Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9043093" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Honestly, it depends.  Multiclassing is an artifact from the earliest days of D&D, when Elves were Fighter/Magic-Users in all but name.  In AD&D, some classes are very weak, and despite having fast xp tables, playing a single-classed Thief, for example, can be a drag at a table where the DM is a stickler for the letter of the rules.  With characters like that, I started leaning on multiclassing for extra survivability/utility.  A Fighter/X who can hang back and use a bow until their other abilities become reliable enough to use (for the low low cost of 1-1.5 levels) is ideal, and a Priest/X is even better (because AD&D parties run on Cure Light Wounds).Ala carte multiclassing, on the other hand, is objectively terrible for a few reasons.  First, what you give up; classes are designed to give you power boosts at certain levels.  Sure, you might get a lot from a Fighter 1 dip, but is it really worth being a level behind on everything your other class wants to do for the rest of your career?  Your multiclass build might be terrifying at level 9, but you have to get to that point first, and every thing you do to drag yourself down sucks.The only really good multiclass, therefore, are ones with synergy.  Most of the caster classes get synergy of some kind because they progress spell slots; while higher level spells are likely always better than upcast spells, there are some standouts that simply don't get upgraded alternatives as you level up (Spirit Guardians is the first one I think of).  The saturation of Charisma casters in 5e makes this worse.And because of it's limitations, this form of multiclassing is actually terrible at reflecting a character's ongoing story- the warrior who is curious about magic and has long talks with the party Wizard, eventually taking a level of Wizard gets as their reward...the ability cast Shield, mostly, lol.  Oh there's a few utility spells of note, but it's not likely that they're going to be using Magic Missile or Sleep on foes!Ditto for a reformed Rogue who finds something larger to believe in and becomes a Cleric.Some classes are so rotten at multiclassing it's almost not worth it; Druid (at least the Moon variety) gets a lot more out of more Druid levels than anything else- sure, a Raging Druid is a blast, but only for a few levels, and then suddenly you reallly fall behind (Treantmonk has a good video demonstrating this).It doesn't help that some classes simply cease to get anything interesting after about 7th level or so.  If you can look at your class and realize that you're not going to see anything noteworthy for 3 or more levels, getting out might be your only way to continue having fun- IF you can find a way to do that effectively.This happened to my first 5e character, beyond 7th level, I had nothing really interesting to look forward to until my next attack in 4 levels.  So I became a Rogue and suddenly had a plethora of new and interesting options.Thus we have a paradox.  Multiclassing is bad, except when it isn't.  It's certainly not good at capturing the ongoing narrative and evolution of a character, and some combinations don't work well.  But others work very well, and the front loaded nature of classes, where you get most of the fun stuff in the first handful of levels, can make the sacrifices of less ASI's certainly feel worth it.I certainly have mixed feelings about combos.  On the one hand, yes, if it's something few people would logically pursue, and takes a convoluted story (or just ignoring the narrative) to get to, that certainly feels cheesy.  But on the other hand, I like the idea that someone can take an unusual build and make it work; I think ultimately it's because I believe the game should let any character ultimately find success, because that actually makes character creation more diverse, which is a good thing.So what am I saying with all this rambling?  Basically, that multiclassing is not necessary for the game (or if it is, that's a problem), but it might be necessary for the characters, when their concept otherwise fails them.**Certainly, it's nice when the DM realizes a player is struggling and steps in so that multiclassing doesn't become necessary, but it's not the DM's obligation to do so.As for multclassing "power builds", most of these seem to boil down to "the game didn't make X an option" like using Charisma as a primary ability score for anything other than spellcasting (Melee Warlock/X builds), not giving you enough resources to use (Warlock/Paladins), or granting more survivability (anything that dips Fighter).I'm not saying there aren't power mad munchkins out there, but I've found most people who go reaching for power are more doing it out of frustration with artificial limitations they feel are imposed on them for no good reason, or the desire for their character to feel special compared to "just another sword and board Fighter".I'm going to echo a sentiment I saw upthread here; I don't think subclasses do enough to make some characters feel particularly unique compared to other members of their class.  That's in general, there are some that do this well.  And some that go a little extra (mostly for the magic classes, since WotC apparently has no imagination when it comes to non-supernatural options).So I wouldn't ban multiclassing, but I would definitely ask anyone reaching for it to explain their motivations, to see if there's another way to deal with their concerns.  Sometimes it can come down to making a boon available as a reward, or varying something like short rest durations.</blockquote>

Verification