I found this on the internet and thought it was an interesting topic to discuss. Basically it comes down to what classes benefit from always multiclassing and which classes you should never (are at least rarely) multiclass. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
Just for fun, I took a look at what classes I would never multiclass and what classes where (at least if you know you're going to level 20) at least a single multiclass level is always a good option. Now, this list doesn't mean that you can't build viable multiclasses with the "non MC" classes or that you can't get good level 20 builds from the other. Basically it all comes down to which capstones I think are too good not to have.
So, starting of with the ones that I wouldn't multiclass.
Artificer. The capstone is fantastic. Not only that but every level where you take something that isn't artificer really slows down your artificer progress.
Barbarian. Unlimited rages and +4 to your primary abilities? Yes, please.
Druid. At least if you're a Moon Druid. Spellcasting t-rex? Yes please!
Warlock. Regaining all spell slots by hiding somewhere for a minute is really good when you only have a limited number of spell slots.
On the other hand, I really see no reason why any of the following should take their 20th level. Literally anything else is better.
Bard. How about more skills from a level of Rogue or Ranger? More spellcasting from Sorcerer or Warlock? More fighting power from Fighter or Paladin?
Monk. Basically the same as for the Bard but replace the spellcasting class with Cleric or Druid.
Ranger. A small bonus to damge some enemies, once per turn? Just grab a level of fighter and choose the appropriate fighting style. Or Cleric or Druid for more spellcasting. Or Rogue for better damage potential through sneak attack.
Rogue. An autohit or a potential autosuccess once per short rest? How often would a level 20 Rogue with expertise and reliable talent actually need that? It's not bad but you can probably get more fun stuff from somewhere else.
Then we have the list of 'maybes'. They have some really good capstones but if you have something special in mind, a few levels of something else might work.
Cleric. If you have a DM that can build good Dei ex machinae, sure. But if it's just used as a almost literal god mode once a week, I'm sure you can find more funny stuff elsewhere.
Druid. At least if you're a Moon Druid. Spellcasting t-rex? Yes please!
Fighter. All of the attacks sure is good and very effective for many subckasses but I don't see them as a must take in the same way as the Artificer or Barbarian capstone.
Paladin, for certain subclasses. I find the idea of a winged vengeance dwarf a tad silly though. :P
Sorcerer. Four sorcery points are good, I guess. BUt are they *that* good? I'm honestly not a fan of sorcerers at higher levels but if you want it, take it.
Wizard. Free fireballs are fun and awesome but there are probably something you can live without if there is something you'd rather have?
Again, multiclassing is fun and cool but is it really necessary or OP? Not really. There are more classes that (IMO) shouldn't multiclass or at least you should think it over than there are classes that has a crappy capstone ability. And like I said, even some of the "never multiclass"-classes can be part of some really interesting builds. Here are a few.
Samurai 17, Bear Totem Barbarian 3. You don't need Samurai 18 if you never reach 0 hit points.
Moon Druid 12, Monk 8. You can basically be a Nature Bender. Yip yip!
Artificer 12, Ranger (or Rogue) 8. To be the best bounty hunter out there!
Paladin X, Hexblade X. Are you a vengeance paladin tired of your foe always getting away? Do you often fins yourself in a situation where you can't reach out and really touch people? Fear not, Eldritch blast with the right invocations are your friend. Huzzah!
Capstone nonsense aside, how is multiclassing defined for the purpose of this discussion? Level dipping into Warlock is extremely common for instance. Is that a Warlock multiclass or not? It seems it is, at least to the author, and if that's the case I'd submit there are very few classes for which multiclassing is a priori a bad idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I have never built a character based on what abilities they get after level 10-12. At our table it is rare that anyone multiclasses anyway, and that is usually a change to a new class over multiclassing dips. And you don't plan those in advance, it is usually because of some major trauma/drama that happened to change the worldview of the character. So, I'm sure I'm not the best biased person to weigh in on Level 20 theorycrafting. I honestly hope to someday play a character that a campaign makes it to level 20... some of the abilities are rather cool in flavor and in performance. And 9 times out of 10, I'm going to go with something that has character flavor over something that makes my character mechanically superior in some way.
I think there are some fun "builds" that are attempting to replicate abilities of a known character or something like that, and sure, it is fun to play in that arena and figure it out... I just don't think that way in character creation. Maybe if we started games at higher levels I would be more tempted, but starting at Level 1 every campaign really dials you in to focusing on a path that helps everyone right now instead of something that might be cool down the road.
I agree, the OP seems to be asking which classes have level 20 abilities that are good? If you start at level 20 that is relevant but that is rarely the case.
The only character I have played to a very high level is an open hand monk which I would consider a bad class to multiclass, it is packed with features you want to get as soon as possible and have the maximum amount of ki. Having said that they are currently level 18 but if they make it to 20 I will probably take a level of cleric because the cap is so weak.
Capstone nonsense aside, how is multiclassing defined for the purpose of this discussion? Level dipping into Warlock is extremely common for instance. Is that a Warlock multiclass or not? It seems it is, at least to the author, and if that's the case I'd submit there are very few classes for which multiclassing is a priori a bad idea.
The definition I use is that if you take more than one class you are multiclassing. So yeah, dips are by definition multiclass. Personally I see multiclassing as a way to advance your character storywise rather than mechanically. For example, a fighter becoming a cleric or a vengeance paladin so caught up in their cause that they become a zealot barbarian.
From what I've seen (and I stress this is just my experience) players often multi-class to front-load their characters as much as possible. They're not worried about nerfing those characters later on because the campaign generally fizzles out before they hit 10th level. That said, our current campaign is on Covid-imposed hiatus but the surviving characters (cleric, ranger and sorcerer) are all 12th level and aiming for 20th. They'll be joined by two new members (bard and paladin). Only the ranger is multi-classed (one level in rogue) to make up for the loss of our arcane trickster.
As others have said, the guide above seems to be based purely on capstone (or high level) abilities. As many campaigns stop before then (often level 10-15), the situation changes somewhat for these. If, say, your campaign will end at level 10, you need to look at your level 7-10 abilities, not 17-20, for assessing a four level dip.
Even so, these are only looking at mechanical optimisation. If you really want to multiclass from a Barbarian into a Wizard due to the evolution of your character (and understand the challenges of doing so), then go for it. If you really "see multiclassing as a way to advance your character storywise rather than mechanically", then this guide seems kinda pointless to me, as you will make that choice for story reasons, not because of the mechanical abilities you will gain or loose.
Note: It's actually a fairly useful guide, though, if you know you will be playing to level 20 and beyond and you wish to assess the mechanical viability of a multiclass dip.
I think you can have a discussion about which classes are best suited to multiclassing, but it needs to be a much deeper analysis than just "is the capstone good?"
An example of a class that discourages multiclassing is monk:
it needs DEX, CON, and WIS so is too mad for anything that needs STR, INT, or CHA
it's built to be unarmored and use unarmed strikes at least some of the time, so classes that rely on certain weapons/armor (like rogue's Sneak Attack weapon limitations) for things are tough to integrate
it's hard-limited by ki and monk levels are the only way to get more ki
unarmed strike damage (and lots of subclass features that utilize it) also scales with monk level
There are probably more. You can work around these, but inevitably you have duplicated features or unused features that result in a build that doesn't really have much synergy - and an MC requires some synergy to compete with a straight class.
Multiclassing - assuming it has a mechanical basis and is not a purely narrative thing, at which point do whatever fits your narrative and be done with it - is usually a trade-off between "Cool Shit Now" or "Cooler Shit Later". Most 5e classes are heavily front-loaded, gaining a majority of their abilities within their first five levels. After that, the rate at which a given character acquires new abilities slows drastically, but the individual abilities can be very good. Getting a second helping of that frontloading can shore up weaknesses in a character concept or archetype; that can often be worth it in the long haul even if one must sacrifice a compelling late-game ability to do so.
One example: my artificer has a single Wizard level she took in pregame (we started at level 5, Star began as a 4/1 Battlesmith/Wizard). This automatically disqualified her from ever attaining the artificer's absolutely phenomenal Soul of Artifice capstone. What did it do for her? It doubled her cantrip count, granted her improved spell slot progression, gave her access to numerous key utility ritual spells, and allowed me to fill out her spellbook with first-level toolbelt spells her artificer side either didn't have access to or didn't usually have room to prepare. Absorb Elements, Feather Fall, things like that could be offloaded to the spellbook, as could esoteric stuff like Illusory Script and damage spells the artificer never gains like Magic Missile. And all of those benefits were hers from the very first game of the campaign, things she's been able to leverage and enjoy the whole time she's been around.
I deemed the early-game benefits of that multiclass dip to be worth sacrificing the admittedly massive strength of Soul of Artifice. Many other classes benefit just as much from a level or two of a complementary supporting class, and gaining those benefits early often beats out saving up for late-game goodies even in a campaign you're reasonably sure will hit lategame. Multiclassing can also preserve one's ASIs for more important functions, if taking a level or two of a complementary class dispenses with the need to take a feat that offers much the same benefit. A level of Wizard mostly precludes the need for Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster on artificers to supplement their somewhat anemic magic, for example - one could take feats they like better, or take the stat boosts instead. A level of fighter could give your sorcerer who's tired of taking a beating and has decided he wants to be better able to take care of himself the benefits of Fighting Initiate, Lightly Armored, Moderately Armored, and Weapon Master all at once, condensing the four feats a sorcerer would need to take to gain that level of martial proficiency down into a single level instead.
Obviously some players don't like losing progression in their main class, or see multiclassing of any sort as a betrayal of their character's story. That's fine. But realistically, just about each and every case of multiclassing needs to be examined on its own merits. I don't know whether one can produce a one-size-fits-all guide to multiclassing, outside of pointing out complementary combinations of classes/subclasses. Each case is unique, and learning how to consider the benefits and drawbacks of a specific combination is more useful than rote "this is good, this is good, this is bad, this is good, this is bad..." lists.
'Course, learning to understand and think critically about the mechanics of the game is always better than rote memorization without understanding, but you'd be shocked at how many folks find a way to disagree...
Anyways. Multiclassing. It's great for some folks, terrible for others. If you can't see any story where someone might have cross-disciplinary training from multiple 'standard' professions, I recommend reading more books.
Even so, these are only looking at mechanical optimisation. If you really want to multiclass from a Barbarian into a Wizard due to the evolution of your character (and understand the challenges of doing so), then go for it. If you really "see multiclassing as a way to advance your character storywise rather than mechanically", then this guide seems kinda pointless to me, as you will make that choice for story reasons, not because of the mechanical abilities you will gain or loose.
This. I know some players see the game privileging the actual mechanical power build. And that's fine, but in doing so the player is de facto pre defining a character arc, and in those games where character development is hinged on milestones arrived at in the game as played, it's what I've called before "player driven railroading", which is fine if all the players are on board in the train engine and the DM just lays out the track for them. Again, this isn't a wrong play style, but it can cause frictions and tensions at games more organic in inceptions.
Note: It's actually a fairly useful guide, though, if you know you will be playing to level 20 and beyond and you wish to assess the mechanical viability of a multiclass dip.
That note I'm not really agreeing with. Really the PHB and every published subclass has a features table, they're more easily consulted than paragraph formatted essay. If I really care about hot rodding my character sheet, I'm going to look at the tables and see what I can get and when I get it in a class/subclass development.
In my group rogues and bards seem to be the dipping trend for either the expertise or jack of all trades and the other minor features picked up in levels 1-2. Their play style would rather find a work around to direct combat. So it makes sense but I could see some build masters seeing these dips as wastes of time compared to gains in features at later levels if they stuck to the build; but the choices work well at my table, mostly because I see those decisions made at leveling up not so much as "where they want to go" but "what they want to do now" which helps me address the game in the present and leaves developments down the line still beyond the horizon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I really don't understand that. The negative reaction, ranging from disgruntlement to seething hatred depending on who one is in this thread, for anyone who does any sort of advance character planning, or anyone who decides to take abilities from a different class because they'd help more than whatever their next monoclass ability is.
It should go without saying that of course a planner will change their plans if their campaign changes directions. A good player will change their plans to match the new direction, take into account new information the same way any other good planner does for any other activity. And on the character side, who's to say the PC isn't doing the D&D equivalent of crossfit or MMA? If learning the basics and fundamentals of a new profession is more helpful to them in the situation they find themselves in than pursuing further mastery of their primary craft, why wouldn't they pursue that new learning? Yes, some classes should be harder to dip into than others (anyone can learn the basics of Fighter-ing; finding Junior's First Warlock Pact or the favor of a god to become a cleric is harder), but that's not to say the splice is impossible.
This absolute rejection of looking ahead and seeing where one might wish to take their skills is bizarre. Has no one IRL ever said "hey, if I learn this thing it'll make me better at my job" or "I want to try this cool new hobby that needs me to learn a different set of skills"? Nobody's ever looked at where their life is going and asked themselves if there's anything they can do in the short-term future to improve their situation?
I would not agree that it is not playing the game, and is say it's a valid way of looking at things in certain circumstances. For instance, if you are doing to start a game at high level and/or you know you'll reach level 20 and continue at that level for a significant time, evaluating MC based on missing capstone abilities is reasonable.
I'd say it's a bit of a waste of time in most games, and producing a guide which says you should or should not MC based solely or mainly on this is not helpful to most players.
Some folks can't wrap their heads around the idea that their D&D can be a complete 180 from another person's D&D and both are just as much fun, valid, and worthwhile.
I've had quite a bit of high-level 5E experience (from the DM side), running 3 full campaigns to levels 14, 16, and 19. Can't speak for capstone but from what I've seen, those making it that high in levels (tiers) seemed stronger if they didn't multiclass.
Personally, I think to each their own, an I can also easily see the benefits of multi-classing. More so when you know you're going to top out at 12-14, IMO, as a few classes have a 17 offering that's immensely tempting (I have an Open Han Monk....one shot, chance to drop ANY foe to 0HP YUM) because then you know you won't see the juiciest stuff in any case. I also feel it should be relevant and make sense within your character's life/story, too. I can provide examples in my own group, classes, ideas and the why.
The why is because we rather erred when we created our characters. We are magic light with only a Druid for spells, the Monk, Barbarian and Fighter are all knuckle dusters, and as a result, she's been really struggling with spell slots, realizing a bit of healing will likely be required after any notable scuffle. We have also, on 2 occasions already (well, 3 if you count our last where we found a shimmering cloak) carried stuff for a session or so, without being able to Identify it. Our DM rules that a magical item must be magically Identified (spell, scroll item, etc) for us to truly know what it is. While I am less than pleased with that, it's a rule at our table, so we are looking to work within it.
Our Druid is considering a dip to Wizard. Her Int is high enough to allow it and it would give her more cantrips to choose from and things that a save doesn't result in "Nothing happened" Her character line is that she feels she is underperforming in her group (the character's thoughts) and she could better aid her friends and her God by learning more destructive spells to smite her foes with. Makes sense to us and she may do it.
My Monk had an experience that turned him from Agnostic to borderline fanatical about an emerging, ancient Deity (homebrewed world) and is considering taking up the priestly vestments (Cleric) to better further the goals of his new patron. (he's a naïve young fellow and infatuated with this being who restored him to life after he'd been killed in battle) After attaining 2 levels, he decides he is a better tool to the Lady as a champion and resumes his Monk trainings. Still stuck, because we're 6 and I have some really nifty stuff coming soon.
Barbarian is in the same "position" as my Monk. He has been awed by this emerging power (she gave him a wicked hammer) and is devoted. His Wis is JUST high enough to dip Cleric, which he would, as a devotion to the Lady. After a single level, he realizes books and learning stuff is HARD, goes back to smashing things. Couple free heals in times of need, maybe even a buff or debuff, which are added bonuses.
Fighter messed up stats to optimize, so he can be anything Dex, Int or Str based. He has been playing to Rogue, getting involved with all the shady types, trying to be sneaky and stuff which we all agree fits best character wise and offers a ton of handy perks at 1. This is the one to me is almost a no-brainer, so I hope he does it.
I agree that the verbal assaults are expected at this point by certain members. I think multi classing, like any other aspect of your character, is YOUR call. By all means listen to the pros and cons, but don't let hostile elitists push you away from your goals.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Our Druid is considering a dip to Wizard. Her Int is high enough to allow it and it would give her more cantrips to choose from and things that a save doesn't result in "Nothing happened" Her character line is that she feels she is underperforming in her group (the character's thoughts) and she could better aid her friends and her God by learning more destructive spells to smite her foes with. Makes sense to us and she may do it.
Not that you (or your druid friend) asked for advice, so feel free to ignore this, but if the goal is to increase cantrips I'd recommend Cleric instead for a couple reasons:
You can go arcana domain and still get 2 wizard cantrips plus the 3 from cleric
you can use wisdom for all of them
you could also go nature domain to stick with the nature feel and still get an extra cantrip
plus extra level 1 cleric goodies
As an overall strategy of multiclassing spellcaster classes to "[learn] more destructive spells to smite her foes with," I would strongly encourage rethinking that. So much of spell power is about spell levels, and one of the worst thing spellcasters can do is postpone those higher level spells. Just as an example, compare Shatter upcast to level 3 versus Fireball. Fireball may only do 14% more damage on average, but it covers a whopping 4x more area. And even more important than quantity (of damage), high level spells provide so much more in quality (stuff you can do). High level spells can often win or bypass entire encounters all by themselves.
Not to say that no spellcasters should ever multiclass, but if your goal is to do more damage, you need to figure out exactly how a multiclass is truly going to do that versus sticking with your main class, because unless you're gunning for some combo in particular, it will probably not achieve what you're trying to do.
There's playing the game. Everything outside being at the table with the group including a DM is preparation or discussion, and actually maybe even arguably taxonomic "meta" though essential meta.
If it was any other play past time. Someone is a football player. Using the above parameter I'm riffing from Kotath, that person is playing football when they're with their team opposing another team for points with a win or loss on the line. When the person is being interviewed by the media, or instagram beefing with other players of fans, or lifting weights or being assessed in some moneyball style calculation ... that player isn't playing. Practice, training, and being a celebrity are ancillary to playing the game, but not playing the game.
Maybe there's some space in music, that's played. Sure music can be played by performing to an audience, jamming with a bandmate, or exploring ones instrument on compositional inspiration. But hitting the boards to discuss what's the best guitar pick, going over the various builds for making your amp, trying to get your band an opening slot under an audience drawing headliner next month, suing streamers for royalties for using your music in their games without your permission, that may be part of your role as a musician but none of it is playing music.
Being an athlete or a musician can be someone's identity. For a lot of people, playing dungeons and dragons is part of their identity. The game may take up a lot of real estate in their head, but that doesn't really mean they're playing all the time. The game takes a lot of preparation, no doubt.
Back to multiclassing, I don't think I'd take as hard a line against a _player_ being aware of a _character's_ options. I mean the tables are in the PHB and sourcebooks presumably accessible to players for a reason after all. I do agree that whatever facility or fluency one may develop in ones own personal prep time, when advancing your character in the game, at least in my game, if a player wants to take an option (usually a MC move) outside the traditional progression of the characters, class, the player with the aid of the DM and probably the rest of the group come up with a rationale for the character going in that direction. Heck with limiting this principle to mutliclass, at my table we do it for subclasses and spell selection too.
My favorite characters are not the "high concept" or what I've called "player railroading engineered" ones. I like the characters where the player allows the character to come into their own. I've mentioned elsewhere it's not perfect but there's something to be said for looking at your character the way an actor does. Research helps, a little, but many actors discussing their most powerful roles will speak of the character not being shaped by the research so much as the research allowed the actor to let the character out in the performance. Those moments where through a balance of notes for the day's session, improvisation, and some dice rolls, a player has a heroic, comic, or tragic moment, something where everyone pauses including the player and there's that realization that while this character is not the player, its someone the player and others at the table are invested in and in whatever just happened everyone can claim to understand the character a bit deeper now ... that's the real magic of TTRPGs. Relating the tables is the infrastructure for me, important, but mastery of which isn't necessary to play a good game.
I'm a little confused as to where all the "harshness" or "verbal attacks" are. Maybe my filters are screening out more than usual, but this seems like a very healthy conversation so far on the variety of ways multiclassing can be entertained in the game.
Gonna break this into two sections. One, a post for the regular thread. Two, a response to the "oh my god I hate that Yurei ***** so much I wish they'd just die in a basement and stop playing forever" crowd in spoilers below that. If you're not interested in rant and counter-rant (and I don't blame you a bit), just skip the spoiler'd section.
On Lostwhilefishing's original subject of "Multiclassing or not?": I tend to find that multiclassing is best used to realize a character concept that doesn't fit cleanly into one, singular class (which is many, if not most, character concepts outside Tired Tolkien Tropes), when it's not a response to campaign events. Alternatively, a particular multiclass combination might suggest a story to someone they're then super excited to play. One of my favorite examples of that one is the Cursed Swordslinger, a Swashbuckler rogue with Hexblade levels. Yurei-the-player is deeply intrigued by the idea of a not-super-Dexy rogue that focuses on panache, flair, and a silver tongue more than sneaky skullduggery and stabbings-from-the-shadows. It's all the bombastic Jack Sparrow-esque fun of being a bard, but without the real-life performance skill requirement or all the shitty sex memes that make the actual bard class such a chore to play at so many tables, but it comes with the cost of being mostly terrible at combat. A rogue with limited dex is a rogue that will never reliably land a weapon attack outside tier 1 play.
Now, there's a story there, to be sure. The 'gifted swordsman' getting by on a reputation they've forged rather than earned, using their artful words and peacock swagger to convince people they're far more dangerous than they actually are. The story of how such a charlatan would react when forced into a situation where they have to use the skills they've talked up but never acquired could be its own game, on top of the comedy of the Legendary Swordslinger who's actively awful at swordfighting. But the version I like better is the version where the swordsman either stumbled into possession of a cursed blade or struck a deal they later regretted. Now they're cursed, running from a debt they will not or cannot pay. Their supernatural sword skills are exactly that - supernatural, bought with currency the rogue no longer has if they ever had it in the first place. The character is operating under a ticking clock, but they can't see the clock's face. All they can hear is the ticking, they have no idea how close that clock is to striking zero.
It's just a cool ass idea. The combination of the Cursed Sword class and the Silver-Tongued Sword Scoundrel class writes its own story, and beyond that it offers a unique play experience neither the rogue alone nor the warlock alone can give you. I like shit like that, where the combination of two or more classes produces a gestalt experience no single class by itself can replicate. That's where a lot of the fun in D&D is for me - defying the shitty Tolkienesque archetypes and overplayed traditional-fantasy tripe and carving my own story out of the disparate pieces the game gives me to do so with. Nor am I even remotely alone in that.
Sorcadins are so popular because it's just a cool-ass play experience with super evocative imagery - the arcane swordsman whose blade flashes with destructive energy every time he strikes, free hand twisting the weave into doing his bidding even as he carves his enemies apart with eldritch might. It's just freaking cool, and the fact that it's also a very powerful offensive build is mostly just icing on the cake. Sorcerers can't begin to do that, and paladins don't have the arcane ammo to do it properly - but the combination of the two provides an experience beyond the component classes and a badass aesthetic to go alongside it.
There's plenty of other examples, but this has already taken me hours to assemble. We're just gonna call it good for now and hope some of these words get through to someone.
Can I just point out that Lostwhilefishing wanted to start a discussion about multiclassing, based on a Reddit post he found interesting? All this "Nobody should ever multiclass ever because not one single character has ever had a True Story reason to multiclass that wasn't just MMO powermunchkin garbage" nonsense is against the point of the thread. The OP wanted to talk about multiclassing, in the context of Interesting Reddit Post. So maybe just do that?
I do find it amusing that all the "Story FIRST!" people tend to completely ignore the from-the-table anecdotes of players like Falwith. Guys who use their own experience to argue that sometimes a given story beat influences characters decisions towards multiclassing, because say...a dead god is coming back into the world, allying herself with the party*, and has done them Divine Favors they wish to repay by aligning themselves to her cause as her champions via cleric levels. That was a cool little microtale, and I've used similar "in this game I played..." stories to try and emphasize my own arguments before. But in a fantastic case of irony, a lot of these 'Story FIRST!' folks couldn't care less about the in-play stories of people whose experiences and enjoyment diverge from their own. And have actively told me they don't care about what happened in my game and how my own experiences have shaped my views, because (and I quote): "that's all just a thin veneer of story on powergaming crap! It's not real storytelling!"
Now, there's a truism in gaming-in-general that goes something to the effect of "the only person in the entire world that cares about your OC in the slightest is you." For TTRPGs, that list extends to partially include your DM and your fellow players, but in general the truism is true - nobody is going to gush with you over your D&D character/story and how cool it is, or how awesome your game has been. Most people will simply be bored senseless, and some of them will actively seek to shut you down and ruin your fun. It's why I try (if not always successfully) to avoid discussing my own characters/games, save in a sense of raw experience. Letting people who are unsure of something they want to do know that I've tried something similar (if I have, at least) and what my experience doing so was. That's useful, and is kind of exactly what forums are supposed to be for.
But if you're gonna ride that train? If you're gonna be the kind of person who ignores any sort of personal experiences someone else has because they don't line up with your cozy little view of how D&D works, who says "your experiences don't matter because I don't care about your character/game"? If you're going to shut down folks like Falwith telling a cool little story about how their campaign's changing world provoked a change in their characters while bragging, in the same damn post, about how you solved a warlock not knowing how to warlock by giving them a bespoke overpowered magic ring through the power of DM Favoritism?
Well. I shouldn't have to point out the hypocrisy in that. But clearly I do, so oh well.
Most of my characters have a pre planned path to 20 with not so much optimized to the extreme builds, but planned in a way that they are not going to be sub par and no fun to play. Granted I have only ever played one all the way to 20, but have 4 others in tier 4 currently and a smattering in the lower tiers as well. They normally have at least a 4 page backstory and a goal of some sort as to why they are out adventuring. The planning phase for me is pretty fun, but playing is much more so. The reason I put thought into the progression early is twofold. One, everyone's character has thought about how they want to progress in life and have goals and it's good to flesh that out as opposed to wandering aimlessly. Second is it frees up most of the time from session 0 to end of campaign to enjoy playing. A lot of times things happen and your character changes its course a bit, but it's good to have a course to begin with. Your characters will know more about the world they live in, magic, monsters, etc. than the player ever will so it shouldn't be a stretch for them to know what a good feat or spell would be to take or a multiclass to dip into. Now you just have to figure out how to weave those choices into a great story narrative and you have a well thought out character.
I feel a true multiclass would be multiple classes in tiers 1 and/or 2. When you get to tier 4 and at 20, there are only a couple classes that you wouldn't multiclass because the capstone is so good and the others are awful. Technically my abjuration wizard is multiclassed, but that was his 20th level to hop 1 into rogue as the wizard capstone is garbage and his build is around being a master investigator so that expertise in investigation made a lot of sense as well as arcana. I wouldn't consider him a true multiclass character as his entire trip to 20 was just a regular old abjuration wizard. Now I do have a Bardlock that his first level was bard, next 2 lock, then all bard thereafter that I consider a true multiclass. My DM and I weaved the reason for the multiclass into the back story and discussed the long term goals for him and he in wonderfully fun to play!
There are min maxers out there that just want to be uber powerful and look at every class permutation and combination to just try to break the game. There are those of us out there that look at those same things just to make sure we aren't making bad decisions and making something dumb like a barbarian wizard.
I found this on the internet and thought it was an interesting topic to discuss. Basically it comes down to what classes benefit from always multiclassing and which classes you should never (are at least rarely) multiclass. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
I think it's fun to theorycraft and test out fun multi-class concepts, even if their abilities may not seemingly mesh well. Admittedly I don't often look at the capstones of classes to determine what I should and shouldn't multi-class though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
I found this on the internet and thought it was an interesting topic to discuss. Basically it comes down to what classes benefit from always multiclassing and which classes you should never (are at least rarely) multiclass. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?
Capstone nonsense aside, how is multiclassing defined for the purpose of this discussion? Level dipping into Warlock is extremely common for instance. Is that a Warlock multiclass or not? It seems it is, at least to the author, and if that's the case I'd submit there are very few classes for which multiclassing is a priori a bad idea.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I have never built a character based on what abilities they get after level 10-12. At our table it is rare that anyone multiclasses anyway, and that is usually a change to a new class over multiclassing dips. And you don't plan those in advance, it is usually because of some major trauma/drama that happened to change the worldview of the character. So, I'm sure I'm not the best biased person to weigh in on Level 20 theorycrafting. I honestly hope to someday play a character that a campaign makes it to level 20... some of the abilities are rather cool in flavor and in performance. And 9 times out of 10, I'm going to go with something that has character flavor over something that makes my character mechanically superior in some way.
I think there are some fun "builds" that are attempting to replicate abilities of a known character or something like that, and sure, it is fun to play in that arena and figure it out... I just don't think that way in character creation. Maybe if we started games at higher levels I would be more tempted, but starting at Level 1 every campaign really dials you in to focusing on a path that helps everyone right now instead of something that might be cool down the road.
I agree, the OP seems to be asking which classes have level 20 abilities that are good? If you start at level 20 that is relevant but that is rarely the case.
The only character I have played to a very high level is an open hand monk which I would consider a bad class to multiclass, it is packed with features you want to get as soon as possible and have the maximum amount of ki. Having said that they are currently level 18 but if they make it to 20 I will probably take a level of cleric because the cap is so weak.
The definition I use is that if you take more than one class you are multiclassing. So yeah, dips are by definition multiclass. Personally I see multiclassing as a way to advance your character storywise rather than mechanically. For example, a fighter becoming a cleric or a vengeance paladin so caught up in their cause that they become a zealot barbarian.
From what I've seen (and I stress this is just my experience) players often multi-class to front-load their characters as much as possible. They're not worried about nerfing those characters later on because the campaign generally fizzles out before they hit 10th level. That said, our current campaign is on Covid-imposed hiatus but the surviving characters (cleric, ranger and sorcerer) are all 12th level and aiming for 20th. They'll be joined by two new members (bard and paladin). Only the ranger is multi-classed (one level in rogue) to make up for the loss of our arcane trickster.
Frankly, my dear, I'd rather be listening to Rehn Stillnight.
As others have said, the guide above seems to be based purely on capstone (or high level) abilities. As many campaigns stop before then (often level 10-15), the situation changes somewhat for these. If, say, your campaign will end at level 10, you need to look at your level 7-10 abilities, not 17-20, for assessing a four level dip.
Even so, these are only looking at mechanical optimisation. If you really want to multiclass from a Barbarian into a Wizard due to the evolution of your character (and understand the challenges of doing so), then go for it. If you really "see multiclassing as a way to advance your character storywise rather than mechanically", then this guide seems kinda pointless to me, as you will make that choice for story reasons, not because of the mechanical abilities you will gain or loose.
Note: It's actually a fairly useful guide, though, if you know you will be playing to level 20 and beyond and you wish to assess the mechanical viability of a multiclass dip.
I think you can have a discussion about which classes are best suited to multiclassing, but it needs to be a much deeper analysis than just "is the capstone good?"
An example of a class that discourages multiclassing is monk:
There are probably more. You can work around these, but inevitably you have duplicated features or unused features that result in a build that doesn't really have much synergy - and an MC requires some synergy to compete with a straight class.
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
[REDACTED]
Multiclassing - assuming it has a mechanical basis and is not a purely narrative thing, at which point do whatever fits your narrative and be done with it - is usually a trade-off between "Cool Shit Now" or "Cooler Shit Later". Most 5e classes are heavily front-loaded, gaining a majority of their abilities within their first five levels. After that, the rate at which a given character acquires new abilities slows drastically, but the individual abilities can be very good. Getting a second helping of that frontloading can shore up weaknesses in a character concept or archetype; that can often be worth it in the long haul even if one must sacrifice a compelling late-game ability to do so.
One example: my artificer has a single Wizard level she took in pregame (we started at level 5, Star began as a 4/1 Battlesmith/Wizard). This automatically disqualified her from ever attaining the artificer's absolutely phenomenal Soul of Artifice capstone. What did it do for her? It doubled her cantrip count, granted her improved spell slot progression, gave her access to numerous key utility ritual spells, and allowed me to fill out her spellbook with first-level toolbelt spells her artificer side either didn't have access to or didn't usually have room to prepare. Absorb Elements, Feather Fall, things like that could be offloaded to the spellbook, as could esoteric stuff like Illusory Script and damage spells the artificer never gains like Magic Missile. And all of those benefits were hers from the very first game of the campaign, things she's been able to leverage and enjoy the whole time she's been around.
I deemed the early-game benefits of that multiclass dip to be worth sacrificing the admittedly massive strength of Soul of Artifice. Many other classes benefit just as much from a level or two of a complementary supporting class, and gaining those benefits early often beats out saving up for late-game goodies even in a campaign you're reasonably sure will hit lategame. Multiclassing can also preserve one's ASIs for more important functions, if taking a level or two of a complementary class dispenses with the need to take a feat that offers much the same benefit. A level of Wizard mostly precludes the need for Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster on artificers to supplement their somewhat anemic magic, for example - one could take feats they like better, or take the stat boosts instead. A level of fighter could give your sorcerer who's tired of taking a beating and has decided he wants to be better able to take care of himself the benefits of Fighting Initiate, Lightly Armored, Moderately Armored, and Weapon Master all at once, condensing the four feats a sorcerer would need to take to gain that level of martial proficiency down into a single level instead.
Obviously some players don't like losing progression in their main class, or see multiclassing of any sort as a betrayal of their character's story. That's fine. But realistically, just about each and every case of multiclassing needs to be examined on its own merits. I don't know whether one can produce a one-size-fits-all guide to multiclassing, outside of pointing out complementary combinations of classes/subclasses. Each case is unique, and learning how to consider the benefits and drawbacks of a specific combination is more useful than rote "this is good, this is good, this is bad, this is good, this is bad..." lists.
'Course, learning to understand and think critically about the mechanics of the game is always better than rote memorization without understanding, but you'd be shocked at how many folks find a way to disagree...
Please do not contact or message me.
[REDACTED]
Anyways. Multiclassing. It's great for some folks, terrible for others. If you can't see any story where someone might have cross-disciplinary training from multiple 'standard' professions, I recommend reading more books.
Please do not contact or message me.
This. I know some players see the game privileging the actual mechanical power build. And that's fine, but in doing so the player is de facto pre defining a character arc, and in those games where character development is hinged on milestones arrived at in the game as played, it's what I've called before "player driven railroading", which is fine if all the players are on board in the train engine and the DM just lays out the track for them. Again, this isn't a wrong play style, but it can cause frictions and tensions at games more organic in inceptions.
That note I'm not really agreeing with. Really the PHB and every published subclass has a features table, they're more easily consulted than paragraph formatted essay. If I really care about hot rodding my character sheet, I'm going to look at the tables and see what I can get and when I get it in a class/subclass development.
In my group rogues and bards seem to be the dipping trend for either the expertise or jack of all trades and the other minor features picked up in levels 1-2. Their play style would rather find a work around to direct combat. So it makes sense but I could see some build masters seeing these dips as wastes of time compared to gains in features at later levels if they stuck to the build; but the choices work well at my table, mostly because I see those decisions made at leveling up not so much as "where they want to go" but "what they want to do now" which helps me address the game in the present and leaves developments down the line still beyond the horizon.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I really don't understand that. The negative reaction, ranging from disgruntlement to seething hatred depending on who one is in this thread, for anyone who does any sort of advance character planning, or anyone who decides to take abilities from a different class because they'd help more than whatever their next monoclass ability is.
It should go without saying that of course a planner will change their plans if their campaign changes directions. A good player will change their plans to match the new direction, take into account new information the same way any other good planner does for any other activity. And on the character side, who's to say the PC isn't doing the D&D equivalent of crossfit or MMA? If learning the basics and fundamentals of a new profession is more helpful to them in the situation they find themselves in than pursuing further mastery of their primary craft, why wouldn't they pursue that new learning? Yes, some classes should be harder to dip into than others (anyone can learn the basics of Fighter-ing; finding Junior's First Warlock Pact or the favor of a god to become a cleric is harder), but that's not to say the splice is impossible.
This absolute rejection of looking ahead and seeing where one might wish to take their skills is bizarre. Has no one IRL ever said "hey, if I learn this thing it'll make me better at my job" or "I want to try this cool new hobby that needs me to learn a different set of skills"? Nobody's ever looked at where their life is going and asked themselves if there's anything they can do in the short-term future to improve their situation?
...nobody?
Please do not contact or message me.
I would not agree that it is not playing the game, and is say it's a valid way of looking at things in certain circumstances. For instance, if you are doing to start a game at high level and/or you know you'll reach level 20 and continue at that level for a significant time, evaluating MC based on missing capstone abilities is reasonable.
I'd say it's a bit of a waste of time in most games, and producing a guide which says you should or should not MC based solely or mainly on this is not helpful to most players.
It's an interesting discussion point.
Some folks can't wrap their heads around the idea that their D&D can be a complete 180 from another person's D&D and both are just as much fun, valid, and worthwhile.
I've had quite a bit of high-level 5E experience (from the DM side), running 3 full campaigns to levels 14, 16, and 19. Can't speak for capstone but from what I've seen, those making it that high in levels (tiers) seemed stronger if they didn't multiclass.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
Personally, I think to each their own, an I can also easily see the benefits of multi-classing. More so when you know you're going to top out at 12-14, IMO, as a few classes have a 17 offering that's immensely tempting (I have an Open Han Monk....one shot, chance to drop ANY foe to 0HP YUM) because then you know you won't see the juiciest stuff in any case. I also feel it should be relevant and make sense within your character's life/story, too. I can provide examples in my own group, classes, ideas and the why.
The why is because we rather erred when we created our characters. We are magic light with only a Druid for spells, the Monk, Barbarian and Fighter are all knuckle dusters, and as a result, she's been really struggling with spell slots, realizing a bit of healing will likely be required after any notable scuffle. We have also, on 2 occasions already (well, 3 if you count our last where we found a shimmering cloak) carried stuff for a session or so, without being able to Identify it. Our DM rules that a magical item must be magically Identified (spell, scroll item, etc) for us to truly know what it is. While I am less than pleased with that, it's a rule at our table, so we are looking to work within it.
Our Druid is considering a dip to Wizard. Her Int is high enough to allow it and it would give her more cantrips to choose from and things that a save doesn't result in "Nothing happened" Her character line is that she feels she is underperforming in her group (the character's thoughts) and she could better aid her friends and her God by learning more destructive spells to smite her foes with. Makes sense to us and she may do it.
My Monk had an experience that turned him from Agnostic to borderline fanatical about an emerging, ancient Deity (homebrewed world) and is considering taking up the priestly vestments (Cleric) to better further the goals of his new patron. (he's a naïve young fellow and infatuated with this being who restored him to life after he'd been killed in battle) After attaining 2 levels, he decides he is a better tool to the Lady as a champion and resumes his Monk trainings. Still stuck, because we're 6 and I have some really nifty stuff coming soon.
Barbarian is in the same "position" as my Monk. He has been awed by this emerging power (she gave him a wicked hammer) and is devoted. His Wis is JUST high enough to dip Cleric, which he would, as a devotion to the Lady. After a single level, he realizes books and learning stuff is HARD, goes back to smashing things. Couple free heals in times of need, maybe even a buff or debuff, which are added bonuses.
Fighter messed up stats to optimize, so he can be anything Dex, Int or Str based. He has been playing to Rogue, getting involved with all the shady types, trying to be sneaky and stuff which we all agree fits best character wise and offers a ton of handy perks at 1. This is the one to me is almost a no-brainer, so I hope he does it.
I agree that the verbal assaults are expected at this point by certain members. I think multi classing, like any other aspect of your character, is YOUR call. By all means listen to the pros and cons, but don't let hostile elitists push you away from your goals.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Not that you (or your druid friend) asked for advice, so feel free to ignore this, but if the goal is to increase cantrips I'd recommend Cleric instead for a couple reasons:
As an overall strategy of multiclassing spellcaster classes to "[learn] more destructive spells to smite her foes with," I would strongly encourage rethinking that. So much of spell power is about spell levels, and one of the worst thing spellcasters can do is postpone those higher level spells. Just as an example, compare Shatter upcast to level 3 versus Fireball. Fireball may only do 14% more damage on average, but it covers a whopping 4x more area. And even more important than quantity (of damage), high level spells provide so much more in quality (stuff you can do). High level spells can often win or bypass entire encounters all by themselves.
Not to say that no spellcasters should ever multiclass, but if your goal is to do more damage, you need to figure out exactly how a multiclass is truly going to do that versus sticking with your main class, because unless you're gunning for some combo in particular, it will probably not achieve what you're trying to do.
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
There's playing the game. Everything outside being at the table with the group including a DM is preparation or discussion, and actually maybe even arguably taxonomic "meta" though essential meta.
If it was any other play past time. Someone is a football player. Using the above parameter I'm riffing from Kotath, that person is playing football when they're with their team opposing another team for points with a win or loss on the line. When the person is being interviewed by the media, or instagram beefing with other players of fans, or lifting weights or being assessed in some moneyball style calculation ... that player isn't playing. Practice, training, and being a celebrity are ancillary to playing the game, but not playing the game.
Maybe there's some space in music, that's played. Sure music can be played by performing to an audience, jamming with a bandmate, or exploring ones instrument on compositional inspiration. But hitting the boards to discuss what's the best guitar pick, going over the various builds for making your amp, trying to get your band an opening slot under an audience drawing headliner next month, suing streamers for royalties for using your music in their games without your permission, that may be part of your role as a musician but none of it is playing music.
Being an athlete or a musician can be someone's identity. For a lot of people, playing dungeons and dragons is part of their identity. The game may take up a lot of real estate in their head, but that doesn't really mean they're playing all the time. The game takes a lot of preparation, no doubt.
Back to multiclassing, I don't think I'd take as hard a line against a _player_ being aware of a _character's_ options. I mean the tables are in the PHB and sourcebooks presumably accessible to players for a reason after all. I do agree that whatever facility or fluency one may develop in ones own personal prep time, when advancing your character in the game, at least in my game, if a player wants to take an option (usually a MC move) outside the traditional progression of the characters, class, the player with the aid of the DM and probably the rest of the group come up with a rationale for the character going in that direction. Heck with limiting this principle to mutliclass, at my table we do it for subclasses and spell selection too.
My favorite characters are not the "high concept" or what I've called "player railroading engineered" ones. I like the characters where the player allows the character to come into their own. I've mentioned elsewhere it's not perfect but there's something to be said for looking at your character the way an actor does. Research helps, a little, but many actors discussing their most powerful roles will speak of the character not being shaped by the research so much as the research allowed the actor to let the character out in the performance. Those moments where through a balance of notes for the day's session, improvisation, and some dice rolls, a player has a heroic, comic, or tragic moment, something where everyone pauses including the player and there's that realization that while this character is not the player, its someone the player and others at the table are invested in and in whatever just happened everyone can claim to understand the character a bit deeper now ... that's the real magic of TTRPGs. Relating the tables is the infrastructure for me, important, but mastery of which isn't necessary to play a good game.
I'm a little confused as to where all the "harshness" or "verbal attacks" are. Maybe my filters are screening out more than usual, but this seems like a very healthy conversation so far on the variety of ways multiclassing can be entertained in the game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Sigh.
OTL
Gonna break this into two sections. One, a post for the regular thread. Two, a response to the "oh my god I hate that Yurei ***** so much I wish they'd just die in a basement and stop playing forever" crowd in spoilers below that. If you're not interested in rant and counter-rant (and I don't blame you a bit), just skip the spoiler'd section.
On Lostwhilefishing's original subject of "Multiclassing or not?": I tend to find that multiclassing is best used to realize a character concept that doesn't fit cleanly into one, singular class (which is many, if not most, character concepts outside Tired Tolkien Tropes), when it's not a response to campaign events. Alternatively, a particular multiclass combination might suggest a story to someone they're then super excited to play. One of my favorite examples of that one is the Cursed Swordslinger, a Swashbuckler rogue with Hexblade levels. Yurei-the-player is deeply intrigued by the idea of a not-super-Dexy rogue that focuses on panache, flair, and a silver tongue more than sneaky skullduggery and stabbings-from-the-shadows. It's all the bombastic Jack Sparrow-esque fun of being a bard, but without the real-life performance skill requirement or all the shitty sex memes that make the actual bard class such a chore to play at so many tables, but it comes with the cost of being mostly terrible at combat. A rogue with limited dex is a rogue that will never reliably land a weapon attack outside tier 1 play.
Now, there's a story there, to be sure. The 'gifted swordsman' getting by on a reputation they've forged rather than earned, using their artful words and peacock swagger to convince people they're far more dangerous than they actually are. The story of how such a charlatan would react when forced into a situation where they have to use the skills they've talked up but never acquired could be its own game, on top of the comedy of the Legendary Swordslinger who's actively awful at swordfighting. But the version I like better is the version where the swordsman either stumbled into possession of a cursed blade or struck a deal they later regretted. Now they're cursed, running from a debt they will not or cannot pay. Their supernatural sword skills are exactly that - supernatural, bought with currency the rogue no longer has if they ever had it in the first place. The character is operating under a ticking clock, but they can't see the clock's face. All they can hear is the ticking, they have no idea how close that clock is to striking zero.
It's just a cool ass idea. The combination of the Cursed Sword class and the Silver-Tongued Sword Scoundrel class writes its own story, and beyond that it offers a unique play experience neither the rogue alone nor the warlock alone can give you. I like shit like that, where the combination of two or more classes produces a gestalt experience no single class by itself can replicate. That's where a lot of the fun in D&D is for me - defying the shitty Tolkienesque archetypes and overplayed traditional-fantasy tripe and carving my own story out of the disparate pieces the game gives me to do so with. Nor am I even remotely alone in that.
Sorcadins are so popular because it's just a cool-ass play experience with super evocative imagery - the arcane swordsman whose blade flashes with destructive energy every time he strikes, free hand twisting the weave into doing his bidding even as he carves his enemies apart with eldritch might. It's just freaking cool, and the fact that it's also a very powerful offensive build is mostly just icing on the cake. Sorcerers can't begin to do that, and paladins don't have the arcane ammo to do it properly - but the combination of the two provides an experience beyond the component classes and a badass aesthetic to go alongside it.
There's plenty of other examples, but this has already taken me hours to assemble. We're just gonna call it good for now and hope some of these words get through to someone.
Can I just point out that Lostwhilefishing wanted to start a discussion about multiclassing, based on a Reddit post he found interesting? All this "Nobody should ever multiclass ever because not one single character has ever had a True Story reason to multiclass that wasn't just MMO powermunchkin garbage" nonsense is against the point of the thread. The OP wanted to talk about multiclassing, in the context of Interesting Reddit Post. So maybe just do that?
I do find it amusing that all the "Story FIRST!" people tend to completely ignore the from-the-table anecdotes of players like Falwith. Guys who use their own experience to argue that sometimes a given story beat influences characters decisions towards multiclassing, because say...a dead god is coming back into the world, allying herself with the party*, and has done them Divine Favors they wish to repay by aligning themselves to her cause as her champions via cleric levels. That was a cool little microtale, and I've used similar "in this game I played..." stories to try and emphasize my own arguments before. But in a fantastic case of irony, a lot of these 'Story FIRST!' folks couldn't care less about the in-play stories of people whose experiences and enjoyment diverge from their own. And have actively told me they don't care about what happened in my game and how my own experiences have shaped my views, because (and I quote): "that's all just a thin veneer of story on powergaming crap! It's not real storytelling!"
Now, there's a truism in gaming-in-general that goes something to the effect of "the only person in the entire world that cares about your OC in the slightest is you." For TTRPGs, that list extends to partially include your DM and your fellow players, but in general the truism is true - nobody is going to gush with you over your D&D character/story and how cool it is, or how awesome your game has been. Most people will simply be bored senseless, and some of them will actively seek to shut you down and ruin your fun. It's why I try (if not always successfully) to avoid discussing my own characters/games, save in a sense of raw experience. Letting people who are unsure of something they want to do know that I've tried something similar (if I have, at least) and what my experience doing so was. That's useful, and is kind of exactly what forums are supposed to be for.
But if you're gonna ride that train? If you're gonna be the kind of person who ignores any sort of personal experiences someone else has because they don't line up with your cozy little view of how D&D works, who says "your experiences don't matter because I don't care about your character/game"? If you're going to shut down folks like Falwith telling a cool little story about how their campaign's changing world provoked a change in their characters while bragging, in the same damn post, about how you solved a warlock not knowing how to warlock by giving them a bespoke overpowered magic ring through the power of DM Favoritism?
Well. I shouldn't have to point out the hypocrisy in that. But clearly I do, so oh well.
Please do not contact or message me.
Most of my characters have a pre planned path to 20 with not so much optimized to the extreme builds, but planned in a way that they are not going to be sub par and no fun to play. Granted I have only ever played one all the way to 20, but have 4 others in tier 4 currently and a smattering in the lower tiers as well. They normally have at least a 4 page backstory and a goal of some sort as to why they are out adventuring. The planning phase for me is pretty fun, but playing is much more so. The reason I put thought into the progression early is twofold. One, everyone's character has thought about how they want to progress in life and have goals and it's good to flesh that out as opposed to wandering aimlessly. Second is it frees up most of the time from session 0 to end of campaign to enjoy playing. A lot of times things happen and your character changes its course a bit, but it's good to have a course to begin with. Your characters will know more about the world they live in, magic, monsters, etc. than the player ever will so it shouldn't be a stretch for them to know what a good feat or spell would be to take or a multiclass to dip into. Now you just have to figure out how to weave those choices into a great story narrative and you have a well thought out character.
I feel a true multiclass would be multiple classes in tiers 1 and/or 2. When you get to tier 4 and at 20, there are only a couple classes that you wouldn't multiclass because the capstone is so good and the others are awful. Technically my abjuration wizard is multiclassed, but that was his 20th level to hop 1 into rogue as the wizard capstone is garbage and his build is around being a master investigator so that expertise in investigation made a lot of sense as well as arcana. I wouldn't consider him a true multiclass character as his entire trip to 20 was just a regular old abjuration wizard. Now I do have a Bardlock that his first level was bard, next 2 lock, then all bard thereafter that I consider a true multiclass. My DM and I weaved the reason for the multiclass into the back story and discussed the long term goals for him and he in wonderfully fun to play!
There are min maxers out there that just want to be uber powerful and look at every class permutation and combination to just try to break the game. There are those of us out there that look at those same things just to make sure we aren't making bad decisions and making something dumb like a barbarian wizard.
I think it's fun to theorycraft and test out fun multi-class concepts, even if their abilities may not seemingly mesh well. Admittedly I don't often look at the capstones of classes to determine what I should and shouldn't multi-class though.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills