D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Wulfgar76]

If someone wants to create a thread called "Known Multiclass Abuses" this would most certainly go in:


Fighter X/Mage 2 (Enchanter)
'Aura of Antipathy', the level 2 ability from the Enchantment School, make all melee attacks on the character have disadvantage. Combine that with heavy armor and a shield and you've created an essentially unhittable character.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If someone wants to create a thread called "Known Multiclass Abuses" this would most certainly go in:

Yeah, Mike Mearls said that he was almost positive a change had already been put into effect for the mage class feature.

 

[bogmad]

I'm a fighter 1/mage 6 right now. Enchantment tradition, of course. Is anyone taking the evoker or illusionist traditions at all, multiclassing aside? Even though I stuck with medium armor for flavor reasons I don't think I got hit by a melee attack once in a 4+ hour session Saturday. Though a lot of it took the fencing master feat to let me parry things away with my reaction. I'm actually enjoying it pretty well. My attributes are spread out a bit so my attack bonus may be a point or two less, but over all it seems well enough balanced

Though, I'm not sure how balanced it might be if I were in full plate. And getting STR, CON, INT, and WIS save proficiencies is a lot. Even narrowing that down to 3 saves wouldn't be too troubling. If I spent two levels in fighter to get heavy armor I might be even more unhittable, but that lack of caster level would also hurt.

And with the echantment tradition all it really takes is one fight with a construct to put some fear in you.

 

[Li Shenron]

If someone wants to create a thread called "Known Multiclass Abuses" this would most certainly go in:


Fighter X/Mage 2 (Enchanter)
'Aura of Antipathy', the level 2 ability from the Enchantment School, make all melee attacks on the character have disadvantage. Combine that with heavy armor and a shield and you've created an essentially unhittable character.

Not unhittable, since any source of advantage will cancel such disadvantage. But definitely being "immune to advantage on attacks against" is still pretty powerful, considering there might be several character/monster abilities that work only when having advantage.

 

[Quickleaf]

I have a question for advocates of 3e/5e style "Dip" multiclassing: If you can play a fighter 1 / mage 6, what is the point of having the classes at all? I mean, I understand wanting to play a fighter / mage as a character concept, but a fighter 1 / mage 6 isn't a concept...it's an optimizing tool. At least my limited exposure to 3e saw it used that way. Do people who are in favor of 3e/5e style multiclassing like it precisely because it lets them optimize?

Being used to AD&D style "Gish" multiclassing, the "Dip" style strikes me as being meant for a classless style of game, or else for a charop style of game.

 

[Mistwell]

Okay, I have finally run across what looks like a legit Next multiclassing exploit: Play a wizard with your first two levels in fighter. This gets you Action Surge, which allows you to open a fight with two spells on the same round. The ability even refreshes after a short rest! As side benefits, you get a big AC boost from being able to wear plate and shield, six extra hit points, and a low-powered but still useful Second Wind.

And either Defensive (+1 AC) or Protection (Disadvantage on melee attack against you or adjacent ally). Yeah, I'd say a 21 AC is excellent for a Wizard (and you can dump Dex)...though you won't be able to afford the plate for a while.

I haven't tested this in practice, but Next spells are very potent and all experience with past editions indicates that two spells in the same round is enormously powerful. The loss of two wizard levels hurts a lot at the low end, but if you're starting in the level 11+ range it's not nearly as big a deal.

Needless to say, multiclass stat requirements do not affect this at all. You'd want your first level in fighter anyway, for the hit points.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I have a question for advocates of 3e/5e style "Dip" multiclassing: If you can play a fighter 1 / mage 6, what is the point of having the classes at all? I mean, I understand wanting to play a fighter / mage as a character concept, but a fighter 1 / mage 6 isn't a concept...it's an optimizing tool. At least my limited exposure to 3e saw it used that way. Do people who are in favor of 3e/5e style multiclassing like it precisely because it lets them optimize?

No! I don't speak for anyone, but I think many of us hope the abusive frankenstein-style multiclassing of is not present D&D Next. We've been assured that abuses are being remedied, but I still hate 'The Dip'. I'd like to see a rule, or at least an optional rule, that says something like:

Multiclassing only allows you at most 2 classes, and no class can be more than 2 levels behind the other.

I don't think Character Optimizers like D&D Next all that much anyway – 3.5 and Pathfinder is their game. I hope 5e learns the lessons of 3e, and takes steps to ensure that multiclassing is a tool to capture specific character concepts, not link class abilities into broken combos.

 

[bogmad]

I have a question for advocates of 3e/5e style "Dip" multiclassing: If you can play a fighter 1 / mage 6, what is the point of having the classes at all? I mean, I understand wanting to play a fighter / mage as a character concept, but a fighter 1 / mage 6 isn't a concept...it's an optimizing tool. At least my limited exposure to 3e saw it used that way. Do people who are in favor of 3e/5e style multiclassing like it precisely because it lets them optimize?

Being used to AD&D style "Gish" multiclassing, the "Dip" style strikes me as being meant for a classless style of game, or else for a charop style of game.

All I really needed for a fighter/mage concept is the one level. At least the concept I had in mind, which was more heavy on the sword-wielding mage than a fighter who knew a spell or two. I wanted a guy who could wade into melee with a sword while still throwing out some damage spells, or use something for utility every now and then. I've got that. I toyed with the idea of picking up the d10 HD and action surge with a second level of fighter, but in the end I took the wizard level 6 so I could add blink to my spell list and pop in and out behind guys swinging. If I were finding a lot of spell books to expand my list, I may have gone a different way?

It's fairly well balanced. I think maybe if I was a full plate user with my level of fighter it might be more unbalanced? I'd be curious to hear other opinions. My stats aren't optimized at all, and I'm content with AC16, enchanter disadvantage, and the fencing feat (effective AC 20 w reaction) Having a second level of fighter necessary to bump to base 20 AC (effective AC 25) might make taking another level of fighter more appealing for those who otherwise wouldn't [with the rules in the last open playtest release].

Having to wait an extra level to get 2d8 for cantrips/ extra attack hurts, and probably makes dipping only one level more appealing. If you're going full "dual" class you're waiting until level 10 for that second attack, which frankly seems underpowered. Maybe that's a fault, but I think delaying that extra attack or feat is a pretty good balancing mechanic for multiclassing, as far as effectiveness goes.

 

[Derren]

Multiclassing only allows you at most 2 classes, and no class can be more than 2 levels behind the other.

Yay for verisimilitude and the ability to make the character you envision.
Not really your primary goals, right?

 

[Wulfgar76]

Yay for verisimilitude and the ability to make the character you envision.
Not really your primary goals, right?

No it's more about preventing the character you envision.

Strong measures are sometimes necessary to prevent the disasters of the past.