Multi-classing: as good as it seems?

[smbakeresq]

Well it's not like they could have had ideas before hexblade came out...

They could have, but somehow they were they were different. This happens every time an option comes out that is “blue” or above in every guide posted here. The “inspiration” inspired them. Somehow the dip into “your main stat as your attack stat through dip or Initiate” was a suddenly new idea.

These things happen. I just wonder how they make it through concept and then designers are surprised it’s used that way. JC was “shocked” Shield master bonus action was used “not as intended” before the actual attacks from attack action had taken place.

 

[TwoSix]

The point to this post is people dipping Warlock and then claiming “I didn’t do it to min/max I just have a neat idea.” You see the defenders, and the RPers.

One sees the role play concept and goes forward, the power gamers work backwards from a plateau.

That would be silly to do unless someone thought of as powergaming as morally inferior to roleplaying, which obviously isn't true.

When I take a 2 level warlock dip, I'm obviously doing it for the mechanics. Doesn't mean I won't build a cool concept around it, and roleplay the hell out of it. My intent is irrelevant.

 

[smbakeresq]

That would be silly to do unless someone thought of as powergaming as morally inferior to roleplaying, which obviously isn't true.

When I take a 2 level warlock dip, I'm obviously doing it for the mechanics. Doesn't mean I won't build a cool concept around it, and roleplay the hell out of it. My intent is irrelevant.

Correct your intent is irrelevant. But to claim it’s something other than what is, well that’s relevant.

There is no pact of the power gamer. It’s funny to me how many players who dip warlock skip everything in the text right down to the powers part then claim “mechanics” and “text.”

As a question, how many times did you run past your DM “I have a hexblade I dipped because of mechanical advantage that will MC into lore bard because of mechanical advantage..”. Were you that honest?

 

[smbakeresq]

You and your players might find this thread and specifically this post by [MENTION=6802655]mpwylie[/MENTION] of interest.

Basically, on a Short Rest spellcasters recover one casting spell slot of each level up to their Proficiency Bonus minus 1 (full) or minus 2 (partial), recover one of each slot on a Long Rest, and have fewer casting slots. Arcane Recovery et al are deprecated.

BTW these are probably the same players who when you throw them a curveball claim “Hey the monster manual doesn’t say that!!!!! “

 

[TwoSix]

Correct your intent is irrelevant. But to claim it’s something other than what is, well that’s relevant.

There is no pact of the power gamer. It’s funny to me how many players who dip warlock skip everything in the text right down to the powers part then claim “mechanics” and “text.”

As a question, how many times did you run past your DM “I have a hexblade I dipped because of mechanical advantage that will MC into lore bard because of mechanical advantage..”. Were you that honest?

My DMs generally don't ask. I give them my concept, we punch together some info to help it fit into the campaign world, and go from there.

Believe me, no one in my group is unaware that I build strong characters.

 

[Warpiglet]

That would be silly to do unless someone thought of as powergaming as morally inferior to roleplaying, which obviously isn't true.

When I take a 2 level warlock dip, I'm obviously doing it for the mechanics. Doesn't mean I won't build a cool concept around it, and roleplay the hell out of it. My intent is irrelevant.

I am a purist and have played for 36 years. I hate cheese but know that with the right attitude, you can realize any concept without wrecking the game. Wet blankets not withstanding.

With approximately two exceptions, I think single classes characters are more powerful. But so what? Have fun.

 

[Seramus]

As a question, how many times did you run past your DM “I have a hexblade I dipped because of mechanical advantage that will MC into lore bard because of mechanical advantage..”. Were you that honest?

It’s a non-issue, because when my players come to me with their character build (even just a couple of levels) we sit down together and talk about how to make a cool story out of it.

 

[smbakeresq]

It’s a non-issue, because when my players come to me with their character build (even just a couple of levels) we sit down together and talk about how to make a cool story out of it.

That’s what should occur. In fact it should occur before the game starts so your DM can integrate your PC concept seemlessly into the campaign.

My initial post in this thread was that MC is all its cracked up to be to build a PC concept around a theme. It shouldn’t be used to strictly min/max characters. Players shouldn’t be build a mathematical construct then shoehorn it into a back story. Think of the story first, work with your DM, then the game is more interesting and intense as you are invested in it more.

 

[Seramus]

Players shouldn’t be build a mathematical construct then shoehorn it into a back story. Think of the story first, work with your DM, then the game is more interesting and intense as you are invested in it more.

It depends on what your player enjoys most. There is nothing wrong with going mechanics first if that is what your player likes. In fact, at many tables it is harder to change your mechanics later on down the road than change your personality.

 

[Zardnaar]

5E is almost classless with MCing due to the unified proficinecy mechanic and you can come up with some interesting builds several of which switch on around level 2 and 3.

Soradin is mostly a mid to high level thing, the Sorlock is good from level 3.

Non Fondue MCing enables concepts the PHB fails a bit on (gish in particular), or lets you get creative like a wilder rogue (Ranger/Rogue).