Multi-classing: as good as it seems?

[Ancalagon]

The only multi-class that I personally find annoying is the 2 level dip into warlock so you recharge spells after a short rest. I don't know that it really adds much to power level, but thematically it doesn't make a lot of sense in my campaign because you effectively have 2 masters. That and when you put limits on rests (I frequently have 6-10 fights between long rests) it throws things off. But they're only getting low level spells back while sacrificing higher level ... back to apples and oranges.

The reasons, I think, for a warlock dip is either eldritch blast spam or hexblade cha as a melee stat.

The hexblade is pretty good to make a gish, but can benefit from a dip from another class. It's a bit too much though when it is used with paladin , the paladin doesn't need any help...

 

[SkidAce]

My 2nd level monk took his 3rd level as a barbarian.

We refluffed the "rage" as going into a focused battle state, like River Tam in the Serenity movie. Works great.

Took one more level of barbarian for reckless (calculated risk) attack and danger sense. The d12s were just a bonus.

He is monk/barbarian 3/2 now, and will stay monk for the rest of his career. There is nothing else that "fits" with the character concept in higher barbarian levels.

Friends suggested the Primal Paths could be different monkish fighting styles, but I'm like "meh"*.






*although mindless rage could be fluffed as mental toughness....

 

[Unwise]

It seems that most power jumps come in as 1 or 2 level dip, but if you take those before level 5 you are seriously putting yourself at a disadvantage. No fireball, extra attack etc for two more levels than your party members. If you take them after level 5, then you are late enough into the game that the power increases offered will not disturb class-balance in a meaningful way. The system seems really good to me. Personally IMC nobody multi-classes, since they chose the class because they want to play that class in the first place.

I should note that IMC being a Warlock is a big deal, patronage is a big deal and heavily flavours all the plot elements for that PCs side quests, as well as their abilities etc. As such we don't see people taking dips into Warlock for purely mechanical reasons. A Paladin that dips into Warlock will have a lot of explaining to do with their goddess and clerics.

 

[MoonSong]

It seems that most power jumps come in as 1 or 2 level dip, but if you take those before level 5 you are seriously putting yourself at a disadvantage. No fireball, extra attack etc for two more levels than your party members. If you take them after level 5, then you are late enough into the game that the power increases offered will not disturb class-balance in a meaningful way. The system seems really good to me. Personally IMC nobody multi-classes, since they chose the class because they want to play that class in the first place.

I should note that IMC being a Warlock is a big deal, patronage is a big deal and heavily flavours all the plot elements for that PCs side quests, as well as their abilities etc. As such we don't see people taking dips into Warlock for purely mechanical reasons. A Paladin that dips into Warlock will have a lot of explaining to do with their goddess and clerics.

Celestial Patron, besides you can be a paladin that channels the plane of good itself, without ties to any capricious deity. (To me paladin means "Paragon of good and justice" which doesn't exactly scream servant of the gods, specially if they are the FR gods)

 

[5ekyu]

It seems that most power jumps come in as 1 or 2 level dip, but if you take those before level 5 you are seriously putting yourself at a disadvantage. No fireball, extra attack etc for two more levels than your party members. If you take them after level 5, then you are late enough into the game that the power increases offered will not disturb class-balance in a meaningful way. The system seems really good to me. Personally IMC nobody multi-classes, since they chose the class because they want to play that class in the first place.

I should note that IMC being a Warlock is a big deal, patronage is a big deal and heavily flavours all the plot elements for that PCs side quests, as well as their abilities etc. As such we don't see people taking dips into Warlock for purely mechanical reasons. A Paladin that dips into Warlock will have a lot of explaining to do with their goddess and clerics.

"A Paladin that dips into Warlock will have a lot of explaining to do with their goddess and clerics."

Or the warlock patron could be a celestial that was pre-approved or even assigned to the Paladin by the gods for a specific purpose and cause, right? Is it that uncommon in other folk's world for deities and such to use intermediaries for their most deveoted as guides or patrons or whatever instead of making personal appearances? Myths are full of them, right?

So why doesn't that open up the option for warlock style patronage being quite a normal thing or an intended optionas opposed to something a paladin has to "explain" a lot?

After all, Gm and player work together on these PC issues, not as opposing forces, right?

 

[Ancalagon]

I should note that IMC being a Warlock is a big deal, patronage is a big deal and heavily flavours all the plot elements for that PCs side quests, as well as their abilities etc. As such we don't see people taking dips into Warlock for purely mechanical reasons. A Paladin that dips into Warlock will have a lot of explaining to do with their goddess and clerics.

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

"A Paladin that dips into Warlock will have a lot of explaining to do with their goddess and clerics."

Or the warlock patron could be a celestial that was pre-approved or even assigned to the Paladin by the gods for a specific purpose and cause, right? Is it that uncommon in other folk's world for deities and such to use intermediaries for their most deveoted as guides or patrons or whatever instead of making personal appearances? Myths are full of them, right?

So why doesn't that open up the option for warlock style patronage being quite a normal thing or an intended optionas opposed to something a paladin has to "explain" a lot?

After all, Gm and player work together on these PC issues, not as opposing forces, right?

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*...

 

[Ancalagon]

Fortunately, there are a few ways to skin a cat. This is why even after our discussion I am trying to decide between taking a level of fighter or to start as a hexblade.

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

If I go fighter, I want to make sure I can take arcana or perhaps magic initiate to show he was already on the path the spell-slinging. I almost always try to do some foreshadowing for any multiclass character to show that the whole has already been in development from the start (i.e. no suddenly taking wizard levels at 10th with a pure fighter unless story reasons emerge in play).

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

 

[DEFCON 1]

Speaking personally... if a paladin player in my game wanted to multiclass into warlock by getting a Celestial patron, that's fine... but I'd expect the multiclassing to continue past Warlock level 2.

For my tables it's always Story First, Mechanics Second. So you don't get to make some otherworldly pact with an angel, get a few nuggets of power, then say "Thanks, I'm good!" Nope... you made this pact, you're gonna lie in it. If you didn't want to take on this second avenue of power, you should have just remained committed to your Oath.

I actually had a paladin player do just such a thing in my last Curse of Strahd campaign. He was a knight suffering a crisis of faith when he arrived in Barovia, and his time there inspired him to devote himself to the Morninglord. But over time as it was revealed that Mother Night was actually the Archfey Queen of Air and Darkness, he came to the conclusion that balance between light and dark was necessary to pull the land up out of the quagmire it was in, and he took on the Archfey patron in addition to his Oath, trying to be an intermediary between the two forces wanting to control the land. So from that point forward he balanced taking a level in each class past that, as his story was such that he was both Devoted to the Morninglord and made a Pact with Mother Night. He didn't just "stop" with his pact because he finally got the game mechanics he wanted.

Others play differently, and that's fine. I just don't personally like that way of playing.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

"A Paladin that dips into Warlock will have a lot of explaining to do with their goddess and clerics."

Or the warlock patron could be a celestial that was pre-approved or even assigned to the Paladin by the gods for a specific purpose and cause, right? Is it that uncommon in other folk's world for deities and such to use intermediaries for their most deveoted as guides or patrons or whatever instead of making personal appearances? Myths are full of them, right?

So why doesn't that open up the option for warlock style patronage being quite a normal thing or an intended optionas opposed to something a paladin has to "explain" a lot?

After all, Gm and player work together on these PC issues, not as opposing forces, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the hexblade fluff also hint at how the Raven Queen was responsible for creating the weapons that hexblades make pacts with? If you're a paladin dedicated to the Raven Queen it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to make a pact with one of her weapons. It might even be seen as an honour in that particular order to be chosen to wield such a weapon.

It's also possible to be a paladin without following a god. I could easily see an Oath of Vengeance paladin that doesn't follow a particular deity making a pact for more power in order to get their revenge. The character that wants vengeance so badly that they'd do anything to get it is not at all "cheesy".

 

[smbakeresq]

MC isn’t a problem if you “enforce” role play at your table, and I mean players and DM. Then it shines as building concept to flesh out an idea.

For example I have 2 guys going now who are MC. A copper Dragonborn who started as a sorcerer then realized that her heritage included a Bronze dragon father, who she met and realized that studying and participating in glorious combat was her destiny and switched into a valor bard.

A human knowledge cleric of Celestian who through various signs and portents saw the coming Age of Worms and switched into a conjurer to help defeat it using knowledge of summoned demons as then both evils would destroy each other.