I have only multiclassed a very few times. When I imagine a character, I just usually see them as being one class or the other. If I want a lot of versatility, I play a bard. And with this edition of the game, I have only gotten one character to lvl 20 so far. Too many ideas to try out.
I have only multiclassed a very few times. When I imagine a character, I just usually see them as being one class or the other. If I want a lot of versatility, I play a bard. And with this edition of the game, I have only gotten one character to lvl 20 so far. Too many ideas to try out.
This exactly!!! I have so many ideas for just straight-classed characters for this edition that I haven't had to push myself to come up with more unique character concepts.
What our group plays by, is that everyone can enjoy the game as they see fit. Some are more min/max type players, some like to go heavy on rp, and some, like me, like to play it by ear and have a blast. Multiclassing is OK in our books, but you still have to tie it to your characters story in some way. My fighter was all fightery and stuff, but at a pivotal moment in our game had the chance to multiclass into warlock (I did ask our GM if it was ok still, manners mind you).
Another case is our other campaign, where I thought it would be fun to play as an inquisitor, bane of the dead. Then I started to wrap my head around how to do it, and as we start at 3rd level, I went with Cleric 1 / Ranger 2. It just seemed fitting.
Sometimes, the classes as printed are not exactly what a player wants. I wanted to play a bow ranger, but also wanted the precision strike damage from rogue (if I can study my favored enemy long enough, wouldn't I know just where to hurt them? And couldn't I approximately transpose that knowledge toward other creatures?) Also, as a nimble forrester, would I not also have the ability to dodge away from danger, evasively and uncannily? Basically, I wanted a Deepwood Stalker style from 3.5e. BUT, I also wanted an animal friend. I could've taken magic initiate, but as rogue was already on the table, I went arcane trickster and took find Familiar. Mechanically, gives opportunity for snk attk with help action, but thematically it fits that I'd have an animal friend. I reflavored the illusion spells to fit a nature theme (camouflage, mirage, animal mimicry, ventriloquism, etc).
Now I have a hunter ranger with an animal companion that has the mechanics I want, but also makes sense as an overall concept. I suppose I could just do the multiclass levels, but instead of calling the class ranger/rogue call it Faewood Archer, or something.
Sometimes, the classes as printed are not exactly what a player wants. I wanted to play a bow ranger, but also wanted the precision strike damage from rogue (if I can study my favored enemy long enough, wouldn't I know just where to hurt them? And couldn't I approximately transpose that knowledge toward other creatures?) Also, as a nimble forrester, would I not also have the ability to dodge away from danger, evasively and uncannily? Basically, I wanted a Deepwood Stalker style from 3.5e. BUT, I also wanted an animal friend. I could've taken magic initiate, but as rogue was already on the table, I went arcane trickster and took find Familiar. Mechanically, gives opportunity for snk attk with help action, but thematically it fits that I'd have an animal friend. I reflavored the illusion spells to fit a nature theme (camouflage, mirage, animal mimicry, ventriloquism, etc).
Now I have a hunter ranger with an animal companion that has the mechanics I want, but also makes sense as an overall concept. I suppose I could just do the multiclass levels, but instead of calling the class ranger/rogue call it Faewood Archer, or something.
That would've been prime homebrew material. Sometimes a multiclass creates the right mix, but other times you need to homebrew your own sub-class to hit everything that's needed. Then again, some people are already wary enough of of a multiclass, let alone homebrew. Fortunately 5e as a system is very homebrew friendly, and its really easy to make new sub-classes as needed.
I usually play single class characters, but I have a character right now who I'm thinking about having multi-class because of the storyline that the DM is coming up with. He's 3rd level and I won't decide for another level or two if the storyline is going to continue down a path that makes multi-classing him fit in with the story.
Multi-classing is always on the table. However, I do want my characters optimized as well. As a fighter, why do I need to take levels in Paladin to be a holy warrior? I can just thematically make my own vow or oath, and continue taking fighter levels. Why do I need to be the sorcerer class to say I have an innate spell-casting power generated by a bloodline? Couldn't I explain that thematically and still be a druid or other spell-caster? This becomes a bit harder with certain classes, like cleric or warlock, but it isn't impossible. Players will do what's best for them.
I love love love multiclassing...at least in third edition. Fifth edition seems to have more incentive to stay in class. But you're playing a character, not a class, and almost no class offers everything you want your character to be. It's also more dynamic, and offers more distinction, to be a fighter/rogue/monk, then just being a boring monk.
Generally speaking classes in D&D are often very front loaded, so you can gain a lot from multi-classing while loosing very little. Especially the martial characters. It is a lot harder to multi-class as a straight magic user because you are losing so much. But a Wizard who can wild shape before he dies to retreat, can be useful.
I love love love multiclassing...at least in third edition. Fifth edition seems to have more incentive to stay in class. But you're playing a character, not a class, and almost no class offers everything you want your character to be. It's also more dynamic, and offers more distinction, to be a fighter/rogue/monk, then just being a boring monk.
By the time you get to a fighter/rogue/monk it more sounds like min-maxing rather than playing a character concept.
Multiclassing purely for a mechanical benefit is a perfectly valid story reason to multiclass. Its not like the different classes are explicitly secret, so it could easily be the case that a character wants to plan out a specific way to become stronger.
Multi-classing is always on the table. However, I do want my characters optimized as well. As a fighter, why do I need to take levels in Paladin to be a holy warrior? I can just thematically make my own vow or oath, and continue taking fighter levels. Why do I need to be the sorcerer class to say I have an innate spell-casting power generated by a bloodline? Couldn't I explain that thematically and still be a druid or other spell-caster? This becomes a bit harder with certain classes, like cleric or warlock, but it isn't impossible. Players will do what's best for them.
This: Especially when you add in the background features. You want that holy warrior fighter? Give him the Acolyte background to duplicate the focus on Religion.
Now, the whole needing to be a sorcerer to explain the innate spellcasting makes sense and is kind of the whole point of having both sorcerer and wizard (and warlock if we're counting all arcane spellcasters). Unfortunately there's not exactly a background to duplicate ALL of the classes, but substituting acolyte for cleric or paladin, charlatan or entertainer for bard, criminal or sailor (pirate) for rogue, hermit for monk, outlander for barbarian or ranger, and sage for wizard are all viable options for explaining why your character acts like one class without requiring you to actually take levels in that class. Feats like actor, elemental adept, healer, magic initiate, etc... can also help sell this background.
You want a fighter who is a swashbuckling pirate? You could go Fighter/Rogue/Bard OR you could simply go Battle Master Fighter with the Sailor (pirate) Background and take the Crossbow Expert, Defensive Duelist, and/or Athlete feats (and if you want to go with the Captain Jack Sparrow method, take Lucky). Take two-weapon fighting for your style and take maneuvers like Parry or Riposte that allow you to manipulate fights to your and your party's advantage.
Multiclassing just isn't necessary with the large amount of available options out there.
Now, for the Cleric and Warlock, it's not that hard to thematically explain how things actually happen: You want that warlock to be a wizard-like character who just happened to get his spells from an extra-dimensional being: Tome Warlock with the Sage background. Maybe your mage was researching spells and came across a cursed book (the Tome of Shadows from the Pact of the Tome). Your warlock thinks he/she is the same as other wizards, without knowing the truth behind the source of their power. Each time you go to research, your eye is drawn to the eldritch invocations that you happen to find (or that your patron points you to without your knowledge).
The above method works for clerics. Maybe you don't believe in a god, but that doesn't mean that a god doesn't see potential in you. Perhaps you are an unwitting pawn in their plans, and they are guiding your actions without you knowing. Perhaps the power actually DOES come from you (like it does with sorcerers and paladins) but with a god's blessings. Think about Greek mythology. Gods in mythology have always had strange obsessions with mortals, and have chosen to bless (or curse them) for any number of reasons. Look at how Jason was blessed by Hera, not because he worshiped her, but because he unknowingly helped her. She also tried murdering Hercules as a baby, not because of something he did, but because of something Zeus did.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I don't think it matters if character choices are inductively RP or deductively RP, but I believe in optimizing my concept. I'm going to make my concept great at it's concept.
I think 5th Ed needs to Multiclass a lot less because it's automatically build into some classes.
Eldritch Knight * Arcane Trickster are SubClasses is a response to the fact that a Spell-Sword was a class people just WANTED to play and the base classes couldn't fulfill that wish.
Before 5th Edition a "Holy Warrior" often was WAY easier as a Fighter/Cleric then a Paladin because of all of the restrictions a Paladin had.
Now you can either MultiClass Fighter/Cleric, or play a Paladin. Possibly with a GM's Blessing play an Eldritch Knight and take the Cleric list instead of Wizards.
Sadly, I've just realized a more "martial Druid" isn't easy to do. I've been trying to decide if I want to take some Barbarian to Rage while I'm in Wildshape, or take some Monk to represent my character not using weapons any more while in his normal form and becoming more bestial.
There are more character choices in D&D, Horatio, then dreamt of in Wizard's classes.
Sounds more like min/max to me than simply playing a character concept. I.e. A holy warrior doesn't need to go cleric... But it's a dip into fighter is more powerful for a cleric than straight cleric.
Just saying the fact that multi-classing almost always ends up with what other class would make my character more powerful pretty much reveals it's almost never for roleplaying reasons.
For example no one goes Paladin/cleric or straight Paladin for being a holy Warrior it's always Cleric/fighter.
I disagree. To say that Multi-Class is always more powerful or do say it's always about power. There are so many ways to rate what is powerful, we can quickly devolve into a semantic argument, where every class is about power and the feel of power.
Note: I don't "Theory Craft" characters to level 20. I've NEVER seen a level 20 character, in over a decade of playing I've never seen past level 15, and usually it's 1-8. So MultiClassing is a *very* specific choice, because if you MultiClass you might never see some of your really boss abilities from level 5+.
I think the reason Unearthed Arcana has focused so heavily on Sub-Classes is.
Classes are already balanced, so subclasses have less "bits" to worry about.
Because there is so much more that people want to explore then 12 classes and 2-3 subclasses can create.
We don't need the "class bloat" of 3rd Edition. 3rd had HUNDREDS of classes and 93% of them were useless, 5% were balanced, and 2% were broken.
A lot of the old Prestige Classes (Arcane Archer, Mystic Theurge, etc...) are now SubClasses.
The Favored Soul is now a Sorcerer with Cleric spells. There is a Warlock that makes a Pact with an Angel.
I can't comment about your example of no one goes "Paladin/Cleric" or "Paladin" instead of "Cleric/Fighter" with the exception that before 4th edition it wasn't even POSSIBLE.
Even currently Paladin is a *very* specific feeling. Actually Paladin is a great case-point. Any multi-class of Paladin especially before 9th level will significantly disadvantage you vs a pure-class. Because you're pushing back lots of of your core abilties: Fighting Style, Spell Casting, Divine Smite; Sacret Oath; ASI/Feat; Extra Attack, 2nd lvl Spells; Aura of Protection, 2nd Sacred Oath; 2nd ASI/Feat. But the class doesn't cantrips, you don't even get access to spells until 2nd level, and most of your abilities are Paladin level dependent.
A Fighter/Cleric either doesn't have nearly the power of a straight fighter (fighter has the most ASI/Feats), and is trading it for a few low level spells and a Channel Divinity.
A Cleric/Fighter is sacrificing her high level spells and class abilities which depend on her level for more martial skill and better weapon proficiencies.
A Fighter with the Background Acolyte will also look totally different, but lack any of the "connection" to their God (spells) but still be a Holy Warrior.
None of those 3 characters look the same, play the same, and each have a unique flavor. To call a player a min/maxer because a Pure-Class doesn't have the look/feel she wants is... crazy.
All I'm saying is that when people multiclass it's almost always the same class combinations and is almost always to get this other feature that happens to work really awesome with the other class features.
Very seldom do you ever see someone take a multiclass that doesn't seem to be to make their character stronger.
Why does a cleric want to go fighter? Probably to get the fighters abilities.
I could be wrong, but I seriously feel like most people who multiclass seriously go I want to be a Fighter/cleric then come up with the character concept.
I very much think it's almost always possible to go straight class and roleplay all the concepts that end up being used to explain the need for multiclassing. And multi-classing is all about gaining features to make your character more mechanically awesome than for roleplay.
I will say that I feel like Liam on Critical Role is the only time I've seen someone multiclass for pure roleplay reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have only multiclassed a very few times. When I imagine a character, I just usually see them as being one class or the other. If I want a lot of versatility, I play a bard. And with this edition of the game, I have only gotten one character to lvl 20 so far. Too many ideas to try out.
geek dad with 3 geek kids
What our group plays by, is that everyone can enjoy the game as they see fit. Some are more min/max type players, some like to go heavy on rp, and some, like me, like to play it by ear and have a blast. Multiclassing is OK in our books, but you still have to tie it to your characters story in some way. My fighter was all fightery and stuff, but at a pivotal moment in our game had the chance to multiclass into warlock (I did ask our GM if it was ok still, manners mind you).
Another case is our other campaign, where I thought it would be fun to play as an inquisitor, bane of the dead. Then I started to wrap my head around how to do it, and as we start at 3rd level, I went with Cleric 1 / Ranger 2. It just seemed fitting.
Sometimes, the classes as printed are not exactly what a player wants. I wanted to play a bow ranger, but also wanted the precision strike damage from rogue (if I can study my favored enemy long enough, wouldn't I know just where to hurt them? And couldn't I approximately transpose that knowledge toward other creatures?) Also, as a nimble forrester, would I not also have the ability to dodge away from danger, evasively and uncannily? Basically, I wanted a Deepwood Stalker style from 3.5e. BUT, I also wanted an animal friend. I could've taken magic initiate, but as rogue was already on the table, I went arcane trickster and took find Familiar. Mechanically, gives opportunity for snk attk with help action, but thematically it fits that I'd have an animal friend. I reflavored the illusion spells to fit a nature theme (camouflage, mirage, animal mimicry, ventriloquism, etc).
Now I have a hunter ranger with an animal companion that has the mechanics I want, but also makes sense as an overall concept. I suppose I could just do the multiclass levels, but instead of calling the class ranger/rogue call it Faewood Archer, or something.
I usually play single class characters, but I have a character right now who I'm thinking about having multi-class because of the storyline that the DM is coming up with. He's 3rd level and I won't decide for another level or two if the storyline is going to continue down a path that makes multi-classing him fit in with the story.
Professional computer geek
Multi-classing is always on the table. However, I do want my characters optimized as well. As a fighter, why do I need to take levels in Paladin to be a holy warrior? I can just thematically make my own vow or oath, and continue taking fighter levels. Why do I need to be the sorcerer class to say I have an innate spell-casting power generated by a bloodline? Couldn't I explain that thematically and still be a druid or other spell-caster? This becomes a bit harder with certain classes, like cleric or warlock, but it isn't impossible. Players will do what's best for them.
I love love love multiclassing...at least in third edition. Fifth edition seems to have more incentive to stay in class. But you're playing a character, not a class, and almost no class offers everything you want your character to be. It's also more dynamic, and offers more distinction, to be a fighter/rogue/monk, then just being a boring monk.
If I do it I do so to bring out an rp idea I have or enhance a play style. Rn I'm playing a Bard/Fighter and it has made the experience very fun
Generally speaking classes in D&D are often very front loaded, so you can gain a lot from multi-classing while loosing very little. Especially the martial characters. It is a lot harder to multi-class as a straight magic user because you are losing so much. But a Wizard who can wild shape before he dies to retreat, can be useful.
Wizard 10/ fighter 1 casting spells in plate armor. Make yourself silent while sneaking around so you don't have disadvantage on stealth checks.
Multiclassing purely for a mechanical benefit is a perfectly valid story reason to multiclass. Its not like the different classes are explicitly secret, so it could easily be the case that a character wants to plan out a specific way to become stronger.
Now, the whole needing to be a sorcerer to explain the innate spellcasting makes sense and is kind of the whole point of having both sorcerer and wizard (and warlock if we're counting all arcane spellcasters). Unfortunately there's not exactly a background to duplicate ALL of the classes, but substituting acolyte for cleric or paladin, charlatan or entertainer for bard, criminal or sailor (pirate) for rogue, hermit for monk, outlander for barbarian or ranger, and sage for wizard are all viable options for explaining why your character acts like one class without requiring you to actually take levels in that class. Feats like actor, elemental adept, healer, magic initiate, etc... can also help sell this background.
You want a fighter who is a swashbuckling pirate? You could go Fighter/Rogue/Bard OR you could simply go Battle Master Fighter with the Sailor (pirate) Background and take the Crossbow Expert, Defensive Duelist, and/or Athlete feats (and if you want to go with the Captain Jack Sparrow method, take Lucky). Take two-weapon fighting for your style and take maneuvers like Parry or Riposte that allow you to manipulate fights to your and your party's advantage.
Multiclassing just isn't necessary with the large amount of available options out there.
Now, for the Cleric and Warlock, it's not that hard to thematically explain how things actually happen: You want that warlock to be a wizard-like character who just happened to get his spells from an extra-dimensional being: Tome Warlock with the Sage background. Maybe your mage was researching spells and came across a cursed book (the Tome of Shadows from the Pact of the Tome). Your warlock thinks he/she is the same as other wizards, without knowing the truth behind the source of their power. Each time you go to research, your eye is drawn to the eldritch invocations that you happen to find (or that your patron points you to without your knowledge).
The above method works for clerics. Maybe you don't believe in a god, but that doesn't mean that a god doesn't see potential in you. Perhaps you are an unwitting pawn in their plans, and they are guiding your actions without you knowing. Perhaps the power actually DOES come from you (like it does with sorcerers and paladins) but with a god's blessings. Think about Greek mythology. Gods in mythology have always had strange obsessions with mortals, and have chosen to bless (or curse them) for any number of reasons. Look at how Jason was blessed by Hera, not because he worshiped her, but because he unknowingly helped her. She also tried murdering Hercules as a baby, not because of something he did, but because of something Zeus did.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Fairly certain the primary reason to multiclass is to get awesome abilities that are better than what you would get otherwise.
I. E. Sneak attack for a ranger is probably better than what a ranger would get at level 20
I don't think it matters if character choices are inductively RP or deductively RP, but I believe in optimizing my concept. I'm going to make my concept great at it's concept.
I think 5th Ed needs to Multiclass a lot less because it's automatically build into some classes.
Eldritch Knight * Arcane Trickster are SubClasses is a response to the fact that a Spell-Sword was a class people just WANTED to play and the base classes couldn't fulfill that wish.
Before 5th Edition a "Holy Warrior" often was WAY easier as a Fighter/Cleric then a Paladin because of all of the restrictions a Paladin had.
Now you can either MultiClass Fighter/Cleric, or play a Paladin. Possibly with a GM's Blessing play an Eldritch Knight and take the Cleric list instead of Wizards.
Sadly, I've just realized a more "martial Druid" isn't easy to do. I've been trying to decide if I want to take some Barbarian to Rage while I'm in Wildshape, or take some Monk to represent my character not using weapons any more while in his normal form and becoming more bestial.
There are more character choices in D&D, Horatio, then dreamt of in Wizard's classes.
Sounds more like min/max to me than simply playing a character concept. I.e. A holy warrior doesn't need to go cleric... But it's a dip into fighter is more powerful for a cleric than straight cleric.
Just saying the fact that multi-classing almost always ends up with what other class would make my character more powerful pretty much reveals it's almost never for roleplaying reasons.
For example no one goes Paladin/cleric or straight Paladin for being a holy Warrior it's always Cleric/fighter.
I disagree. To say that Multi-Class is always more powerful or do say it's always about power. There are so many ways to rate what is powerful, we can quickly devolve into a semantic argument, where every class is about power and the feel of power.
Note: I don't "Theory Craft" characters to level 20. I've NEVER seen a level 20 character, in over a decade of playing I've never seen past level 15, and usually it's 1-8. So MultiClassing is a *very* specific choice, because if you MultiClass you might never see some of your really boss abilities from level 5+.
I think the reason Unearthed Arcana has focused so heavily on Sub-Classes is.
A lot of the old Prestige Classes (Arcane Archer, Mystic Theurge, etc...) are now SubClasses.
The Favored Soul is now a Sorcerer with Cleric spells. There is a Warlock that makes a Pact with an Angel.
I can't comment about your example of no one goes "Paladin/Cleric" or "Paladin" instead of "Cleric/Fighter" with the exception that before 4th edition it wasn't even POSSIBLE.
Even currently Paladin is a *very* specific feeling. Actually Paladin is a great case-point. Any multi-class of Paladin especially before 9th level will significantly disadvantage you vs a pure-class. Because you're pushing back lots of of your core abilties: Fighting Style, Spell Casting, Divine Smite; Sacret Oath; ASI/Feat; Extra Attack, 2nd lvl Spells; Aura of Protection, 2nd Sacred Oath; 2nd ASI/Feat. But the class doesn't cantrips, you don't even get access to spells until 2nd level, and most of your abilities are Paladin level dependent.
A Fighter/Cleric either doesn't have nearly the power of a straight fighter (fighter has the most ASI/Feats), and is trading it for a few low level spells and a Channel Divinity.
A Cleric/Fighter is sacrificing her high level spells and class abilities which depend on her level for more martial skill and better weapon proficiencies.
A Fighter with the Background Acolyte will also look totally different, but lack any of the "connection" to their God (spells) but still be a Holy Warrior.
None of those 3 characters look the same, play the same, and each have a unique flavor. To call a player a min/maxer because a Pure-Class doesn't have the look/feel she wants is... crazy.
All I'm saying is that when people multiclass it's almost always the same class combinations and is almost always to get this other feature that happens to work really awesome with the other class features.
Very seldom do you ever see someone take a multiclass that doesn't seem to be to make their character stronger.
Why does a cleric want to go fighter? Probably to get the fighters abilities.
I could be wrong, but I seriously feel like most people who multiclass seriously go I want to be a Fighter/cleric then come up with the character concept.
I very much think it's almost always possible to go straight class and roleplay all the concepts that end up being used to explain the need for multiclassing. And multi-classing is all about gaining features to make your character more mechanically awesome than for roleplay.
I will say that I feel like Liam on Critical Role is the only time I've seen someone multiclass for pure roleplay reasons.