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.
I agree. Most multiclass options are not something a min/maxer would ever do. Paladin/Monk could be a very thematic multiclass; however, there is a reason people don't take it if they are trying to have a mechanically sound character. I think people focus too much on multiclasses combinations like Paladin/Sorcerer or Paladin/Warlock which do generally bring a lot the table. More often than not, going a straight 20 levels (or 10 or 15) is often times better.
I sometimes multiclass because it's the only way to build my spellsword how I want. I like to run a spellcaster that can also wear some armor and wield a short range weapon like a sword, and DnD 5 really opened this up for me with the way its multiclassing works. However, I have seen other players use multiclass to totally break the game, so it depends how it is used.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I use summon instrument to summon my kettle drum, hold it overhead like Donkey Kong, and chuck it at the nearest kobold.
I would say almost any class benefits from taking 2 levels of fighter to gain action surge and second wind. It doesn't prevent a majority of high level skills and all casters would still gain their 9th level slot. It does of course push everything back, and sacrifice a feat or ABS but it would seem to me the benefit outweigh the loss.
Personally, I've only multiclassed once because I was asked to play a cleric but I'd given them the soldier background. I wanted them to have sort of turned away from the mercenary life but still have a bit more fighting ability than cleric granted alone so I took 3 in fighter.
Thematically and roleplaying wise Paladin is a better option than multiclassing as it does both. At least Paladin/Cleric.
I really think the desire to go fighter has more to do with the fighters abilities than roleplaying. Am I wrong maybe.... But the question is why wasn't Paladin considered.
Most definitely a reasonable question. I suppose I cannot say for certain fighter wasn’t chosen because of abilities but I will try to clarify why multiclassing fighter/cleric was chosen verse a pure paladin or cleric/paladin mix.
As it turns out Paladin would have probably been fine but at the time, due to the composition of our team and my lack of experience playing D&D, I was concerned about a lack of mass cure wounds for ranged healing so I tried to go a different direction. I also wanted to stay away from any of the sacred oaths because he isn’t journeying to rid the world of any scourge. He journeys in an attempt to understand why he finally feels a connection to something other than himself.
I also could have probably taken 2 levels in paladin, and maintained another level of spellcasting but chose instead fighter and battle master because I felt maneuvers really make a character feel skilled with a weapon in a way other classes seem to lack. I wanted more than just being able to wield martial weapons. I wanted him to have a fineness or deeper understanding from years of soldiering.
In truth, the character should probably take more levels in fighter to better reflect martial skill and an unstable connection to his deity. However, because I’m a caster at heart I will likely keep my foray into fighter 3 as he still gains the maneuvers and can learn high level spells.
I enjoy multiclassing and i agree with Filthycasual it add diversity. My character don't run around their adventures intoducing themselfs as Captin Hastel rogue 9 bard 2, the classes are simply a way to grant features,
Personally i find it helps me to build my characters backgroud arounf their class abilities and skills.
Also there are multiple ways paladin warlock can work from an RP persepective maybe the character stsrted as warlock and then sought redemtion by becoming a paladin
Oddly Thaddeus, I haven't found that to be the case. It seems everyone starts Paladin and then goes Warlock. I'd say if you started Warlock and then sought redemption and became a Paladin that would be an interesting concept. Its something I'd want to have seen actually played out in the campaign, not just oh during leveling up I sought redemption and now.... But actually roleplaying it over the last level would be for an amazing gaming experience.
Also technically when you multiclass it represents what your PC has learned in the previous encounters, not what he knew 30 years ago that he somehow forgot how to do until he reached a certain level. So multiclassing for background reasons is more for the abilities than what makes rp sense.
Essentially I'm okay with Multiclassing if done from a rp perspective. In some cases I would rather people just admit they are doing it for the abilities and not for an rp reason.
Lets not forget the DM and style of game play a large role in how strong multiclassing may feel. There's no problem with your character wanting to become stronger, and certain abilities may look extremely appealing from a character's point of view. But its worth noting, that if your campaign is very combat focused and you increase your character's combat abilities, you'll obviously be stronger. However, you can also multiclass for out of combat abilities like a Rogue or Bard's expertise. In a combat focused campaign you'll be "weaker", but if the campaign involves skill checks, you'll be stronger. The DM also has a lot of influence over how strong different things seem. If you make use of a lot of Short Rests, then it easily makes sense for Paladins and Sorcerers to multiclass with Warlock to take advantage of those short rests. Likewise if magic is particularly strong then maybe you want to get some Druid, Cleric, or Wizard features if you're a barbarian or a non-spellcasting archetype. I mean, its not like your character is ignorant of other class abilities. Maybe they see how useful a feature is and they say "I want that!".
Every multiclassed character I've seen just winds up seeming underpowered for their total level without too much to show for it. I feel like multiclassing should be more of an RP thing, than a mechanics thing. Yes there are some useful combos, but mostly you're just going to be a weaker version of your primary class with a little extra flair or incredibly useful in one specific scenario and completely useless or severely ****** in any other scenario.
I had a necromancer wizard who was the former student of an evil necromancer. He was trying to make up for his shady past and wound up pledging himself to a life god and becoming wizard 4 cleric 1. It didn't affect him too much mechanically. He had a higher ac since he could wear medium armor and a shield, but fewer spell options since he couldn't learn any lvl 3 wizard spells, yet. And since he had to split his stats between int and wis in order to multiclass in the first place his spell dcs and spell attacks weren't as good as they'd be for a pure wizard stacking int. It was all about RP that I went multiclass with him and I actually really enjoyed it. Another guy was a bard and his character died, but the dm let him go a level into warlock to not die. The RP was that he sold his soul to the raven queen (his new pact patron) to be spared death. Now he is a bard 3 warlock 2.
There's also the question of how it makes sense that you're multiclassing. General level progressions in your primary class imply that you've been training and getting better at it all along which is why you're getting these new features at lvl up. If you multiclass then you need some reason for it. Has your fighter been studying a wizard's spellbook in his freetime instead of training with his sword? Has your barbarian been spending his free time communing with nature rather than hulking out on trees and rocks? Has your rogue decided to meditate and take up martial arts rather than hone his skills at infiltration/assassination? And so on. If a character wants to multiclass they should rp in some reason or explanation for what they are doing.
The variety of options available from multiclassing adds depth to a concept. You want your fighter to gain levels of Wizardry later, might explain why his background was Sage rather than Soldier. Those spell books never made any sense, until you had that 'tada'/'eureka' levelling up moment. Now it makes sense, those spells were stuck in your characters memory and you purchased a blank book and scribed those spells down.
The Barbarian had spent lots of time hunting and wandering through the wilderness, it was only one dawn (she had final watch), that she heard faint words on the wind...Awaken the Dawn (in Druidic). Nature had been teaching her, its only after her long rest and during her watch that she levelled as a Druid.
The Rogue Assasin witnessed one of the dreaded Hashasshin (Monk Assasins of Arabyia) give her gift to someone. He followed and found himself at a Monastry run by Ras Al Ghul. His DM knew that he wanted to gain monk levels, so the Rogue is challenged to a duel to the death. He either dies or survives and earns the honor of receiving training.
The Noble Dilettante, who was taught the noble arts of Combat Martial (Fighting), Social Discourse (Conversation) and Heraldry (History) but also picked up some magic either Bardic Artistry or Wizardry and later having caught a pickpocket, who is now his manservant has learnt the wiles of the Rogue. Fighter 4(Eldritch Knight) Rogue 1 or Fighter 3(Battle Master), (Wizard/Bard 1), Rogue 1.
Staying with a single class is usually the easiest and most straightforward but can also be ****** in certain situations. It always depends on the setting, the DM and the player. So if you prefer to play a single class, that is fine. If you want to multi-class that is also fine. Always it is about having fun, can you create that character within the confines of a single class or does it need a specific background or do you need to take a level or few in another class.
You want to play an Eldritch Knight at level 1, then go Human (Variant), choose Magic Initiate (Wizard), chose Fighter as your class, take Arcana as your Human Skill Proficiency. Then you have to choose 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell. Shield or Thunderwave; Green Flame Blade and (Blade Ward or Ray of Frost).
You want to play a Seer/Clairvoyant/Swindler, look at Rogue, background Charlatan. Take Acrobatics, Insight,Perception, Deception, Sleight of Hand, Investigation. If Human take the Lucky Feat or Magic Initiate (Bard-Mending, Prestidigitation; Bane), (Cleric- Guidance, Spare the Dying; Bless),(Sorcerer- Blade Ward, Mending; Expeditious Retreat), (Warlock- Blade Ward, Prestidigitation; Hex). That Rogue could be an effective character, probably going Mastermind but could happily multiclass as a Wizard (Diviner).
Agreed. There is a guy in my game that is an Eldrich Night fighter, and multi classed as a wizard. He's trying to make himself a sword mage basically. it has been really fun to play against. I never thought about multi classing when i was a player, but now part of me wishes I did, It opens up a lot more possibilities
For the argument that multi-classing always makes you weaker:
Imagine a tier 3 Wizard with Alert and secondary dex giving them a very high bonus to initiative. Then getting two levels in fighter for Action surge. This allows you to, in most cases, go first and cast 2 full action spells in encounters.
I'm thinking that's probably stronger than a wizard whois 2 levels higher? You do miss out on getting certain high level spells as quickly but you can still reach every level of spell.
For the argument that multi-classing always makes you weaker:
Imagine a tier 3 Wizard with Alert and secondary dex giving them a very high bonus to initiative. Then getting two levels in fighter for Action surge. This allows you to, in most cases, go first and cast 2 full action spells in encounters.
I'm thinking that's probably stronger than a wizard whois 2 levels higher? You do miss out on getting certain high level spells as quickly but you can still reach every level of spell.
The point is that if you are comparing a wizard with 2 levels of fighter and a straight wizard, until you hit 19th character level (which a lot of campaigns just plain don't) the straight wizard character will have the next higher level of spells - which while tossing off 2 3rd-level spells might trump a single 4th-level spell in most cases, a single 5th-level or higher spell often has a much more potent effect that two spells of up to one level lower might not manage to match.
Plus, spell slots matter - the multi-classed character might hit 5th level wizard, and be able to double-cast 3rd-level spells... but that's their whole allotment of 3rd-level spells for the day, while the straight wizard character would be 7th level and would have another 3rd-level spell slot besides also having 4th level spells.
Let's say rogues are baseball players. And barbarians are american-style football players. And wizards are basketball players. And bards hockey players. Etc. (Please don't try to identify the reason for any one class being equated to any one sport. Not the point here.)
So, one could say that within each (team) sport, there are positions. These would be like fighters that specialize in different weapons, or wizards that specialize in different spell schools. Metaphor still going strong.
But. There are other sports out there. Rugby. Jai Alai. Water polo. Whatever. And let's say that rugby doesn't exist, but American football and (soccer) football do exist. Now the best approximation to rugby you can get would be to mash up and mix the rules of the 2 footballs. (Again, metaphor to make a point here. Please don't read too much into what I may or may not be saying about the sports themselves.)
This is how I view multiclassing. Class abilities are what my character can DO, not who my character IS. Maybe my barbarian likes to sing. Maybe my fighter discovers he could cast spells all along but didn't know it. Maybe my Paladin has warlock abilities (this one seems to be a real controversy...) Point is, the character is the character. Class is just how to fit what they can do into the rules of the game.
Now, my 2 coppers about the Pal-lock. First, always talk it out. If it's a deal breaker either way, maybe the dm needs to find new players, or the player needs to find a new DM. However, I believe a little reskinning can fix anything. Maybe the paladin's deity has sub-deities that the Paladin can 'subcontract' with for power (so no conflict of interest.) If Fiend pact doest fit with the 'holy' theme, just make it a celestial pact instead, complete with radiant damage spells and 'hurl through heaven.' And I believe most paladins would agree that their deity could be described as both 'great' and 'old'.
Whatever the combo, I always keep in mind that my characters' powers don't come from training, or their bloodlines, or the magical 'weave', or any sort of deity, fiend or fey. They get their powers from my imagination.
The old history of Paladins who must serve a deity and be lawful good or they lose their powers is no longer the case in 5e. Now a Paladin who makes a Pact may do so like you said as a Subcontract with a servitor or allied force.
Arrhan and Belissa are both Paladins of the Lightbringer Order. Arrhanhas sworn a Devotion Oath to the Lord of Fire, Belissa has sworn an Oath of Vengeance for the Lord of Fire. Both make pacts Arrhan is corrupted by a Fiendish Patron who has persuaded him that she is allied with the Lord of Fire. Arrhan forges a Fiend Pact. Belissa has subcontracted with the the Solar Rusolux who offers her a 'Fiend Pact' to help Belissa fight fire with fire.
Both Arrhan and Belissa are Paladins who have forged Pacts with in one case a Fiendish Power, in the other a powerful solar who can offer a fiend pact. Ultimately its all flavor, storywise though there are many possibilities. Arrhan could now play out as a fallen Paladin, the Lord of Light doesn't remove the Paladin powers, as a way of persuading him to return to the path of the Lord of Fire. Belissa its business as usual, the DM might consider creating complexity via having a players rival who somehow can sense that Belissa is now demonstrating some fiendish powers.
I really like the Celestial/Fiend Pact concept but absolutely love the plain and simple fact that characters get their power from my imagination.
Until you hit 19th character level (which a lot of campaigns just plain don't) the straight wizard character
Ah, I didn't do it until 14th level wizard. So I missed out on getting an 8th level spell untill I go back to wizard for "17" (15), but maybe I'm just not as excited by the 8th level spells as I should be.
Also remember arcane recovery, and most of my adventures I am taking a long rest with lots of unused spell slots.
For the argument that multi-classing always makes you weaker:
Imagine a tier 3 Wizard with Alert and secondary dex giving them a very high bonus to initiative. Then getting two levels in fighter for Action surge. This allows you to, in most cases, go first and cast 2 full action spells in encounters.
I'm thinking that's probably stronger than a wizard whois 2 levels higher? You do miss out on getting certain high level spells as quickly but you can still reach every level of spell.
For the argument that multi-classing always makes you weaker:
Imagine a tier 3 Wizard with Alert and secondary dex giving them a very high bonus to initiative. Then getting two levels in fighter for Action surge. This allows you to, in most cases, go first and cast 2 full action spells in encounters.
I'm thinking that's probably stronger than a wizard whois 2 levels higher? You do miss out on getting certain high level spells as quickly but you can still reach every level of spell.
For the argument that multi-classing always makes you weaker:
Imagine a tier 3 Wizard with Alert and secondary dex giving them a very high bonus to initiative. Then getting two levels in fighter for Action surge. This allows you to, in most cases, go first and cast 2 full action spells in encounters.
I'm thinking that's probably stronger than a wizard whois 2 levels higher? You do miss out on getting certain high level spells as quickly but you can still reach every level of spell.
I thought you could only do one spell per turn.
With the fighters action surge you could do two. Your thinking of the bonus action spell -> cantrip is all you can cast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I sometimes multiclass because it's the only way to build my spellsword how I want. I like to run a spellcaster that can also wear some armor and wield a short range weapon like a sword, and DnD 5 really opened this up for me with the way its multiclassing works. However, I have seen other players use multiclass to totally break the game, so it depends how it is used.
I use summon instrument to summon my kettle drum, hold it overhead like Donkey Kong, and chuck it at the nearest kobold.
I would say almost any class benefits from taking 2 levels of fighter to gain action surge and second wind. It doesn't prevent a majority of high level skills and all casters would still gain their 9th level slot. It does of course push everything back, and sacrifice a feat or ABS but it would seem to me the benefit outweigh the loss.
Personally, I've only multiclassed once because I was asked to play a cleric but I'd given them the soldier background. I wanted them to have sort of turned away from the mercenary life but still have a bit more fighting ability than cleric granted alone so I took 3 in fighter.
Thematically and roleplaying wise Paladin is a better option than multiclassing as it does both. At least Paladin/Cleric.
I really think the desire to go fighter has more to do with the fighters abilities than roleplaying. Am I wrong maybe.... But the question is why wasn't Paladin considered.
Most definitely a reasonable question. I suppose I cannot say for certain fighter wasn’t chosen because of abilities but I will try to clarify why multiclassing fighter/cleric was chosen verse a pure paladin or cleric/paladin mix.
As it turns out Paladin would have probably been fine but at the time, due to the composition of our team and my lack of experience playing D&D, I was concerned about a lack of mass cure wounds for ranged healing so I tried to go a different direction. I also wanted to stay away from any of the sacred oaths because he isn’t journeying to rid the world of any scourge. He journeys in an attempt to understand why he finally feels a connection to something other than himself.
I also could have probably taken 2 levels in paladin, and maintained another level of spellcasting but chose instead fighter and battle master because I felt maneuvers really make a character feel skilled with a weapon in a way other classes seem to lack. I wanted more than just being able to wield martial weapons. I wanted him to have a fineness or deeper understanding from years of soldiering.
In truth, the character should probably take more levels in fighter to better reflect martial skill and an unstable connection to his deity. However, because I’m a caster at heart I will likely keep my foray into fighter 3 as he still gains the maneuvers and can learn high level spells.
I enjoy multiclassing and i agree with Filthycasual it add diversity. My character don't run around their adventures intoducing themselfs as Captin Hastel rogue 9 bard 2, the classes are simply a way to grant features,
Personally i find it helps me to build my characters backgroud arounf their class abilities and skills.
Also there are multiple ways paladin warlock can work from an RP persepective maybe the character stsrted as warlock and then sought redemtion by becoming a paladin
Oddly Thaddeus, I haven't found that to be the case. It seems everyone starts Paladin and then goes Warlock. I'd say if you started Warlock and then sought redemption and became a Paladin that would be an interesting concept. Its something I'd want to have seen actually played out in the campaign, not just oh during leveling up I sought redemption and now.... But actually roleplaying it over the last level would be for an amazing gaming experience.
Also technically when you multiclass it represents what your PC has learned in the previous encounters, not what he knew 30 years ago that he somehow forgot how to do until he reached a certain level. So multiclassing for background reasons is more for the abilities than what makes rp sense.
Essentially I'm okay with Multiclassing if done from a rp perspective. In some cases I would rather people just admit they are doing it for the abilities and not for an rp reason.
Lets not forget the DM and style of game play a large role in how strong multiclassing may feel. There's no problem with your character wanting to become stronger, and certain abilities may look extremely appealing from a character's point of view. But its worth noting, that if your campaign is very combat focused and you increase your character's combat abilities, you'll obviously be stronger. However, you can also multiclass for out of combat abilities like a Rogue or Bard's expertise. In a combat focused campaign you'll be "weaker", but if the campaign involves skill checks, you'll be stronger. The DM also has a lot of influence over how strong different things seem. If you make use of a lot of Short Rests, then it easily makes sense for Paladins and Sorcerers to multiclass with Warlock to take advantage of those short rests. Likewise if magic is particularly strong then maybe you want to get some Druid, Cleric, or Wizard features if you're a barbarian or a non-spellcasting archetype. I mean, its not like your character is ignorant of other class abilities. Maybe they see how useful a feature is and they say "I want that!".
Every multiclassed character I've seen just winds up seeming underpowered for their total level without too much to show for it. I feel like multiclassing should be more of an RP thing, than a mechanics thing. Yes there are some useful combos, but mostly you're just going to be a weaker version of your primary class with a little extra flair or incredibly useful in one specific scenario and completely useless or severely ****** in any other scenario.
I had a necromancer wizard who was the former student of an evil necromancer. He was trying to make up for his shady past and wound up pledging himself to a life god and becoming wizard 4 cleric 1. It didn't affect him too much mechanically. He had a higher ac since he could wear medium armor and a shield, but fewer spell options since he couldn't learn any lvl 3 wizard spells, yet. And since he had to split his stats between int and wis in order to multiclass in the first place his spell dcs and spell attacks weren't as good as they'd be for a pure wizard stacking int. It was all about RP that I went multiclass with him and I actually really enjoyed it. Another guy was a bard and his character died, but the dm let him go a level into warlock to not die. The RP was that he sold his soul to the raven queen (his new pact patron) to be spared death. Now he is a bard 3 warlock 2.
There's also the question of how it makes sense that you're multiclassing. General level progressions in your primary class imply that you've been training and getting better at it all along which is why you're getting these new features at lvl up. If you multiclass then you need some reason for it. Has your fighter been studying a wizard's spellbook in his freetime instead of training with his sword? Has your barbarian been spending his free time communing with nature rather than hulking out on trees and rocks? Has your rogue decided to meditate and take up martial arts rather than hone his skills at infiltration/assassination? And so on. If a character wants to multiclass they should rp in some reason or explanation for what they are doing.
The variety of options available from multiclassing adds depth to a concept. You want your fighter to gain levels of Wizardry later, might explain why his background was Sage rather than Soldier. Those spell books never made any sense, until you had that 'tada'/'eureka' levelling up moment. Now it makes sense, those spells were stuck in your characters memory and you purchased a blank book and scribed those spells down.
The Barbarian had spent lots of time hunting and wandering through the wilderness, it was only one dawn (she had final watch), that she heard faint words on the wind...Awaken the Dawn (in Druidic). Nature had been teaching her, its only after her long rest and during her watch that she levelled as a Druid.
The Rogue Assasin witnessed one of the dreaded Hashasshin (Monk Assasins of Arabyia) give her gift to someone. He followed and found himself at a Monastry run by Ras Al Ghul. His DM knew that he wanted to gain monk levels, so the Rogue is challenged to a duel to the death. He either dies or survives and earns the honor of receiving training.
The Noble Dilettante, who was taught the noble arts of Combat Martial (Fighting), Social Discourse (Conversation) and Heraldry (History) but also picked up some magic either Bardic Artistry or Wizardry and later having caught a pickpocket, who is now his manservant has learnt the wiles of the Rogue. Fighter 4(Eldritch Knight) Rogue 1 or Fighter 3(Battle Master), (Wizard/Bard 1), Rogue 1.
Staying with a single class is usually the easiest and most straightforward but can also be ****** in certain situations. It always depends on the setting, the DM and the player. So if you prefer to play a single class, that is fine. If you want to multi-class that is also fine. Always it is about having fun, can you create that character within the confines of a single class or does it need a specific background or do you need to take a level or few in another class.
You want to play an Eldritch Knight at level 1, then go Human (Variant), choose Magic Initiate (Wizard), chose Fighter as your class, take Arcana as your Human Skill Proficiency. Then you have to choose 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell. Shield or Thunderwave; Green Flame Blade and (Blade Ward or Ray of Frost).
You want to play a Seer/Clairvoyant/Swindler, look at Rogue, background Charlatan. Take Acrobatics, Insight, Perception, Deception, Sleight of Hand, Investigation. If Human take the Lucky Feat or Magic Initiate (Bard-Mending, Prestidigitation; Bane), (Cleric- Guidance, Spare the Dying; Bless),(Sorcerer- Blade Ward, Mending; Expeditious Retreat), (Warlock- Blade Ward, Prestidigitation; Hex). That Rogue could be an effective character, probably going Mastermind but could happily multiclass as a Wizard (Diviner).
Agreed. There is a guy in my game that is an Eldrich Night fighter, and multi classed as a wizard. He's trying to make himself a sword mage basically. it has been really fun to play against. I never thought about multi classing when i was a player, but now part of me wishes I did, It opens up a lot more possibilities
For the argument that multi-classing always makes you weaker:
Imagine a tier 3 Wizard with Alert and secondary dex giving them a very high bonus to initiative. Then getting two levels in fighter for Action surge. This allows you to, in most cases, go first and cast 2 full action spells in encounters.
I'm thinking that's probably stronger than a wizard whois 2 levels higher? You do miss out on getting certain high level spells as quickly but you can still reach every level of spell.
I'm gonna use sports metaphors, so bear with me.
Let's say rogues are baseball players. And barbarians are american-style football players. And wizards are basketball players. And bards hockey players. Etc. (Please don't try to identify the reason for any one class being equated to any one sport. Not the point here.)
So, one could say that within each (team) sport, there are positions. These would be like fighters that specialize in different weapons, or wizards that specialize in different spell schools. Metaphor still going strong.
But. There are other sports out there. Rugby. Jai Alai. Water polo. Whatever. And let's say that rugby doesn't exist, but American football and (soccer) football do exist. Now the best approximation to rugby you can get would be to mash up and mix the rules of the 2 footballs. (Again, metaphor to make a point here. Please don't read too much into what I may or may not be saying about the sports themselves.)
This is how I view multiclassing. Class abilities are what my character can DO, not who my character IS. Maybe my barbarian likes to sing. Maybe my fighter discovers he could cast spells all along but didn't know it. Maybe my Paladin has warlock abilities (this one seems to be a real controversy...) Point is, the character is the character. Class is just how to fit what they can do into the rules of the game.
Now, my 2 coppers about the Pal-lock. First, always talk it out. If it's a deal breaker either way, maybe the dm needs to find new players, or the player needs to find a new DM. However, I believe a little reskinning can fix anything. Maybe the paladin's deity has sub-deities that the Paladin can 'subcontract' with for power (so no conflict of interest.) If Fiend pact doest fit with the 'holy' theme, just make it a celestial pact instead, complete with radiant damage spells and 'hurl through heaven.' And I believe most paladins would agree that their deity could be described as both 'great' and 'old'.
Whatever the combo, I always keep in mind that my characters' powers don't come from training, or their bloodlines, or the magical 'weave', or any sort of deity, fiend or fey. They get their powers from my imagination.
I like your sporting metaphors and your Pal-Lock.
The old history of Paladins who must serve a deity and be lawful good or they lose their powers is no longer the case in 5e. Now a Paladin who makes a Pact may do so like you said as a Subcontract with a servitor or allied force.
Arrhan and Belissa are both Paladins of the Lightbringer Order. Arrhanhas sworn a Devotion Oath to the Lord of Fire, Belissa has sworn an Oath of Vengeance for the Lord of Fire. Both make pacts Arrhan is corrupted by a Fiendish Patron who has persuaded him that she is allied with the Lord of Fire. Arrhan forges a Fiend Pact. Belissa has subcontracted with the the Solar Rusolux who offers her a 'Fiend Pact' to help Belissa fight fire with fire.
Both Arrhan and Belissa are Paladins who have forged Pacts with in one case a Fiendish Power, in the other a powerful solar who can offer a fiend pact. Ultimately its all flavor, storywise though there are many possibilities. Arrhan could now play out as a fallen Paladin, the Lord of Light doesn't remove the Paladin powers, as a way of persuading him to return to the path of the Lord of Fire. Belissa its business as usual, the DM might consider creating complexity via having a players rival who somehow can sense that Belissa is now demonstrating some fiendish powers.
I really like the Celestial/Fiend Pact concept but absolutely love the plain and simple fact that characters get their power from my imagination.