Don't the that guy who just multiclasses because everyone else is. Or the guy who dips into another class that is frontloaded (e.g., Warlock) just to get the frontloaded benefits.
Multiclass if it seems like fun. Do that warlock dip if you wanna. If it makes sense for your character, in the game you're in, go for it.
Don't listen to the people who are telling you you're a munchkin if you do, and don't listen to the ones who tell you you're ineffective if you don't.
Don't the that guy who just multiclasses because everyone else is. Or the guy who dips into another class that is frontloaded (e.g., Warlock) just to get the frontloaded benefits.
Multiclass if it seems like fun. Do that warlock dip if you wanna. If it makes sense for your character, in the game you're in, go for it.
Don't listen to the people who are telling you you're a munchkin if you do, and don't listen to the ones who tell you you're ineffective if you don't.
"Fun" for whom, exactly? Certainly not the DM who has to contend with OP chars. And probably not the other players out there that also have to deal with OP chars that dominate gameplay. If MC'ing did not create more powerful PC's within the 5e mechanic, so many people would would not be doing it. Even wotc seems to be acknowledging the problem by pushing back all subclass choices to 3rd level in 6e.
Don't the that guy who just multiclasses because everyone else is. Or the guy who dips into another class that is frontloaded (e.g., Warlock) just to get the frontloaded benefits.
Multiclass if it seems like fun. Do that warlock dip if you wanna. If it makes sense for your character, in the game you're in, go for it.
Don't listen to the people who are telling you you're a munchkin if you do, and don't listen to the ones who tell you you're ineffective if you don't.
"Fun" for whom, exactly? Certainly not the DM who has to contend with OP chars. And probably not the other players out there that also have to deal with OP chars that dominate gameplay. If MC'ing did not create more powerful PC's within the 5e mechanic, so many people would would not be doing it. Even wotc seems to be acknowledging the problem by pushing back all subclass choices to 3rd level in 6e.
It's actually hard to get so overpowered that you distort your game. Balance in D&D is vague at best, illusory in most cases. Domination of play is usually more about assertive personalities than anything mechanical.
People multiclass for character reasons. Almost always. They dip hexblade because it's the easiest way to get better melee capability.
In actual play, the optimized builds aren't necessarily all that. Multiclassing delays your main-class features now, even if it'll be awesome later.
A DM can counter The Amazing Murder Machine by putting in more things to fight.
Yeah, the people on the internet are always talking about their hypothetical optimized builds, but that's because seeing how far you can push a system is fun for some people. It's kind of like speedrunning video games. Do they use the builds in play? Maybe. Sometimes. I dunno. I'm not the game police. If I had a player who was actually doing that sort of thing, and it was creating a problem, the correct reaction is to say "hey, could you not?"
Pushing back subclass choices is likely more about not front-loading major build decisions for new players.
You think wither and bloom is grossly overpowered, so people should perhaps take your ideas on power level with a grain of salt.
MCs are not "OP." This is a viewpoint exclusively held by people who read optimizer forums and decided to ban MCs before ever actually seeing them in play. MC requires active work to keep up with straight classes, and most of them fail to do so.
People do it because mixing different class flavors makes a more interesting character. All else being equal, a barbarian/bard is inherently a more engaging concept than a straight barbarian. Of course a good barbarian roleplayer could run circles around a newbie MC because class is hardly the only thing defining your character in an RP sense, but MC gives you some easy hooks to build from.
MCs are not "OP." This is a viewpoint exclusively held by people who read optimizer forums and decided to ban MCs before ever actually seeing them in play.
People do it because mixing different class flavors makes a more interesting character. All else being equal, a barbarian/bard is inherently a more engaging concept than a straight barbarian. Of course a good barbarian roleplayer could run circles around a newbie MC because class is hardly the only thing defining your character in an RP sense, but MC gives you some easy hooks to build from.
It is also the viewpoint of the DM's and players that I sit at tables with.
MCs are not "OP." This is a viewpoint exclusively held by people who read optimizer forums and decided to ban MCs before ever actually seeing them in play.
People do it because mixing different class flavors makes a more interesting character. All else being equal, a barbarian/bard is inherently a more engaging concept than a straight barbarian. Of course a good barbarian roleplayer could run circles around a newbie MC because class is hardly the only thing defining your character in an RP sense, but MC gives you some easy hooks to build from.
It is also the viewpoint of the DM's and players that I sit at tables with.
OK
Given that you, like everyone else, are going to select for compatible people to game with, that's hardly surprising.
Doesn't make it true, inasmuch as such a subjective statement can be "true".
Multiclass if it seems like fun. Do that warlock dip if you wanna. If it makes sense for your character, in the game you're in, go for it.
Don't listen to the people who are telling you you're a munchkin if you do, and don't listen to the ones who tell you you're ineffective if you don't.
"Fun" for whom, exactly? Certainly not the DM who has to contend with OP chars. And probably not the other players out there that also have to deal with OP chars that dominate gameplay. If MC'ing did not create more powerful PC's within the 5e mechanic, so many people would would not be doing it. Even wotc seems to be acknowledging the problem by pushing back all subclass choices to 3rd level in 6e.
MCs are not "OP." This is a viewpoint exclusively held by people who read optimizer forums and decided to ban MCs before ever actually seeing them in play. MC requires active work to keep up with straight classes, and most of them fail to do so.
People do it because mixing different class flavors makes a more interesting character. All else being equal, a barbarian/bard is inherently a more engaging concept than a straight barbarian. Of course a good barbarian roleplayer could run circles around a newbie MC because class is hardly the only thing defining your character in an RP sense, but MC gives you some easy hooks to build from.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It is also the viewpoint of the DM's and players that I sit at tables with.
OK
Given that you, like everyone else, are going to select for compatible people to game with, that's hardly surprising.
Doesn't make it true, inasmuch as such a subjective statement can be "true".
Hoo boy! Thanks for all the input here gang.
My character is a rock gnome oath of glory paladin who's oath is focused on his party's success.
I was thinking bard because of the inspirational speeches he gives OR artificer due to his creative rock gnome heritage and builder father.
Buuuut... I think I'm good just sitting tight. Thanks!