic weapon attacks, it doesn't have to be additional damage or have effects but if a swordmage attacks with their weapon and only deals slashing not also fire or thunder or psychic then i feel like something is fundamentally missing,

 

[Corinnguard]

Maybe the Swordmage needs to borrow this ability from the PF1 Magus: Magus – d20PFSRD

Rewritten with the Swordmage and 5e in mind.

At 1st level, the Swordmage gains a reservoir of mystical arcane energy that he can draw upon to fuel his powers and enhance his weapon. This arcane pool has a number of points equal to 1/2 his Swordmage level (minimum 1) + his Intelligence modifier. The pool refreshes once per long rest when the Swordmage prepares their spells.

At 1st level, a Swordmage can expend 1 point from his arcane pool as an action to grant any weapon he is holding a +1 enhancement bonus for 1 minute. For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves.

(Sort of like the spell Magic Weapon in 5e. Magic Weapon - DND 5th Edition)

At 5th level, these bonuses can be used to add any of the following weapon properties: dancing, flaming, flaming burst, frost, icy burst, keen, shock, shocking burst, speed, or vorpal.

(Does 5e have anything similar to these weapon properties?)

Adding these properties consumes an amount of bonus equal to the property’s base price modifier. These properties are added to any the weapon already has, but duplicates do not stack. If the weapon is not magical, at least a +1 enhancement bonus must be added before any other properties can be added. These bonuses and properties are decided when the arcane pool point is spent and cannot be changed until the next time the magus uses this ability. These bonuses do not function if the weapon is wielded by anyone other than the magus.

A Swordmage can only enhance one weapon in this way at one time. If he uses this ability again, the first use immediately ends.

 

[rmcoen]

I've seen two 5e campaigns, but a revolving cast of PCs. So far there have been: Sorcerer 9, Fighter 9, Barbarian 9 (twice!), Cleric 9, Warlock (Talisman) 8 / Cleric 1, Paladin 6 / Warlock (Tome) 3, Druid 9, Rogue 9, Artificer 8, Rogue 6 / Druid 2, Fighter 3 / Rogue (AT) 5, Bard 8, Cleric 7, Warlock (Tome) 8, Ranger 5 / Barbarian 2. So fifteen characters, 5 multiclass. One multi (P/W) was partly for story, partly for power, partly for "build". One (Battlemaster / Arcane Trickster) was purely for "maximum versatility". Two (Ro/D and Ra/B) have been completely for story reasons.

I've created "homebrew multiclass" classes in most previous editions, so I think the idea of "I want a little of this, and a little of that" is a core thought in players. Sometimes - in 5e - that is accomplishable with subclasses. There are a number of "gish" options, for example, without any multiclassing required. Sometimes, the combo requires different classes; there is no "wildshaping rogue" or "nature wizard". So while I think - like the OP - some ideas work with just a background and a feat (I played a "failed paladin" once, as a Fighter with acolyte background and Magic Initiate: Cleric); some don't.