Multi classing

[FormerlyHemlock]

Where there are stats and choices there will be builds. That's why the 5e DMG tells you about the Optimizer play style.

See here for but one example: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=10675.0

Notice that not much, if anything, on the first page of that thread (all I read) is about 5E-style multiclassing "builds". Half of the whole page is just talking about ways to exploit exceptional strength with darts.

Gimmicky multiclass builds are an artifact of the way multiclassing works in 5E.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes it can be for rp reason the nice thing about 5e their is generally a trade off at later levels or maybe to add flavor to the character. Despite what people say straight class and backgrounds do not always work for concept builds. How about building a dex based spear man but you want them to have armor because they are more fighter than monk so unless your DM house rules spear as a finesse weapon you need 1-3 levels of monk then the rest fighter to reach that build (the King's Nine Spears).

Unfortunately that doesn't work--you still need a house rule, because by PHB rules the monk only gets to use Dex with monk weapons when he is unarmored and not wielding a shield. You can't have both armor and Dex-based spear fighting, even on a monk chassis, without a house rule of some kind.

 

[hejtmane]

Unfortunately that doesn't work--you still need a house rule, because by PHB rules the monk only gets to use Dex with monk weapons when he is unarmored and not wielding a shield. You can't have both armor and Dex-based spear fighting, even on a monk chassis, without a house rule of some kind.

Forgot about that part have not fully planned one just a concept in my head I threw together. Forgot about that rule with the attack I knew it took away the natural ac

 

[Minigiant]

Powerwise, multiclassing is usually "suck early rule later" or more likely "create early, suck later"

The game is REALLY based on those milestone levels: 5th, 11th, 15th-16th. Then there are your ASI and feat levels.

You REALLY want to hit those levels with single class. A level dip of rogue for expertise or ranger for a magic less ranger won't hurt much. But you are punished eventually for multiclassing hard without a plan. Outside of a hardcore rp, kids gloves game, don't mutliclass more than 2 levels without a plan. Just don't.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Powerwise, multiclassing is usually "suck early rule later" or more likely "create early, suck later"

The game is REALLY based on those milestone levels: 5th, 11th, 15th-16th. Then there are your ASI and feat levels.

You REALLY want to hit those levels with single class. A level dip of rogue for expertise or ranger for a magic less ranger won't hurt much. But you are punished eventually for multiclassing hard without a plan. Outside of a hardcore rp, kids gloves game, don't mutliclass more than 2 levels without a plan. Just don't.

This is true.

There's a Shadow Monk 8/Druid 6 at my table right now, and he's essentially the same power level right now that he was when he was just a Shadow Monk 7 except for increased proficiency bonus. He's still one of the strongest characters in the party due to being level 14, whereas the others are mostly around level 7, but he doesn't clearly stand out the way he would if he were just straight Shadow Monk 14.

 

[hejtmane]

Powerwise, multiclassing is usually "suck early rule later" or more likely "create early, suck later"

The game is REALLY based on those milestone levels: 5th, 11th, 15th-16th. Then there are your ASI and feat levels.

You REALLY want to hit those levels with single class. A level dip of rogue for expertise or ranger for a magic less ranger won't hurt much. But you are punished eventually for multiclassing hard without a plan. Outside of a hardcore rp, kids gloves game, don't mutliclass more than 2 levels without a plan. Just don't.

That is also true of some single class fighter twf is a perfect example you are a rockstar until 11 then duelist and gwf start catching up when you hit 15 range you are starting to be passed up and at 20 you are outclassed damage wise because the more attacks the fighter gets. If you are worried about that you should also always take Battle master over champion. I would say yes be careful of builds and have a good plan with multiclass but even the wrong choice in single class at late levels can be harmful

 

[brehobit]

I find myself on the other side of most people here.

For the most part, multi-classing has little mechanical advantage in combat. But it does have significant role-playing advantages and can be one of the only ways to get expand your skills (taking a level of rogue gets you a skill proficiency and move two skills to expert).

My Paladin 2/Bard 5 is probably weaker in combat than a bard 7 or paladin 7 not by much. And it fits my vision for her better than any single-classed option. My Paladin 2/Fighter 5 probably is nearly on par with a Fighter 7 but has a lot more options/flexibility. And better fits my view of him (a Ruby Knight Vindicator in 3e).

 

[Bacon Bits]

As far as 5e, if you're worried, "OMG! I might fall behind!" then it's not worth it. IMX, people who respond with that feeling are probably too focused on mechanical power of later game options to see much value in mechanical versatility, although theorycraft builds of Paladin/Warlocks can be impressive damage-wise, IIRC.

Personally, I love Wizard with 1-3 levels of Cleric in 5e.

If we're talking about 1e/2e, then the cost of multiclassing Thief is so low that it's generally always worth it unless you really want to play a Ranger or Paladin. IIRC, a Thief/Magic-User 11/10 has the same amount of XP in 1e as a Paladin 9. There's a short period between levels 3 and 5 where multiclassing is pretty mediocre, but after that it's the clear winner.

In 3e/Pathfinder, multiclassing generally means "cherry picking abilities from prestige classes". It's certainly how the most powerful characters are made, but in my experience, a lot of tables don't allow that style of character building. It depends if your table thought of D&D as a class based system or if you thought of it as collections of levels you can take as individual packages. Still, it makes for interesting theorycraft. The by-the-book multiclass restrictions in 3e have no teeth, and Pathfinder didn't do much to limit the issue.

In 4e, unless you have very specific things in mind feat multiclassing and hybrid are both a bad deal. You generally give up too much and gain too little, but there are some absurd things you can do, IIRC. 4e had too many moving pieces for it not to be absurd in a few cases.

 

[Wik]

By creating such a game system, all you will do for that type of player is that instead of having a plan for class options, they would have a plan for which adventures they plan to go on and in which order they plan on doing them.

Exactly! And I personally see no problem with players getting interested in what adventures to go on, even if what interests them is what'll happen to their characters and not what the story is about.

This system of "you level up what you use, and your adventures give you your class abilities" would also mean that in lesser danger situations, the party will encourage PCs weak in a certain area to try something instead of the specialist ("you try to pick that lock, Father Priestly. I'll give you some pointers") which might sound a bit mechanic in nature... but it's actually what happens in real life.

(As an aside, I volunteer for marine Search and Rescue. I'm learning navigation, but I'm still pretty green at it. So, when we're on a real call, I'm not on Nav. But if we don't need to be anywhere, or if we're in no hurry to get there, the experienced guys step back and let me try and screw up so I can "level up" my skill in that area. So, my mechanics would actually kind of mirror how people get better at things).

And personally, I think the idea of getting new abilities and skills from the adventures you're on would be cool, because after a half dozen adventures, you'd be able to look at your character sheet and remember adventures you've been on... not just treasure that you own.

***

In regards to your comments on "builds" in 2e, that only happened in the Skills and Powers era. In most of the game, there were few chances to "build", and when there were, it only applied to dual-class characters, and weren't at all similar to what we've seen in the post 2e era. Having played extensively from 2e onwards, I can assure you that builds just weren't as big a thing as they are now.

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's another thing my group has noticed. It depends on how long you plan on playing your character for. When you multiclass, you gain short-term benefits at the expense of greater power later on. If you know the campaign isn't going from 1-20 (or you know from experience that your group just won't hang together that long), then multiclassing can give a player more options to explore other classes' powers. It won't matter if a fighter takes level dips in other classes and is sacrificing that 4th attack, or if the wizard is sacrificing L9 spell slots, because they'll never get to use them anyway.

We recently started a campaign at L11, to explore the higher level options. I set no boundaries on MCing, and not one of my six players took a level dip in another class. I had announced my plan to take the campaign as high as we could go, and everyone was interested in exploring the powers available to a 'pure' class at those high levels.

The thing is: with a little bit of planning, you gain much now and lose only a little later.

Short-term gain vs long-term loss sounds good and all, but that's just theory.

The more choices, the better for the minmaxer.