Is there any point to multiclassing in 5th edition?

>Is there any point to multiclassing in 5th edition?
Definitely yes. It's actually easier and more convenient than in the earlier editions.
Hell you're basically encouraged to multiclass in high level campaigns, because the class capstones are almost invariably shit and a lot of classes are frontloaded as fuck.

>PalaSorcLock
Pal 5 / Lock 2 / Sorc X? Seems a little busy. It does cover ranged and melee damage rather well, I admit, but you're usually fine focusing on one or another.

Pal 2 / Sorc X (Favored Soul) is what I like, if I can get away with it.

How big is the spread between an 'optimized' and a 'normal' character anyway?
In 3.5 it used to be HUGE, like the guts of a cyberdemon, then in 4e it was minimal (but maybe my concept of a 'normal 4e character'' is a bit optimized already), now it looks a bit worse than in 4e, but still nowhere near 3.5 levels.
That makes optimization, in the sense of finding the single most optimal path, unnecessary, tho you still have to avoid some design traps, and that's a form of optimization too.

>How big is the spread between an 'optimized' and a 'normal' character anyway?
The gap between an optimized character and a shittily built character is big enough that the shiitily built character won't be fun to play, but unless you try to pervert a class' concept, you'll have a hard time making a bad character.

>I play a game about escapism and storytelling, that runs on an engine consisting of my friends, to feel smug about being able to do third grade math.

System mastery fags should just get good at an actually challenging game instead of jerking off over spreadsheets in front of their buddies, jesus.

The idea with pala-sorc-lock is to be a mostly SAD gish. You go undying light, grab GFB, smite and quicken GFB for lulz. Tomelock for CHA shillelagh.

>Everyone else multi-classes but me
>They are dealing maybe 40 damage a turn
>I am dealing between 80-90 damage per turn
>Sometimes closer to 140 per turn if cleave kicks off

GWF, GWM, and Brandishing smite as a paladin gets absolutely bonkers. Especially when you throw down a smite attack WITH brandishing smite.

4d6+2d8+17 (+2 magic weapon, 20 strength, +10 from GWM) is 43 damage on average time 2 is 86.

Paladins are probably the best melee fighters in the game this time around in my personal opinion. Although Totem of the Bear makes a raging barbarian the absolute best tank in pretty much all situations.

>Paladins are probably the best melee fighters in the game
Until they run out of slots. If that never happens the DM is softballing you.

It's very common, though. The only place where adventurers receive the expected 6 to 8 encounters a day is in an old-school big dumb dungeon (and furthermore, it has to be a dungeon with no good places to stop and take a long rest and no ways to retreat and take a long rest outside.) In any other kind of adventure - outdoors, in a city, even in a well-organized dungeon where monsters can alert each other to danger - the average is 1 or 2 encounters a day, just because that's what makes sense for the environment.

This is why daily limits as a balancing factor just don't work in modern D&D, where you are expected to do things other than delve dungeons.

>big dumb dungeon

wut? I mean i love the new role play heavy culture as much as the next guy, but it's best if interspersed with large dungeon crawls that challenge you.

To answer the original question yes there is a point. The point is that at earlier levels complimentary combo's can make you stronger by providing access to more abilities and thereby making your character more versatile. Not a large dip, but a little bit can really help depending on class.

Well sure but at that point your playing 5e so your already doing a lot of pointless stuff.

YOU ARE SO AGGRAVATING! ITS DISTURBING TO MY DEMEANOUR

What this guy said.

If you WANT to mix-and-match abilities and try to inflate numbers like you were still playing 3.PF, you can go ahead and do that.

If you have a concept for your character and want to stick to it, then multiclassing CAN help, but there are enough options for each class that you shouldn't have to.

5e is deliberately designed so that it's difficult to make a bad or useless character. The vast majority of your useful stuff is right there in your class or in your class's archetype, meaning there's no feat tax or mandatory spell you have to pick if you want to be useful.

5e is also designed in such a way that it encourages making a character rather than just a collection of numbers on the sheet. Backgrounds are such a small and simple thing, but they go a long way to tying your character to the game world and making them more than just Sir Let's See How Big My Numbers Can Get.

But what if in order to make my duel wielding barbarian i have to multi-class into fighter because i need the two handed fighting style? And while i'm there i might as well stick around for an action surge and an archetype since i'm missing out on the capstone anyway.

Barbarians not getting a fighting style still seems like an oversight to me. You could probably give barbs that feature without really messing with class balance at all, since it's just such a small bonus.

When you are level 2, have a 4 plus modifier, and are swinging a hand axe, you'd be amazed what a large bonus it feels like.

Fae pact warlock 5 /Oath of Ancients paladin x is actually a really fun to play and really interesting rp-wise choice. You got spell slots that restores after short rest and could be used for smiting, and got several cool arcane spells to extend your utility.

Personally i wouldn't go with Fae, but i've wanted to run Pallock myself for some time because i thing it would be fun, mechanically and role play wise.

Your voice is Ambrosia.

who doesn't love a (big) touch off chaotic crazy.

still prefer "go for the eyes boo, go for the eyes!"

This. It's a different game than 3.5. I enjoyed multiclassing in 3.5 but going forward I'd prefer options for customizing within class. It would make the meta less punishing of the fluff, by which I mean my combat optimized "ranger" had a bunch of fighter levels and gave up ranger spells (which are gay shit anyway) just to be optimal in combat (and still suck compared to fighters which themselves sucked next to casters, but I was closer).

>It's actually easier and more convenient than in the earlier editions.

....It's really not.

Yep, 5e is officially broken!

This.

That's why you give them the feature later, like at level 6.

yes, not playing 5th edition

Yes, but not as much as people think, or for the reason people think.

The system is calibrated to allow you to build the thrust of your character on one class while pulling in a key feature or two from early levels in another build. If you're intended character build only requires said quick dip it's fine and works as intended. However, not all combos are good: some are very good in non-obvious ways, some look good but aren't, and some are just terrible. You should only multiclass if you're after something like "Fighter, but with Expertise"

Usually if you want to play some form of hybrid character what you actually want is to single class with an appropriate archetype, do it through appropriate feats, or use an alternate build on an existing single-class.

So if you want to refine a build to be even more X than its single-class version you should splash a class with more X. If you want a character who pulls from multiple classes, don't actually multiclass.

(you)

Honestly, I think it'd work as some sort of heavy armor/fighter-based barbarian archtype to get a fighting style or something similar. Something that has more to do with the using the heavy weapons and armor rather than just the whole spiked armor gimmick Battlerager has.

In actual play very, very small. There are certain builds that are clear winners for "best nova," "highest AC," "best footspeed," or "biggest crit." and some builds are better than others at theoretical heads-up combat, but in terms of being able to participate in standard play over the course of campaign the differences even out remarkably well with a reasonable understanding of how they're intended to work.

It so is. Actually go back and look.

I'm multiclassing as rogue/cleric for roleplay purposes. It works fine.

In actual actual play, 90% of the time it'll be the wizard/cleric who solves the situation with a bullshit ritual or utility spell. Fuck, I had more luck scouting with my familiar than with my arcane trickster.

Combat? Nobody cares if you got like 20% higher DPR. It's quite boorish anyway.

Above ground stuff should not be balanced anyway

Barb/Paladin and Rogue/Paladin are pretty ridiculously vicious damage dealers from what I've seen, so much so that I don't use multiclassing in the games I run. Its the easiest path to being OP next to just being a Druid.

It is indeed quite a bit smoother. Especially if you are multiclassing different spellcasting classes.

Last time I did a multi in 5th edition was when we were rolling stats and I ended up with 17 Dex, 17 Int and 18 Wis on my in-progress Bladesinger.

So I threw in a level of Monk, to get the advantage of unarmoured AC, and he became a flippy kung fu magic fighter with a singing sword and no armour.

I was happy enough with the result. Probably wouldn't see it as worth doing without that lucky Wis roll though, since Mage Armour is a thing and lasts eight hours.

Multiclassing as Rogue for that sweet Expertise at first level. You can use that shit for anything. Barbarian with Expertise in Athletics AND advantage while Raging? That's your Grappler build right there.

Wizard with Expertise in Arcana and Nature? Be able to recognize any threat you come across.

Is there any point to 5th edition?

>ftfy

Is there a point to multiclassing in any game? For fluff, yes if that's what your character's theme requires. For advantages in combat/actual abilities, no, generally not.

Barb pally really isn't any good. For one thing no spells or chanel divinity when raging. For another you loose out on spell slots. paly gets more from mixing with some full caster and barb should just stick to mixing with classes without spells.

I'm messing around with a warlock6/rogue3 atm, it was sort of a roleplay idea me and the party through together.
Classed in rogue for the arcane trickster boost and some skill monkey features. Might take class 4 for the ability score boosts.
Pact of the Blade warlock means I can get two hits in and usually roll sneak attack damage on top of that if I play my cards right; I've been considering taking Darkness as my next spell and changing invocations to Devil's Sight, might guarantee that sneak attack damage.

>might guarantee that sneak attack damage.
It would, but it can also easily screw up everything else the party is trying to do. You have to pick off isolated targets to not cause complications.

True, and at best he's been good for providing supplementary damage with the fighter or barbarian. Honestly the character is more flavor than effect.

I'll probably take the next level in rogue for the ability score, need them stats. The synergies seem to end there.

What about Wizard/Warlock?

Although the stats don't synergize, you can get pretty fun with Warlock 2/Wizard X, particularly if you take darkness+devil's sight combo or if you are an abjuration wizard with the invocation that lets you cast Mage Armor without using a spell slot.

If you are at level 14 or higher illusion wizard, having the invocation that lets you cast Silent Image without using a spell slot is hilarious with illusory reality.
>Basically at will Wall of Stone
>Can create carts/wagons for transportation
>Can create really niche structures to fit the situation
>And much more, depending on your creativity

> A ninja is a monk option
Not at all familiar with 5e, does this make any actual sense? Can they at least be stealthy and backstab people?

Multiclassing can give you neat mechanical combos or advantages. Sneak attack AoO machine, fighter 2 anything, bard/warlock, paladin/warlock and so on.

They create magical darkness (among other things) teleport for free, get invisibility for free.. while they can't technically backstab, a level or 3 of rogue fixes that.

So you do need to multiclass to play an actual ninja. So much for the above argument.

What is the most useless multiclass ever? Sorcerer/wizard? Paladin/wizard?

I mean only if you care about sneak attack damage. Even without it you're an invisible, teleporting whirlwhind of pain that can create absolute silence so no one hears your assault.

Barbarian/Wizard

>Union voice actors
Seriously, the fact that Baldur's Gate pretty much featured the entire cast of the Animaniacs was one of its greatest features. Too bad nobody can afford that sort of thing anymore.

I mean, sure, Jim Cummings did half the voices in Skyrim, but that motherfucker has been in absolutely everything since the late 80s - his high points were Minsc and Darkwing Duck; I can't take him seriously as anything else.

Can ninjas at least take backstab as a feat or something?

Kind of sort of. While there's no sneak attack feat, there's a number of feats taht could be used to emulate something similar if you just want the flavor.

-Magic initiate. With booming blade you can deal a bunch of damage and prevent a creature from moving. Green flame blade will let you hit 2 targets.

-Savage attacker: doesn't add more damage, but lets you get a better damage roll to reflect your surprise attack

-Martial adept: once per short rest, you can do a super attack that adds a d6 onto your damage along with a different effect, depending on what maneuver you select. A disarming strike seems appropriate for a ninja.

>The idea is probably that you either don't make it that far anyway
Even the mid level stuff that you are unlikely to reach if you multiclass heavily is pretty good. From my own experience Paladins have aura of courage and improved divine smite at 10th and 11th levels respectively while war clerics get divine strike at 8th and 14th level.

An extra 1d8 or 2d8 damage per attack can really start to add up. I mean there is shit at every level area, low levels you have extra attack, mid levels you have stuff like improved smite, and upper level you have the nice benefits of level 18 stuff. Unless you have a build idea in mind (like barbarian or paladin multiclassed with an assassin rogue) or a thematic idea in mind (Ancients Oath Paladin and Archfey Warlock multiclass) I would suggest not multiclassing.

>An extra 1d8 or 2d8 damage per attack can really start to add up.

In the build proposed above you replace that with adding your CHA to damage 3-5 times, as well as using it to attack (possibly add it there twice). So it adds up both ways.