D&D 5E Multiclass vs. hybrid subclasses

[Aldarc]

It depends on what you mean.

I could answer that question with 3-4 different answers.
Do you want me to answer in regards to what character concepts can't be reached and effective by some specific level using the current multiclass rules?
Do you want me to answer in regards to what character concepts are mechanically ineffective at level 5?
Do you want me to answer based on what I can fluff around an existing class to get the concept I want?

I would lean more towards question #1 and #3, but I will rephrase my question, if that helps. In 5E, there are a lot of various multiclass combinations that see common play. Some of these are simply one or two-level dips, which are clearly meant for basic starting proficiencies and abilities. But we also see other combinations that tend to be more conceptual (and mechanical to a lesser extent). Based upon what you have seen regarding these common multiclass combinations - again, excluding the MC dips - what new single-class or subclass concepts/archetypes do you think are lacking in 5E that would help alleviate some of the multiclass problems that you see?

What makes you think anything I say is so absolute there are no exceptions ever? It's easy to beat down a viewpoint when you constantly characterize it in the most extreme way possible.

I apologize if you feel that I am misrepresenting your argument. You have acknowledged exceptions, but despite that your language tends to come off a little too strong and absolute. Again, that may be another source of conflict in regards to this thread, especially when one looks back at the semantic disputes regarding exceptions.

Multiclassing can give a sufficient final product at higher levels. I've been adamant that it's not as bad post level 5. It does have mechanical issues at level 5. Thus, the popularity of eldritch blast multiclass combinations. Eldritch blast bypasses the normal mechanical issues of 5e multiclassing and thus you see a large number of eldritch blast multiclasses. It's one of the most common examples.

However, a class/subclass designated explicitly to your concept should never have mechanical issues and will have an organic feel when it comes to leveling as your character concept of choice. The class/subclass may not exist yet but that doesn't mean that one couldn't be created that fit your concept nearly perfectly. There's always going to be some level of approximation seeing as we are dealing with a discrete leveling system that works on tradeoffs (take one thing instead of something else).

Now with the right class/subclass you should be easily able to hit post level 5 and have your concept in tact the whole time from level 1 on. Then multiclassing because useful to give some variability without having to create many slightly different iterations of similar classes/subclasses.

I'm not a fan of dipping or starting in one class for a level and then switching to the actual main class, though I have been guilty of it myself. As you say, some of the EB builds are a bit too ubiquitous. Would you house rule against multiclassing until level 6?

That said, I'm not entirely sold in regards to your argument here in the second paragraph. I agree that a class/subclass designated explicitly to my concept should ideally not have mechanical issues while also having an organic feel when leveling. One of the primary problems, however, is what you highlight: that "level of approximation" varies wildly sometimes, from class to class, subclass to subclass, and character concept to character concept.

Again, let's take the Arcane Trickster as an example. The AT gets to jump into being an AT at 3rd level (assuming it already does not have a cantrip) and it gains its abilities gradually, as per your argument. But it has several things going against it. 1) It has a limited spell selection: not every "trickster spell" will be either illusion or enchantment, and there's not too much room for expanding beyond that. An AT also does not get 4th level spells until 19th level. Contrast this with 3rd edition. You don't get to jump into the AT PrC until much later. Assuming you go Rogue/Wizard, then you require Rogue 3/Wizard 5 for +2d6 sneak attack and 3rd level spell requirement. So you don't get to be an actual AT until 9th level, but you are already jumping into the basic archetype at around 4th level: a rogue who wizards or a wizard who rogues. With each AT level, you are gaining +1 to your spellcasting level. So when you are "finished" at Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, you are casting 9th level spells at level 18 and have +7d6 sneak attack. (Of course, sneak attack was abysmal in 3rd edition and you may be better off just playing a godly wizard in 3e, but that is beside the point.) There are similarities between the 3E and 5e Arcane Trickster, but the range of difference between them also suggests that one can't necessarily just take your 3E Arcane Trickster and make him the 5E Arcane Trickster without multiclassing him into the 5E wizard. And one may even just suggest making a wizard with the criminal background, though you also obviously then lose out on the sneak attack, mage hand features, rogue defensive mobility, etc.

How can anyone argue when you put it in that light, but that's not quite the case.

As an aside, I'm not here to argue; I'm here to have a fruitful discussion with you, and I think that it has been so far. Anyway...

It's all relative to the other members of your party. If everyone decides to multiclass 2 levels pre level 5 then it's not nearly as big of an issue. The DM can scale encounters accordingly and all is well since the party is on roughly an even playing field. However, if the rest of the party takes the big jump at level 5 and gets their level 5 abilities (extra attack, fireball, spirit guardians, stunning strike, etc...) then you will be significantly behind until you get one of those abilities as well.

You can try to paint the picture that you are gaining more "options" and versatility but what you may gain in versatility in 5e is not going to come close to bridging that power gap. There's not enough horizontal versatility to be had pre level 5 to accomplish that goal.

As I stated above if the idea is a well rounded character or to fulfill a character concept then classes and subclasses will accomplish that goal better pre level 5. It's just the class with the features in it you want needs to first be designed.

I have not noticed any significant problem with low-level multiclassed characters. Yes, some characters get their 3rd level spell, extra attack, or other big features around 5-6th level. Again, you value that incredibly highly in terms of "vertical depth." But I have seen many low-level multiclass characters hold their own or even surpass single-class characters who have these game-changing features you praise to the moon.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Exactly. You look only at the final product. Anything I say I will have at level X you will just say you will have at X+2 and few additional things so you always find it no big deal. The difference in level 5 abilities and non level 5 abilities is vast. Yes you may have a slightly more desirable level 6 or 7 or 8 character because you started in a class that gave con saves but that's simply the multiclassing fallacy of looking at the "end result". Unless you are starting at those levels then you have to play the character through the lower levels and multiclassing to make a slightly more desirable level 6 or 7 or 8 character will have a major impact on the desirability of your level 5, 6 or 7 character. Not to mention we will have nearly the same thing happen again at 11.

Multiclassing can also work pretty well pre level 5 as well. I believe that looking at the entirety of the character's career as they work towards that 'end point' is much less of a fallacy than judging the concept solely at the one level where single-classed characters receive their greatest power boost.

 

[Yunru]

I'm not familiar with the quote you speak of. Can you help me out?

Somewhere in the DMG when it talks about how racial features affect CR.

 

[FrogReaver]

Multiclassing can also work pretty well pre level 5 as well. I believe that looking at the entirety of the character's career as they work towards that 'end point' is much less of a fallacy than judging the concept solely at the one level where single-classed characters receive their greatest power boost.

Sooo cool story bro....

The last time I tried to look at more than a single level when comparing 2 characters almost no one was interested or wanted to join in on the discussion...

 

[FrogReaver]

I would lean more towards question #1 and #3, but I will rephrase my question, if that helps. In 5E, there are a lot of various multiclass combinations that see common play. Some of these are simply one or two-level dips, which are clearly meant for basic starting proficiencies and abilities. But we also see other combinations that tend to be more conceptual (and mechanical to a lesser extent). Based upon what you have seen regarding these common multiclass combinations - again, excluding the MC dips - what new single-class or subclass concepts/archetypes do you think are lacking in 5E that would help alleviate some of the multiclass problems that you see?

I will get back to this question in a separate post.

I apologize if you feel that I am misrepresenting your argument. You have acknowledged exceptions, but despite that your language tends to come off a little too strong and absolute. Again, that may be another source of conflict in regards to this thread, especially when one looks back at the semantic disputes regarding exceptions.

It's rather hard to make a point without some kind of quantifier for something that is next to impossible for us to measure. So we use the best quantifiers we have to describe our viewpoint, mostly, nearly always, always etc.

The issue always comes up where one person says always and another pinpoints a single example that technically refutes the always quantifier. That kind of behavior rarely adds much productive to the discussion (unless we are dealing with a topic we can speak of with far more precision than we can most forum topics). I mean so what if I was wrong about always and it's really 99/100 times or 97/100 times. Really what bearing does that make? Why is it even worth pointing out.

Just say in passing, I'm sure you just meant most of the time and I happen to disagree about that and think xyz doesn't happen very often because abc

I'm not a fan of dipping or starting in one class for a level and then switching to the actual main class, though I have been guilty of it myself. As you say, some of the EB builds are a bit too ubiquitous. Would you house rule against multiclassing until level 6?

If it's an EB build it will be fine. So I wouldn't outright ban. I would just make sure that the player doing it knew that his multiclassing would likely leave him very weak at level 5-6. I usually play or run in smaller person games as well and the difference between a caster having fireball on time or a melee character getting extra attack on time is much more apparent in these circumstances with fewer players. Such issues in 6 player games and slightly smaller can probably be overlooked as long as it's just 1-2 players doing it.

That said, I'm not entirely sold in regards to your argument here in the second paragraph. I agree that a class/subclass designated explicitly to my concept should ideally not have mechanical issues while also having an organic feel when leveling. One of the primary problems, however, is what you highlight: that "level of approximation" varies wildly sometimes, from class to class, subclass to subclass, and character concept to character concept.

Again, let's take the Arcane Trickster as an example. The AT gets to jump into being an AT at 3rd level (assuming it already does not have a cantrip) and it gains its abilities gradually, as per your argument. But it has several things going against it. 1) It has a limited spell selection: not every "trickster spell" will be either illusion or enchantment, and there's not too much room for expanding beyond that. An AT also does not get 4th level spells until 19th level. Contrast this with 3rd edition. You don't get to jump into the AT PrC until much later. Assuming you go Rogue/Wizard, then you require Rogue 3/Wizard 5 for +2d6 sneak attack and 3rd level spell requirement. So you don't get to be an actual AT until 9th level, but you are already jumping into the basic archetype at around 4th level: a rogue who wizards or a wizard who rogues. With each AT level, you are gaining +1 to your spellcasting level. So when you are "finished" at Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10, you are casting 9th level spells at level 18 and have +7d6 sneak attack. (Of course, sneak attack was abysmal in 3rd edition and you may be better off just playing a godly wizard in 3e, but that is beside the point.) There are similarities between the 3E and 5e Arcane Trickster, but the range of difference between them also suggests that one can't necessarily just take your 3E Arcane Trickster and make him the 5E Arcane Trickster without multiclassing him into the 5E wizard. And one may even just suggest making a wizard with the criminal background, though you also obviously then lose out on the sneak attack, mage hand features, rogue defensive mobility, etc.

Keep in mind I think most characters multiclass perfectly fine post level 5. Fighter 5 / Sorceror 6 makes a great character for example. So I'm not against multiclassing in general. I just think it's a poor path for pre level 5 characters. So I may start out arcane trickster till level 5 and then alternate wizard and rogue levels to it or whatever progression gets me the feel I want.

That said if I wanted a melee character with innate magical powers there's a tons of different ways you could design him from level 1+. Spell slots may not even be the best mechanic to show the characters powers. However, if you did want spell slots there could be a separate class designed for that too. The issue is that if well designed then such a character will play well and give you that flavor and theme from level 1+.

Another example, a fighter giving up some of his lower level features in order to get a spell slot at level 1 or a cantrip at level 1 and a single spell slot at level 2 can also help scratch the itch. We could create this "class" and call it variant fighter or something like that.

There's a lot of ideas and probably the best way to illustrate it would be to start with a character concept and show how much better I can approximate the concept and earlier without having to give up the standard 5e power curve.

As an aside, I'm not here to argue; I'm here to have a fruitful discussion with you, and I think that it has been so far. Anyway...

If we are discussing something and we are making points and counter points then we are "arguing" and having an "argument" no matter what the connotation of the word says. So please don't take me saying that we are having an "argument" means we are yelling at each other in angry tones and calling each other names.

I have not noticed any significant problem with low-level multiclassed characters. Yes, some characters get their 3rd level spell, extra attack, or other big features around 5-6th level. Again, you value that incredibly highly in terms of "vertical depth." But I have seen many low-level multiclass characters hold their own or even surpass single-class characters who have these game-changing features you praise to the moon.

All I have to say is that numbers don't lie. I can give you a very good ballpark of how far down your combat abilities will be. I can then try to explain that the faster the enemies die the less damage you take and the less likely you are to die.

What exactly does "horizontal depth" get you? (I mean in the right party situation there may be some reason to level dip to get spells like pass without trace or healing word or spells that help with fear, etc). You may even want to do this pre level 5 is your party is covered on enough extra attackers and AOE casters such that adding one more of either wouldn't make as large of a difference as the party utility abilities you will be bringing. But in general in a party of 4-6 most abilities can be covered by someone and so there is even less incentive to get off track IMO. In a smaller party you can't afford not to stay on track because you may be 33% to 50% of your parties combat ability. You taking the less vertical path means you will offer about half as much each combat. That's a big percent decrease in party capability for the little bit of horizontal depth you are adding IMO.

 

[Yunru]

Horizontal depth doesn't seem like much because you're ignoring 66% of the game: Exploration and Socialisation.

Case in point, a Knowledge Cleric/Rogue/Bard has proficiency in almost all the skills, and Expertise in 4 of those skills (and from as early as level 2).
Warlock 2 adds even more proficiencies with Beguiling Whisper, and gets you Eldritch Blast, as much as you want to call the entirety of the cantrip system an exception.

 

[Aldarc]

I will get back to this question in a separate post.

Okay, and thank you.

If it's an EB build it will be fine. So I wouldn't outright ban. I would just make sure that the player doing it knew that his multiclassing would likely leave him very weak at level 5-6. I usually play or run in smaller person games as well and the difference between a caster having fireball on time or a melee character getting extra attack on time is much more apparent in these circumstances with fewer players. Such issues in 6 player games and slightly smaller can probably be overlooked as long as it's just 1-2 players doing it.

It also seems like some things would just be easier to houserule. "You want X cantrip for your character for this justifiable fluff reason, but multiclassing or magic initiate or spell sniper is too impractical? Okay."

Keep in mind I think most characters multiclass perfectly fine post level 5. Fighter 5 / Sorceror 6 makes a great character for example. So I'm not against multiclassing in general. I just think it's a poor path for pre level 5 characters. So I may start out arcane trickster till level 5 and then alternate wizard and rogue levels to it or whatever progression gets me the feel I want.

As I stated much earlier, I would argue that the Arcane Trickster can multiclass earlier than level 5, since what that rogue gains in levels 4-5 (ASI, 1d6 sneak attack, uncanny dodge) is not as much as what an AT 3/Wiz 2 gains.

That said if I wanted a melee character with innate magical powers there's a tons of different ways you could design him from level 1+. Spell slots may not even be the best mechanic to show the characters powers. However, if you did want spell slots there could be a separate class designed for that too. The issue is that if well designed then such a character will play well and give you that flavor and theme from level 1+.

Another example, a fighter giving up some of his lower level features in order to get a spell slot at level 1 or a cantrip at level 1 and a single spell slot at level 2 can also help scratch the itch. We could create this "class" and call it variant fighter or something like that.

There's a lot of ideas and probably the best way to illustrate it would be to start with a character concept and show how much better I can approximate the concept and earlier without having to give up the standard 5e power curve.

I can agree with this.

All I have to say is that numbers don't lie. I can give you a very good ballpark of how far down your combat abilities will be. I can then try to explain that the faster the enemies die the less damage you take and the less likely you are to die.

Linus: "Because that's what D&D's all about, Charlie Brown: DPR."

What exactly does "horizontal depth" get you? (I mean in the right party situation there may be some reason to level dip to get spells like pass without trace or healing word or spells that help with fear, etc). You may even want to do this pre level 5 is your party is covered on enough extra attackers and AOE casters such that adding one more of either wouldn't make as large of a difference as the party utility abilities you will be bringing. But in general in a party of 4-6 most abilities can be covered by someone and so there is even less incentive to get off track IMO. In a smaller party you can't afford not to stay on track because you may be 33% to 50% of your parties combat ability. You taking the less vertical path means you will offer about half as much each combat. That's a big percent decrease in party capability for the little bit of horizontal depth you are adding IMO.

Horizontal depth gets players what they want for their characters. Case closed.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, and thank you.

It also seems like some things would just be easier to houserule. "You want X cantrip for your character for this justifiable fluff reason, but multiclassing or magic initiate or spell sniper is too impractical? Okay."

Yep. That's a way to slightly change the current system to create a character that's dabbled in magic. Good call.

As I stated much earlier, I would argue that the Arcane Trickster can multiclass earlier than level 5, since what that rogue gains in levels 4-5 (ASI, 1d6 sneak attack, uncanny dodge) is not as much as what an AT 3/Wiz 2 gains.

I disagree. The bigger rogue buff at level 5 is the defensive ability, uncanny dodge. The sneak attack is helpful but 1d6+2d6+dex mod vs 1d6+3d6+dex mod isn't such a large gap that it cannot be surpassed by horizontal abilities. However, uncanny dodge is a strong enough ability that level 1-2 in most classes just doesn't give enough horizontal power to justify the loss in vertical power IMO.

I can agree with this.

Linus: "Because that's what D&D's all about, Charlie Brown: DPR."

More strong mischaracterization of my position. DPR is not all D&D is about. However, it is an important aspect and consideration in D&D. This is evidenced by so many abilities in D&D directly impacting your DPR.

What you just did would be like me trying to classify your opinion as DPR doesn't matter at all. Such strawmen aren't helpful in having a productive discussion.

Horizontal depth gets players what they want for their characters. Case closed.

And being able to allow someone to eventually get what they want for their character doesn't mean it's not a terribly poor way of allowing them to "get what they want".

Let me put it this way.

A person that wants a melee combat specialist with spells, doesn't wanna play a level 2 fighter/level 3 wizard at level 5. He may do so because it's the only rules way of making his concept come to life currently. However, if there were classes that allowed him to get extra attack at level 5 and have some level 2 spells by then he would much rather play that class. With the right spell list, spells known and a unique spellslot progression and giving up on some of the fighter melee strengths like 2nd wind and action surge such a character could work very well and be balanced with other melee classes and would almost exclusively put away the thought of using a fighter wizard multiclass at low levels to create the character concept in question.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

All I have to say is that numbers don't lie. I can give you a very good ballpark of how far down your combat abilities will be. I can then try to explain that the faster the enemies die the less damage you take and the less likely you are to die.

And yet, DPR-centric approaches completely overlook the power of the rogue 2/shadow monk 3, merely because it has average DPR. In reality it can TPK whole parties--it just takes more than three rounds to do so.

Simplistic analyses yield incorrect predictions.

 

[FrogReaver]

Horizontal depth doesn't seem like much because you're ignoring 66% of the game: Exploration and Socialisation.

Case in point, a Knowledge Cleric/Rogue/Bard has proficiency in almost all the skills, and Expertise in 4 of those skills (and from as early as level 2).
Warlock 2 adds even more proficiencies with Beguiling Whisper, and gets you Eldritch Blast, as much as you want to call the entirety of the cantrip system an exception.

First of all, you can mischaracterize my position on cantrips all you want. I disqualified 3-4 of them. How many cantrips are there in the game again? Yea, that's right, I don't get anywhere close to calling the entirety of the cantrip system an exception.

Second of all the mischaracterize my position on combat being important as ignoring 66% of the game. I totally agree that exploration and socialization are important aspects. So how valuable is expertise in such situations? That's a very hard question to answer because it depends on how often your DM gives everyone a check for something vs how often your DM has the whole group low an ability and the lowest ability check screws the group. How that interaction plays out really matters for how useful +3 in a skill actually is. Likewise their are feats which add some very useful socialization and exploration abilities. Many multiclass combos split 2/3 and lose out on the ability of getting said feat by level 5.

Personally, the difference in +3 and +6 on a skill check is relatively small in the games I've played in because most DM's run the skill check system poorly because they don't think at all about using statistics to inform them on how they should run it.

So there is always a consideration of social and exploration. However, most abilities don't add a lot in those situations. The most notable ability in such situations is pass without trace, a level 2 spell. But I think I already mentioned something like that could be worth trading the extra attack for especially in campaigns with larger parties.