I'm not sure if this is brought up much in other games, but why do people seem to dislike multiclassing in 5e? Is it solely because of the implications it makes regarding "roleplaying vs role-playing" even though there's tons of character stories and concepts that can be represented with 2 or 3+ classes?
Is there sound logic and reason behind the hate or is it just a case of a vocal minority and an overblown outcry?
99.9% of the time it is metagmaey and lame
either you know multiclassing will be a huge buff since you can abuse mechanics
Or you multiclass cuz "it sounds cool" without ANY metaknowledg and just fuck up your character's usability
Respeciing for a plot reason should be fine, but multiclassing is for munchkins
This is half the reason why I DM.
When I get behind the player's seat I come at character creation from the perspective of "how can I make this person the very best at x," then create a background and resulting personality justifying all that. I end up with a big fucking character sheet, a character stronger than anyone else's and an emotional attachment to a bunch of paper.
If I DM every NPC is expendable because I can make up their shit on the spot so I have no attachment and they can be as good or as bad at something as I want. They killed this rival duo early, who cares? They only had HP, AC, some saves and attack shit on one index card and some goals on another. Into the bin it goes!
So there's a stigma against multiclassing because making effective characters is considered lame?
Hypothetically what if I gave you or some other DMs my character sheet with a well thought-out backstory and plan for my character, and then you read that the character has 4 different classes?
fpbp
>So there's a stigma against multiclassing because making effective characters is considered lame?
Is shitposting on Veeky Forums really what you want to be doing with your time right now?
More so than ever before multiclassing is not useful the few outlying examples exsisting in order to abuse mechanics and become as OP as possible.
I recently decided to multi with a fighter taking a couple of levels in druid in order to drive home the naturist elements of the character, but ultimately its more of a detriment for rp purposes than a boon.
The real shit posting are the people who don't like multiclassing and don't explain themselves.
I'd say multiclassing is extremely useful. Sure, a 20th level wizard is going to be stronger than any combination of multiclass but most campaigns take place and end in tiers 1 and 2. I'd say level 10 is about the sweet spot where multiclassing and single-classes are at about the same level of power.
And as far character stories go, there are a few class combos that can represent a concept better than a single class.
>A holy paladin who met a fey who gave him some of her powers.(Paladin/warlock)
>A member of an order of paladins who are specialize in assassinations to bring justice over brute force(Paladin/Rogue
>A swordmaster who has innate magical abilities(Fighter/Sorcerer)
Multi-classing goes one of two ways.
1. It's meta-gamey and abuses the rules to make a character who's wayyyy more powerful than everyone else. Usually accompied by asspull justifications as to why a Paladin of Devotion also worships a definitely-evil demon lord in his free time for warlock powers.
2. It's used by someone with no understanding of the rules, who ends up gimping his own character beyond usability and ends up bitching about it the entire time. These are usually people trying to make some kind of "rule of cool" anime character proxy.
I'm okay with it.
If you ignore the gishing part, that graph is actually a pretty good example of what you described.
You end up with multiclasses in the circle area, or the Zone of Underspecialization. Very little in-between.
Cleric of the grave and warlock celestial patron.
Backstory. 18 year old daughter of the village priest gets her village wiped by zombies. Turns out daddy and was in contact with a celestial. Adventuring begins.
Because it is 3.5 levels of broken and any sort of minimaxer basically has to multiclass to get off successfully.
Gestalt characters are more fun, anyhow. Warlock / Bard is pretty dope.
level-by-level multiclassing is one of the most cancerous mechanics 3rd edition introduced. It removes the differences between characters by making it more like a really chunky pointbuy, and restricts class design by forcing you to make all sorts of concessions, or suffer 1-2 level dips being ridiculously potent (hello there, hexblade!).
If your game is class based but for some reason it MUST have multiclassing, 4e was the only D&D game that handled it right.
Simple Solution is to just remove classes. Like why would anyone ever want to play an Eldritch Knight instead of a Fighter 2/Wizard X
>remove classes
>just use wizard and fighter instead
I'm not sure you fully grasp what classes are. Spoiler: WIZARD AND FIGHTER ARE CLASSES!
>Want to be a divine monk
>"METAGAME!!!"
Class systems suck anyway
Multiclassing is bad because it makes martials suck less, and nobody should spoil the fuck for fullcasters.
>Classes suck anyway
>I came to this topic clearly about 5e to be a contrarian troll and bitch about how I don't like DnD.
so what if i rolled quite low on the druid i'm making, im going of the land desert druid 12, and i'm going to go into tempest cleric 8, to make a shaman.
gonna ignore plant-based spells. cant cast anything above sixth druid level but im' going to be a full caster, unless i get picked on too much and i maybe sub out a ability score increase for monk.
Thats what i think im going to do for my first game, and thats just me trying to make the concept of a wandering guy who sells water he makes to desert tribes.
I understand the point was beyond you, I mentioned classes because in a class system the manufactured solution to a specific archetype is completely invalidated by the munchkin solution.
>worships a definitely-evil demon lord
For someone complaining about the lore you clearly didn't read the class description
>about how I don't like DnD.
At least 3.PF you had such amount of character creation options that any concept you can come up with will be doable. 5e is barebones and unless you multiclass (in which 90% of time you'll suck) you can't come up with 1% of the concepts D&D had
A simple solution if you don't want a class system, and all the benefits it has, sure.
Only if those powergaming options exist. They don't exist in any D&D except 3 and 5e, for example.
>Like why would anyone ever want to play an Eldritch Knight instead of a Fighter 2/Wizard X
More attacks, better HPs, attack+cantrip, teleport at wiil in short distances, etc. A Fighter2/Wizard X will always be a Wizard with heavy armor and action surge, I never seen a Fighter2/Wizard X be in melee ever, is like Bladesinger, never seen a Bladesinger actually use his fucking sword and be in the fray, they always stay behind casting and having more AC
One is a ranged caster with more AC, the other is a meleer with defensive spells
>divine monk
Never ever in D&D was a caster monk but in 5e, stop trying to introduce shitty concepts that don't belong to D&D, monk is already a stretching.
the only real issue I have with it is newer players having a much larger and unwieldy character sheet and slowing the game down because they have too much to look at and too little understanding of how it all works together
>how it should be
naeh
What? Divine Fist had been a thing since 3.5 at least, and I wouldn't be surprised if it existed as some cleric or monk kit before that.
>"how can I make this person the very best at x," then create a background and resulting personality justifying all that. I end up with a big fucking character sheet, a character stronger than anyone else's and an emotional attachment to a bunch of paper.
by chance do you happen to be american? If I stereotype a little bit I foundamerican players tend to be very rule-min/max-powergame oriented
the only exception is wod players, although they take their roleplaying to an extreme and make the most obnoxious characer as possible
>How it should be
Actually, no, as proved in Anima (way more point buyish) a full gish should be 75/75 not 50/50, a 50/50 does nothing and sucks at everything, the devs realized this and buffed them a little to reach an aceptable point, they're still the less usable options because the benefits are less than going full martial or full class compared to the effort and time.
>Hurrr it is essential to my backstory that I multiclass in two different CHA classes which just so happen to have a super cheesy interaction that allows some of the highest damage in the game
I agree wholeheartedly. Classes suck and do not make any sense.
WoD players, imo, use roleplaying to justify their OPes
>What? My character is this, he should totally be able to do this, I don't care what the rules say
>What? I'm very tough minded, I shouldn't be able to be dominated I don't care what the dice say
Etc etc etc. Is a different kind of that guy, to be honest I prefer the ones who base all their arguments with the rules
>People in this thread still thinks Sorlock is broken
Kek, being GMing 5e for 1.5 years now, had many Sorlocks, they never outclassed a Fighter or a Paladin, they never outclassed a Wizard even
>b-but they do more damage than they should do
And yet they never outdamaged Fighters, Paladins and other martial classes focused on damage
Fuck, I even had a Paladin/Sorcerer/Warlock and the dude was so screwed over not having ASIs that ultimately he was below other martials but was happy with his flamboyant green fire attacks and that's all that matters
>Kek, being GMing 5e for 1.5 years now, had many Sorlocks, they never outclassed a Fighter or a Paladin, they never outclassed a Wizard even
Whyt level you playing at?
Sorclock doesn't outclass Fighter/Paladin anyway (if they are built right), but it needs like 11 levels to get into their own.
The point is that you get 9th level spells on top of keeping up with fighter/paladin in at-will damage.
>backstory
found the problem
>"the game is set up so I can do this thing"
>"b-but muh fantasy ttrpg verisimilitude!!1"
>"k man nvm" *goes and plays with less faggy people*
Doesn't really count when the majority of those "muh variety" options are traps, except with an extensive amount of theorycrafting which only assburgers enjoy
We play precon games, we rarely reach 14 level
>"the game is set up so I can do this thing"
The game is set up so you can multiclass, you know multiclass is part of the rules and even sword coast guide tells you lots of examples of multiclassing, almost with any class into any class. You people act like multiclass is foreign to the game when is literally there both in mechanics and lore.
I think the person you quoted agrees with you. Learn to read. Alternatively, other user should learn to write less retardedly.
I'm kind of new to the dnd meta. What are the two CHA based abilities ?
He's talking about Sorcerer (Cha class) and Warlock (Cha class).
Sorcerer has metamagic features that lets him, by spending sorcery points, twin/quicken a spell
Warlock has the best cantrip in the game (that's the only thing they have going on, rest is meh as fuck borthering shit)
So if you multiclass you have a cantrip gatling gun, which deals a fair amount of damage but nothing to consider broken imo
He could be talking about Hexblade + Paladin too.
Palock is only broken if you allow 5-6 rest per day (and if you consider broken having many smites that still don't outdamage a Fighter with the same number of rests), game assumes 1-2 per day, with those Palock is nowhere near broken
Hexblade makes it SAD. It has an ability that lets him use any weapon as a CHA weapon. Hence, it's a very effective combination.
Also Hexblade is not official yet, is in playtest mode, so it's bound to have changes
Effective is ok, every class should be effective. As long as is not broke there's no problem, and I don't find Palocks broken, Paladin Tomelock already was Cha SAD class
I dont know. I thought a shadow monk / rogue could be fun and fit in with a character. Like say an order of dwarven shadow monks focused on taking down threats in their underground tunnels?
Or a Ancient oath paladin and Archfey warlock. basically be a Grail knight
It's in XGE brah, it's official.
Tomelock needed a 3 level dip, and locked you into using staffs, and you had to keep casting that cantrip, which you can only do with the tome at hand.
Hexblade is 1 level, and works with just about anything you'd want to use.
>which you can only do with the tome at hand
Didn't know that, so the tomelocks I saw didn't had to do it, didn't have a problem with that.
>While the book is on your person
Did they FAQd it or are you using a personal interpretation?
>Your patron gives you a grimoire called a Book of Shadows. When you gain this feature, choose three Cantrips from any class’s spell list (the three needn’t be from the same list). While the book is on your person, you can cast those Cantrips at will.
You know that in your person doesn't mean you have to have it in your hand, right? unless FAQd that doesn't mean what you think it means
>On your person: you have it in your pockets or attached to you
You can have it in your hand, but is not obligatory
Multiclassing is shit because the devs "balance" classes around it.
Ever wonder why Beast Master ranger is so shitty? It's because if the companion was even decent ( could attack independently, had good AC/HP growth ) then classes would all dip it for the action economy bonus.
As is it's so awful not even pure rangers want it but at least no one is taking dips in ranger
Gishes have never ever ever been just half Fighter and half Wizard. Traditionally, they're more like 80% Fighter and 80% Wizard.
Generally that's due to how action economy works, if you can't do both things at once being 50/50 would make you shit at both. Jacks of all trades that want to be viable are not '100% split evenly between each option'
I liked 4e's muticlassing. You paid a feat and got an ability from that class that scaled with your level, like how a multiclass ranger got 1 skill from the ranger list + the ability to hunter's mark 1/encounter.
5e is just another step towards making classes useless and sneakily implementing a more freeform skill system. Multiclassing is the bandaid fix to the stupid concept that is the Class system. D&D has had dual/multiclassing since nearly the beginning, and they're just too scared to drop Classes as they've been a legacy feature since its creation.
Many game systems use Classes not because they're a good idea, but because that's just what everyone else is and have been using for decades. They very often don't even implement classes well. Who the fuck doesn't multiclass in D&D (except for those one or two classes that actually get something good at max level)?
4e's Classes were by far the best, the one time in the series where they attempted to make each one worth staying pure to because each was flexible and versatile within their own skillset, and most of them had some good stuff to pick from throughout all of their levels. By making it very Feat-heavy, their Feat-multiclass design also allowed for much more modular freeform character building with piecemeal abilities from other classes.
If you wanted to go in deeper, you could pay a 2nd/3rd/etc. feat to swap powers. You could also replace your Paragon Path with multiclass, if you wanted, which lets you pick up even more stuff from your second class (but PPs were pretty good, so this isn't a great choice usually). And if you just wanted to play a hal-and-half you could just hybrid from level 1 (which you could still combine with the above multiclass options).
The only better multiclass system I can think of is in Legend, but 4e has more focused design overall.