Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7014261" data-attributes="member: 5142">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 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.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. 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... 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.</blockquote>

Verification