D&D 5E Multiclassing

[hejtmane]

I'm not saying that MC is purely about power gaming. Though if you go to the optimization section of these forums, it's rare to see a single class, while there are many, many 'optimized' builds that rely on multi classing. So it's hardly suprising folks associate MC with players attempting to work the mechanics rather than the character/fluff.

Anyway, we don't do it because weeeeell... no need. KISS and all that. Much as you can wrap a story around a heavily optimized MC character, you can do the same for a SC class character - so we do. Saves on paperwork, and generally less bullshankery.

You misunderstand a lot of the post on Optimization board then. Most people are not saying hey what is the best dpr build because that answer is usually going to be a single class. The optimization board usually starts off like this: I have this concept of blah and blah help me optimize this build around that concept. In other words what are the things I should watch for and what is the best option for me build my character concept. It is rarely about pure dpr but optimizing the character around a concept which usually requires multiclassing

 

[Iain_Coleman]

Banning multiclassing is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Blue]

I'm considering home-ruling multiclassing for warlocks to limit the spell recovery to just warlock spells. Well, that and warlock/cleric always seemed odd to me from an RP perspective since the PC is basically serving two masters at that point.

Other than that, there's not a big issue, although taking a level or two of fighter is also pretty popular. Overall it doesn't break anything and unlike previous editions there's no horribly broken combos that I've run into yet.

Just as a comment, Warlock has a completely separate progression from the caster classes. By the rules, normal caster slots (most caster classes) resets of long rest, and the entirely separate warlock spell slots refresh on short or long rest.

 

[Blue]

This is why I don't like multiclassing.

I think subclasses are an elegant way to handle it.

UGH. There are so many different combonations of classes, each class would have a dozen just for common multiclassing before even expanding their own. Here's your rogue (divine) and druid (monk). Let's see, say 3 subclasses plus one for each other class, that 12 classes times 14 subclasses apiece for 168 subclasses.

Plus such a huge amount of rules bloat. Fighter (Eldritch Knight) is different than Wizard (Bladesinger) because they each have a primary class. And rogue (Arcane Trickster) is different then Fighter (Eldritch Knight) because each brings out the special parts of their main class. So we're looking at each of these subclasses needing to be designed uniquely, tested, balanced vs. each other, maybe spell lists picked, etc.

Multiclassing also allows character changes in direction. The lowly thief who's saved by the cleric from sure death and coverts strongly and starts to pick up paladin levels.

I'm also for iconic or customized subclass mixes, they can get a feel that strengths the thematics of the base class. But multiclassing is an elegant design space that fills a lot of holes and also doesn't need to be finalized at character creation allowing changes to character direction because of their place in the story.

 

[Oofta]

Just as a comment, Warlock has a completely separate progression from the caster classes. By the rules, normal caster slots (most caster classes) resets of long rest, and the entirely separate warlock spell slots refresh on short or long rest.

According to the PHB you can use pact magics spell slots to cast spells from other classes. So a cleric with a couple of levels of warlock can get back spell slots that can be used to cast Cure Light Wounds.

That doesn't make any sense to me thematically - it seems like healing should come from their deity, not from their pact with otherworldly power.

If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, let me know.

Note: I completely understand why they did it this way, and I would explain it as spell slots are similar to mana in other systems (although broken down into discrete chunks/slots). It doesn't matter where you get the mana from, you either have mana or you don't. It does simplify things.

To me it just seems like having two different motors, one that runs on gasoline and one that runs on diesel. The fuel for one should not be usable for the other. Of course if I was really strict and not stuck on the warlock/cleric thing I'd have to break up spell slots based on divine vs arcane/wizard vs warlock vs charisma and so on, which would be a pain. So I'm not recommending anyone else follow my convoluted logic, just mentioning something I do in my campaign.

PHB Page 164

Pact Magic. If you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain fram the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know.​

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

You misunderstand a lot of the post on Optimization board then. Most people are not saying hey what is the best dpr build because that answer is usually going to be a single class. The optimization board usually starts off like this: I have this concept of blah and blah help me optimize this build around that concept. In other words what are the things I should watch for and what is the best option for me build my character concept. It is rarely about pure dpr but optimizing the character around a concept which usually requires multiclassing

That's a very.. romantic way of imaging the Character Builds & Optimization. Aside from the various class optimization guides, where the emphasis is power - and typically combat power at that - the majority of the posts are: Class/race/misc combo presented, followed by requests to make them the most effective, in other words, a request for advice regarding the best numbers/returns through option choice. And often a 'dip' is recommended, which obviously involves multiclassing.

Those dips, most of the time, are not about the roleplay optimization of a character but instead about getting the best numbers/most powerful options. As your say in your reply, ''The optimization board usually starts off like this: I have this concept of blah and blah help me optimize this build around that concept.'' Those asking for advice on optimization are not looking for role-play advice. Nobody is replying, ''Well, try to imagine what motives your character, what drives them'' or ''Have you considered what responsibilities define your character?'' Replies are, the vast majority of the time, advice regarding which options to choose for the best possible mechanical performance of a character, typically with regards to combat, be it through direct damage, control or utility.

Multiclassing present options - and often those options synergise to present particularity powerful builds. So naturally, when asked for advice, there are often suggestions to multiclass (..regardless of the validity of said suggestion). With multiclassing being a key component, via dipping or by simply taking X levels, in the advice on how to 'optimize my character concept', is it any wonder that multiclassing is so strongly associated with 'power gaming'?

 

[Blue]

According to the PHB you can use pact magics spell slots to cast spells from other classes. So a cleric with a couple of levels of warlock can get back spell slots that can be used to cast Cure Light Wounds.

That doesn't make any sense to me thematically - it seems like healing should come from their deity, not from their pact with otherworldly power.

If I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, let me know.

Note: I completely understand why they did it this way, and I would explain it as spell slots are similar to mana in other systems (although broken down into discrete chunks/slots). It doesn't matter where you get the mana from, you either have mana or you don't. It does simplify things.

To me it just seems like having two different motors, one that runs on gasoline and one that runs on diesel. The fuel for one should not be usable for the other. Of course if I was really strict and not stuck on the warlock/cleric thing I'd have to break up spell slots based on divine vs arcane/wizard vs warlock vs charisma and so on, which would be a pain. So I'm not recommending anyone else follow my convoluted logic, just mentioning something I do in my campaign.

Thanks for taking time to reply - I misunderstood your initial post. Yes, you can cast any spell known in any of your slots. I was talking solely about slots refresh and only warlock slots coming back at a short rest, not your other caster slots. But you aren't talking about where the slots come from, you are talking about where the spells cast in the slots come from. Sorry, my bad.

So yes, default you can use any slot on any spell known. So now I understand your house rule.

 

[Arial Black]

It depends if the other players were the ones expected to provide appropriate challenges for the Cleric character, and to be put under pressure to understand and adjudicate the rules for it during game play. They are not, so their concerns are fairly minor.[1] When the DM is the one who does have to handle a given character, their decision to veto certain options is of an entirely different worthiness than the player-concern you described there. If the DM decides to run Dark Sun, and a player wants to play a Cleric, the DM is entirely right to say no; just so, if a DM's view of the game / world / whatever doesn't include multiclassing, then (s)he is entirely right to say no to that, too. The players, naturally, are entirely right to walk away from the game if that is a deal breaker for them, and to find a different table instead.

The 'no clerics in Dark Sun' problem has got nothing to do with the MC debate. If there are no clerics in Dark Sun - fair enough - this means that there are no single class clerics OR multiclass clerics. No-one is claiming that MCing allows forbidden classes in the back door.

The DM doesn't have to 'handle' MC characters any more than SC characters. If the DM is running a campaign for, say, '5th level PCs, only classes/races from the PHB', then the DM already has to be able to 'handle' 5th lvl barbarians, 5th lvl bards, 5th lvl clerics, etc. and all of the abilities that they have.

Therefore, if a PC turns up with, say, 2 lvls of cleric and 3 lvls of fighter/battlemaster, then there is literally nothing to 'handle' that he cannot 'handle' already! You already can 'handle' 5th lvl clerics and 5th lvl fighter/battlemaster! When the MC Clr/Ftr uses a superiority die or Channels Divinity, you already know how to handle it!

"But what about the power of MC PCs? Won't it destroy the delicate balance of the game?"

What, not being able to cast 2nd or 3rd lvl spells and not getting two attacks per round is 'too powerful', or would destroy the delicate game balance?

There is no ability possessed by a MC PC that a SC PC cannot already do. Meanwhile, there are plenty of things a SC PC can do that a MC PC of the same level cannot do.

But I don't want to do your debating for you. What specific 'problem', in terms of adjudication or game balance, do MC PCs introduce to the game?

 

[Charles Rampant]

You're not addressing the central point of my comment: that it is the DM's right to allow or disallow certain things, and that your contention that it is equal to another player vetoing a class is an irrelevant comparison. Dark Sun clerics is absolutely the same thing, since it is all about the DM's vision for the campaign. I'm not particularly interested in getting into nuts and bolts power comparison, since that is dragging the conversation into territory that is irrelevant to my point, but instead to say that a DM's personal preference is absolutely a reason to disallow multiclassing.

 

[Arial Black]

You're not addressing the central point of my comment: that it is the DM's right to allow or disallow certain things, and that your contention that it is equal to another player vetoing a class is an irrelevant comparison. Dark Sun clerics is absolutely the same thing, since it is all about the DM's vision for the campaign. I'm not particularly interested in getting into nuts and bolts power comparison, since that is dragging the conversation into territory that is irrelevant to my point, but instead to say that a DM's personal preference is absolutely a reason to disallow multiclassing.

The DM's personal preference for character choice is for his characters, not mine. My PCs are my choice.

The DM really does have a choice about the in-game things he allows in his game, but MCing is not in-game, it's metagame. The creatures in the campaign world have no idea about game mechanics directly, only about how those things might manifest within that world. So, clerics getting power from gods is a thing that can be observed in-game, but the direct game mechanics of class cannot be observed. So the creatures could not know that this cleric has, say, a level of fighter, just that this cleric is good at fighting. You can't reasonable disallow 'good at fighting' as an observable concept.

For the metagame, DMs can certainly allow or disallow things. Spells, spellcasting, armour types (no full plate in my world thank you very much; the technology doesn't exist yet and I want a different flavour).

But you cannot say 'characters cannot have an Armour Class because I don't allow attack rolls to fail'.

You can say you don't allow warlocks, you can say you won't allow fighters, but if you allow those classes and the abilities that they have then you cannot disallow MC fighter/warlocks on the grounds that it doesn't fit the vision for your campaign. You already do allow those things in your campaign!

If you allow training in weapons and armour, and you allow warlocks, you cannot say that warlocks with weapon/armour training are against the laws of physics! What in-game reason prevents them?

There is no in-game reason why warlocks would be incapable of learning weapon skills. There is no metagame reason, because you already allow warlocks and fighters.

All you've got is that you don't 'like' it, therefore no-one else is allowed it. You have emotion, but not reason. It is not a reasoned position.

If your world has different coloured paints and you allow shields to be painted, and you're okay with red shields and blue shields, but don't like shields that are half red and half blue, then that is a personal preference you are entitled to have. But the idea that there is something about the universe which prevents shields that are half red and half blue is absurd. In-game you can have a School of Heraldry which disallows that kind of mix, but there is no law of the universe which could prevent it, even if the College of Arms might have a word with the PC.

But red paint and blue paint exist in the world. Character classes do not exist in the world, they are metagame mechanics.

There is no MC character whose abilities you do not already allow, so disallowing a PC with those mechanics is against reason.

When 5E made MCing and feats 'optional', it was an aid to get newbies into the game quicker. Like stabilisers on your first bike, they are meant to be removed once the newbie has got the hang of it.

There is no other valid reason. "I don't like it so you can't have it" is a childish response not worthy of a DM.

 

[Charles Rampant]

If you say so, mate. You've expended a huge number of words trying to prove that the sky is blue, when I never said it wasn't, but instead said that I prefer my own worlds to have red skies.

 

[hejtmane]

That's a very.. romantic way of imaging the Character Builds & Optimization. Aside from the various class optimization guides, where the emphasis is power - and typically combat power at that - the majority of the posts are: Class/race/misc combo presented, followed by requests to make them the most effective, in other words, a request for advice regarding the best numbers/returns through option choice. And often a 'dip' is recommended, which obviously involves multiclassing.

Those dips, most of the time, are not about the roleplay optimization of a character but instead about getting the best numbers/most powerful options. As your say in your reply, ''The optimization board usually starts off like this: I have this concept of blah and blah help me optimize this build around that concept.'' Those asking for advice on optimization are not looking for role-play advice. Nobody is replying, ''Well, try to imagine what motives your character, what drives them'' or ''Have you considered what responsibilities define your character?'' Replies are, the vast majority of the time, advice regarding which options to choose for the best possible mechanical performance of a character, typically with regards to combat, be it through direct damage, control or utility.

Multiclassing present options - and often those options synergise to present particularity powerful builds. So naturally, when asked for advice, there are often suggestions to multiclass (..regardless of the validity of said suggestion). With multiclassing being a key component, via dipping or by simply taking X levels, in the advice on how to 'optimize my character concept', is it any wonder that multiclassing is so strongly associated with 'power gaming'?

Kind of funny since most the guides suggest straight class I know I read most of them and people who do multiclass also do not want to suck so hence to make sure not to because generally a multiclass dip in 5e cost you more than straight class. The reason most people i can tell pick only certain races in their guide is point buy. I Do not use point buy in my games we do 4d6-L and I have guys using non optimal races because of not worried because they generally have one really good roll for their main stat and several good rolls for the other stats.

5e Multiclassing is weird it encourages a dip for a concept because of the delays on asi and extra attacks which I am fine with it prevents a lot of the horror story of 3.5 I here about; way better than the old 1e system. 5e multi-classing is far from power gaming their are a few builds that work while but nothing compared to straight class especially if you include feats. Yes because of delay of power you only want to take so many levels and you see a recommended for only 2-3 levels depending on the main class is the cap stones powers of those straight classes at 17-18 are so good. See 5e favors single class in most ways with capstone powers at certain each class is a little different and some better than others.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Whether multiclassing does actually lend itself to building better characters is a moot point. The fact is that multiclassing is often given as advice to get the best returns on a build and each has their reasons for making such a suggestion. For example, multiclassing can provide options and a few classes are particularly frontloaded in terms of abilities they offer, making for great dips. Your point on capstones is sound, if of course players are expecting to ever reach those levels which is not a given (for example, if a group does not intend to play until 17-18). I'd argue that campaigns that reach such high levels of play are in the minority and as a result multiclassing is an attractive option to many groups where higher level abilities of single classed character will not be enjoyed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying power gaming is a some how 'bad wrong fun' - and it may simply be a matter of semantics (often people prefer the term 'optimizer' than 'power gamer' due to the latter being perceived negatively. Folks are welcome to hash out the differences in their own time). The point I'm making is that multiclassing is often advised as a way of getting more out of a build, often by advising a 1-3 level dip, with the intent of providing more power to a build through additional options and/or certain synergies. As such, multiclassing is often associated with power gaming. Whether it actually makes for powerful characters is obviously up for debate and often depends on the context the build is intended to operate within.

 

[hejtmane]

Whether multiclassing does actually lend itself to building better characters is a moot point. The fact is that multiclassing is often given as advice to get the best returns on a build and there are many reasons why people make such suggestion: multiclassing can provide options and a few classes are particularly frontloaded in terms of abilities they offer, making for great dips. Your point on capstones is sound, if of course players are expecting to ever reach those levels which is not a given (for example, if a group does not intend to play until 17-18). I'd argue that campaigns that reach such high levels of play are in the minority and as a result multiclassing is an attractive option to many groups where higher level abilities of single classed character will not be enjoyed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying power gaming is a some how 'bad wrong fun' - and it may simply be a matter of semantics (often people prefer the term 'optimizer' than 'power gamer' due to the latter being perceived negatively. Folks are welcome to hash out the differences in their own time). The point I'm making is that multiclassing is often advised as a way of getting more out of a build, often by advising a 1-3 level dip, with the intent of providing more power to a build through additional options and/or certain synergies. As such, multiclassing is often associated with power gaming. Whether it actually makes for powerful characters is obviously up for debate and often depends on the context the build is intended to operate within.

If you are power gaming in 5e except in a few spots then straight class is more powerful

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

If you say so/believe so great! But that has nothing to do with the perceived relationship between multiclassing and powergaming.

 

[Blue]

I'm starting this off with: I am very pro-multiclassing, and thing that 5e has worked out the balance nicely unless you start a character in the teens. I am not trying to disagree with that.

The DM really does have a choice about the in-game things he allows in his game, but MCing is not in-game, it's metagame.

But the DM does also have control over mechanics because of how it effects the game. And this is both for in-world reasons and for non in-world, play reasons.

You can say you don't allow warlocks, you can say you won't allow fighters, but if you allow those classes and the abilities that they have then you cannot disallow MC fighter/warlocks on the grounds that it doesn't fit the vision for your campaign. You already do allow those things in your campaign!

Maybe a DM says "The gods of fickle whom they grant power - you can't MC warlock with either paladin or cleric in this world". Even though warlock, clerics and paladins all exist, there can be in-world reasons that disallow the multiclass.

Let's go for a non in-game reason. Say a DM wants to include a number of UA classes/subclasses (or DM's Guild, or whatever) but doesn't feel that they are as balanced vs. cherry-picking as the great job done on the PHB classes. (Mearls has even said that multiclass balancing comes at a later point then the first UA draft.) Saying "once you take a UA class you need to go to at least 3rd before you can take levels in anything else". Right there you have a DM doing due diligence (justified or not) for allowing playtest/3rd party products in to allow the players more choice.

If you allow training in weapons and armour, and you allow warlocks, you cannot say that warlocks with weapon/armour training are against the laws of physics! What in-game reason prevents them?

There are literally decades of D&D play in earlier editions that say that armor messes with magical physics and arcane casters can't wear it. Blanket prohibition. And even when it start being allowed, there was a failure chance that you'd just lose the spell. This was as real in-game as "metal is rare and valuable" is in Dark Sun.

We also had clerics unable to use any weapons except bludgeoning ones regardless of who the worshiped, and we STILL have Druids who can't/won't wear metal armor.

There's plenty of reasons why a DM customizes their own game for the setting, campaign, and mechanical feel they want. Including at the mechanical level that's not observable in-game. There should still be player buy-in - DM & players all come to have fun. But having the rules support the setting and theme for a particular game makes sense to me.

To turn it around, I'm definitely with you about the rules supporting multiclassing. I'm for more options so that each table can choose what works best, including "everything and the kitchen sink". Let each game find what works for them, and let the game mechanics be wide enough to cover everything and anything a table could want.

 

[hejtmane]

If you say so/believe so great! But that has nothing to do with the perceived relationship between multiclassing and powergaming.

See that is the issue we have perceived relationship because of all the 3.5 history, me personally I never had to deal with it played it once period so I do not have that bias against it because of that never played 4.0 barley played any 2.0. I am old school as they come from D&D and 1E but I also forgotten a lot from those days happens when you get old it's a (filter) getting old. I get that but that does not change the reality yes some of the multiclassing is strong usually early levels but it tapers off and they even fall behind it is not a liner progression. Part of the issue is concepts and the cost of those concepts to build.

If you want to build a Battlemage (heavy armor spell caster) there are issue you have very limited asi's as a wizard/sorc 4,8,12 so you could use a feat if allowed but that cost you precious asi's which are very important especially on a point buy. Then the thought process goes hey I can multiclass for my theme.

1-2 levels fighter to start then wizard the rest of the way hey bonus I get concentration saving throw and heavy armor and for a 2nd level I get action surge as while, instead of taking a feat that would have given them heavy armor hence a 1-2 level dip to open to build their character. It would take 8 levels and 2 feats to get the same thing even though it is possible with feats. The feat tax is high is the issue for a lot of concepts (outside of fighter) and those feats are not necessarily supper strong (cough cough compared to the power 4). That is a flaw in the current 5e system; it is not all bad but if you want a battle mage a small dip is a better return then taking the heavy armor feat and you get more benefits.


I have a battle mage in my current game we went less optimal for theme reason and did cleric tempest/to go with his storm sorcerer.

Yes some multi-class builds are strong but the 5e design on multi-class is not the power gaming mecca of the 3.5 system that everyone is so hell bent on projecting on to the 5e system. hence why on the UA article when I do give feed back I include that in my feedback on surveys

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Oh aye, I'm not saying that the perceived relationship between multiclassing and power gaming is accurate, but as you say, it is still there, even in 5E. Hence many folks shy away from MC/worry about allowing the optional rule as part of their game.

 

[Blue]

Whether multiclassing does actually lend itself to building better characters is a moot point. The fact is that multiclassing is often given as advice to get the best returns on a build and each has their reasons for making such a suggestion. For example, multiclassing can provide options and a few classes are particularly frontloaded in terms of abilities they offer, making for great dips. Your point on capstones is sound, if of course players are expecting to ever reach those levels which is not a given (for example, if a group does not intend to play until 17-18). I'd argue that campaigns that reach such high levels of play are in the minority and as a result multiclassing is an attractive option to many groups where higher level abilities of single classed character will not be enjoyed.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying power gaming is a some how 'bad wrong fun' - and it may simply be a matter of semantics (often people prefer the term 'optimizer' than 'power gamer' due to the latter being perceived negatively. Folks are welcome to hash out the differences in their own time). The point I'm making is that multiclassing is often advised as a way of getting more out of a build, often by advising a 1-3 level dip, with the intent of providing more power to a build through additional options and/or certain synergies. As such, multiclassing is often associated with power gaming. Whether it actually makes for powerful characters is obviously up for debate and often depends on the context the build is intended to operate within.

Let me paraphrase what I'm getting out of this to make sure that I understand. It seems this post is putting forth that there is only one reason to multiclass, which may have negative feelings in the community with the caveat that it doesn't matter if they are true, then uses that as an argument again multiclassing.

If that is the general gist of it, I'd like to expand it with other reasons you can multiclass that don't have any perceived stigma against them.

My go-to visual aid for classes is like dropping coins on an index card. (Why an index card? It's geekier.) The area under the coins are concepts that can be mechanically realized with the classes. Sometimes coins end up overlapping and there is more than one class that can do a good job, such as an archer.

But there is also space between coins - if you can take from multiple coins you can build those concepts. A church inquisitor, a city urchin who ran away and was taken in my a kindly druid in the forest, the warrior who uses magic to help their fighting (oh look, there is also a subclass for that, so archetypes combining classes are a thing).

There's also space between the coins and the edge, which currently aren't covered by any classes. These are just concepts that don't fit well into D&D classes, but that's another point.

Basically, multiclassing can allow a lot of iconic concepts that don't fit well into the existing class structure. Literature is full of them.

Multiclassing also fulfills an additional role of allowing more flexibility to grow your character in response to the unfolding story of the campaign. When you pick a class at character creation, without multiclassing that's the only direction you can go with the most potent of your character growths - levelling. But what about the character who finds religion and takes cleric or paladin levels, or makes a dark pact after a near TPK and becomes a warlock.

Some examples of this in fiction would be "The Deeds of Paksenarrion", the best becoming-a-paladin series I've ever read hands down. More recently acclaimed is Patrick Rothfuss' "The Name of the Wind" and "Wise Man's Fear", where Kvothe starts as an actor / (non-caster) bard, becomes a street urchin rogue, picks up one of that world's type of magic (Sympathy), even later gains fae related powers as well as becoming an expert armed and unarmed combatant. As well as showing signs of picking up a completely different type of magic (Naming). To put him in D&D terms he's earned a lot of levels and gone back and forth in what he is studying. Heck, if classic Dragonlance was originally done with 5e rule set, Goldmoon was a barbarian princess well before she became a Cleric of the True Gods.

In conclusion, there are plenty of reasons to multiclass that have nothing to do with optimization, and at least in the groups I'm in "burn the min-maxer!" isn't the first impression when someone does so.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Let me paraphrase what I'm getting out of this to make sure that I understand. It seems this post is putting forth that there is only one reason to multiclass, which may have negative feelings in the community with the caveat that it doesn't matter if they are true, then uses that as an argument again multiclassing.

While I enjoyed reading your post, my post was certainly not about there being one reason to multiclass!