D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[trentonjoe]

Actually, I kinda do. I require the wizard to justify finding spells from the local library / academy and scribing them into his book. They don't magically appear at level up.

Likewise with feats. I expect a character who's taking the Actor feat to be practicing his skills of deception, disguise, etc before he purchases it in game.

Its not like learning these things in game is hard - there are systems in place for regular wizards to learn spells. Or for someone to pick up acting techniques


Obtaining the infusion of magic in the middle of a game in order to become a wild mage, however, is another matter. Transforming yourself from a human into a drow (there's actually a campaign in 4e that does that) requires actual strong story reasons.

I've played in both types of games over the years. I had a DM that paired the Cleric spell list down for me and told me what weapons my fighter couldn't use for various reasons and I've had guys say "I don't give a **** what you take Joe."

Both games were way fun, as long as the game is interesting and the story is engaging it doens't really matter (to me).

 

[steeldragons]

Someone, and I'm sorry i can't find it now in the thread, but it was something about a disconnect between 3+e multiclassing and pre-3e multiclassing and how the one creates an "illusion" of something...which I wanted to joke must be at least Spectral Force if not Shadow Monsters, because I feel the illusion is, at least partially, real. [failed my save?]

But there is a degree of disconnect, and/or to expand on the thought [or what I took as the thought it was making], between players who have used and accepted the 3+e mode of MC and enjoy that and those, like myself, that didn't. Pre-3e and Post-3e are two completely different ways of approaching Multiclassing.

We simply will not agree on what is/isn't justified via multiclassing or necessary for multi-classing or why MC should/must be allowed, etc... That's not "good/bad/indifferent" or anyone's fault. It just is.

There are characters that can be MCed. Of course. I've certainly created and played my fair share...pre-3e. But with the classes and subclasses and backgrounds, and optional feats if you want, way 5e is constructed plus the additional concept options that all of those can be opened up to via roleplay, there is no real argument beyond "but I want" to warrant making MC necessary in play. Thankfully, it is optional.

There always will be "other" characters or types of characters one can create/play. That, for me, is not an argument to permit MCing when there are the myriad array of options which you CAN play with, without MCing in the game at all.

 

[Mallus]

I said, as an off hand comment, that I would argue that genies are more appropriate for sorcerers than warlocks. Others, including yourself, asked me to clarify. So I did. And you continue to jump on my discussion of my opinions on the matter, as if its objectively wrong.

I don't mean to come off like jumping on your opinions. I brought up the genie/patron thing for a reason, but I probably should have been clearer.

If a player comes to you wanting a genie as their Warlock patron, why not just go with it? Why raise an argument in the first place -- and why is an argument your first response. It seems trivially easy to make a genie work as a patron -- it takes as much effort/rationalization to problematize it.

So why make a problem instead of a solution? This is a question of DM'ing philosophy.

A lot.

So you've run several 5e campaigns to at least mid-level and observed multiclass PCs lag behind their single class counterparts?

... or a power called "Agonizing Blast." A curse and something that causes agony... That's pretty much the definition of dark magic, right there.

How is Agonizing Blast categorically different from a Sorcerer's Elemental Affinity? Both add CHA to cantrip damage. Other that one has the word "agonizing" in it's name...

 

[Dausuul]

So is it pretty much accepted by everyone that 5e's multiclassing rules are awful? I keep seeing this put forth as though it's commonly accepted. How does it differ unfavorably with previous versions?

What makes you think previous versions were any better? The history of multiclassing in D&D is one long parade of suck.

In AD&D, you were grotesquely overpowered until you reached your race's level limit and hit a brick wall, whereupon you were allowed to sit there sobbing while your single-classed human companions forged on to glory.

In 3E, it was a twink bonanza for noncasters, who could use multiclassing to make their single-classed noncaster companions look pathetic. Meanwhile, the single-classed casters just stood by smiling tolerantly at the kids playing in their sandbox. No self-respecting caster would touch multiclassing, though they'd eat up every prestige class they could qualify for.

In 4E, it was so worthless I can't even remember the rules. Something about using feats to swap out powers. Nobody used it.

In 5E, you can either be a one-trick pony using some kind of cheesy exploit (e.g., warlock 2/sorcerer X stacking metamagic with Eldritch Blast for massive damage output), or you can be a heap of mediocre low-level abilities that never quite stack up to what a single-classed character has. It's better than what came before, but it still doesn't really deliver IMO.

As far as I know, in all of D&D there has been one implementation of multiclassing that really worked well: 4E's hybrid rules. I had a wizard/lazy warlord hybrid who was very effective and fun without being overpowered or requiring twinkery. However, it only worked because of 4E's rigid AEDU class structure, which meant all classes had roughly the same "shape" and it was thus feasible to stick half of one onto half of another. It'd be very tough to replicate that in 5E... though perhaps not impossible. If we get a 5E OGL, this could be an interesting project for a third-party publisher.

 

[trentonjoe]

I like the 5E multiclassing rules

 

[MrMyth]

The classes are designed with the idea tiers in mind. 1-4, 5-10, 11-16, 17+. At each new tier, there is a notable bump in power and capabilities. A barbarian-rogue would be trailing behind everyone else. Dipping is the only way the current system really works outside of very select cases (usually, half-casters switching to full caster for more spell slots).

And, because of that, non-dip multiclassing leaves you with ineffective characters that fall behind everyone else in terms of not only combat ability, but exploration and social ability as well. This very quickly becomes not-fun (TM).

This really hasn't been my experience with the system. The biggest hit from being a hybrid is losing out on ability boost / feats. But over the long run, with most builds, that only translates to generally a one-feat loss overall. A Rogue 6 / Barbarian 6 has two feats instead of 3. Not the end of the world.

I'm just not seeing where the Barbarian Rogue is 'trailing behind everyone else'. They aren't losing out on BAB like they would be in 3rd Edition. They are just about as accurate as a full barbarian. They gain a few dice of sneak attack, in return for having a slightly weaker rage and fewer rages per day. They miss out on some of the potent higher level abilities, like a Raging Barbarian getting saves to avoid going to 0 hp, or a Rogue getting to 'take 10' on trained skills. But in return, they get some cool combos of their own s they level, like the durability of Rage + Uncanny Dodge, or the mobility of Fast Movement + Cunning Action, or the elusiveness of Danger Sense + Evasion.

That's really the point for me - the abilities on both ends of the equation are equally compelling. It can be worth staying full rogue to get tons of sneak attack plus an ability like blindsense. It can be worth staying barbarian and eventually getting to swing back at creatures that damage me. Or it can be worth blending the two and gain a measure of offense and durability compared to pure rogue, and a measure of utility and dodgeability compared to pure barbarian. And there are plenty of different builds that can measure along the entire spectrum, from fully splitting your levels between the two classes, to focusing on one class and dipping a bit into another.

For me, at least, this is the first edition I've seen where they really feels like it has been the case.

 

[steeldragons]

OK, how about this... I want to take a few levels of fighter (eldritch knight) and a few levels of wizard (evocker) to be a bladesinger more focused on casting...

or

I want to replay my warlord idea, so I want to take some levels of bard (valor) and some fighter (battlemaster)

or

I want to combine rogue (assassin) and paliden (Vengence) to play a character like Assasin creed...

I'm only responding to this because I've seen you type it this way several times in multiple posts...so I can safely assume it's not a typo anymore. The word is Paladin: p-a-l-A-d-I-n.

To the rest of your questions, there's nothing here that requires multiclassing.

Be a bard [valor] and play your warlord guy. Can't? Why not? Need other class why? Be an Eldritch Knight and play a Bladesinger guy. Can't? Why not? Need other class why?

The only answers you have for those Why's is not "because I want a bladesinger/warlord." That's not an answer. It's "because without access to the full array of features of the -Wiz or -Ftr [respectively], or at least up to those levels that get me what I want, I don't get the powers I feel I need/want."

That's simply, in my eyes/experience/estimation and preferences, not a compelling enough reason to say "yes."

 

[Mallus]

A choice of class means something storywise , just like your choice of race means something storywise. Or are you all humans with just some different mechanics attached?

Interesting... I treat race and class differently. "Race" has meaning in the game fiction. If you pick "elf" or "dragonborn" that's what you are physically and culturally -- though the exact relationship of the character to their culture is up to the player.

(let's leave aside the issue of reskinning races -- we do that a lot in our group, mainly because I don't like writing custom mechanics, but *love* writing custom setting porn, err, fiction/fluff).

Class is another story. It's not as rigidly bound to the game fiction. It's what you know how to do, without, necessarily, a specifc context. For example, a 'swordsman' could be a fighter, ranger, paladin, or rogue (or warlock). A 'holy warrior' could be a paladin, or cleric, or again, warlock (it's a very flexible class!). Members of setting-specific organizations are defined through the fiction, not mechanics.

 

[Mallus]

I like the 5E multiclassing rules

They're pretty good.

 

[MrMyth]

And I'm not just talking about -some- of the spells here. I'm talking about Lifedrinker, which every Blade warlock will eventually get if they live that long. And Hex, one of the signature abilities. Even the fey warlocks take those.

Regardless of what abilities you yourself may take, it is entirely possible to build a good-aligned, fey pact warlock with powers focused on things like deception and being mischevious. (My fey warlock quite likes to Hex folks into being bad at dex checks, simply so I can mock them as they stumble about.) And on the topic of curses - the idea of cursing enemies is not exactly far afield from many legends of the genie, which are often about wishes being fulfilled in terrible and ironic ways.

Similarly, I think it is a bit simplistic to say that "Agonizing Blast" is somehow 'extra mean' because it makes an attack more painful for the enemy... but that the elemental attacks a sorcerer throws around, such as wreathing someone in fire, are totally different.

Look, honestly, I probably agree with you that having genie as a sorcerer thing is more appropriate. But the force with which you were arguing against any portrayals of a warlock that didn't match your own personal vision... did seem a bit much.