That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
Erm no, Multiclassing does not do that, the fact classes were poorly designed did that. Which is why we see in UA that Ranger got some massive buffs because Ranger was underpowered, Monk also was massively underpowered, meanwhile Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric were all overpowered and Druid and Bard were basically above average too. Paladins top the martials while some of the Barbarian subclasses got near no more features for DPR after level 5. The classes weren't working as intended, which again was shown by the critical change they tested in character origins playtest. 5E had some big issues with class balance, not that perfect balance is needed; Multiclassing however didn't break things worse than could already be done without multiclassing.
This again, is just about your personal bias and not about what is good for the game. You don't like multiclassing, we get it, but again, the changes you purpose are just terrible.
One could say the same on bias where defenders of MC is concerned. Multi-classing is a crutch and hampers creativity more than it encourages it. Admittedly that is just my opinion based upon 45 years of observation on the inanity of MC characters that graced the tables of my groups.
That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
Erm no, Multiclassing does not do that, the fact classes were poorly designed did that. Which is why we see in UA that Ranger got some massive buffs because Ranger was underpowered, Monk also was massively underpowered, meanwhile Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric were all overpowered and Druid and Bard were basically above average too. Paladins top the martials while some of the Barbarian subclasses got near no more features for DPR after level 5. The classes weren't working as intended, which again was shown by the critical change they tested in character origins playtest. 5E had some big issues with class balance, not that perfect balance is needed; Multiclassing however didn't break things worse than could already be done without multiclassing.
This again, is just about your personal bias and not about what is good for the game. You don't like multiclassing, we get it, but again, the changes you purpose are just terrible.
One could say the same on bias where defenders of MC is concerned. Multi-classing is a crutch and hampers creativity more than it encourages it.
Multi-classing which increases customization "hampers creativity", what? That makes literally no sense. Sorry but that view point and argument is just wrong. Multi-classing is something that those that partake enjoy, there is no requirement that somebody HAS to multi-class within 5E to begin with, it just adds more ways for people to enjoy character customization and role play. And let's be honest, people aren't coming here to complain about multi-classing because of balance, 5E doesn't have balance, they are complaining because they see people enjoying something and getting something, from something they themselves do not like, that is entirely bias on the side against multi-classing, nobody can actually give a decent argument against multi-classing. And this thread was about trying to ruin multi-classing via stealth buffs to "pure" builds, as if characters can only be limited to 1 class and that some how is "good".
That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
Erm no, Multiclassing does not do that, the fact classes were poorly designed did that. Which is why we see in UA that Ranger got some massive buffs because Ranger was underpowered, Monk also was massively underpowered, meanwhile Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric were all overpowered and Druid and Bard were basically above average too. Paladins top the martials while some of the Barbarian subclasses got near no more features for DPR after level 5. The classes weren't working as intended, which again was shown by the critical change they tested in character origins playtest. 5E had some big issues with class balance, not that perfect balance is needed; Multiclassing however didn't break things worse than could already be done without multiclassing.
This again, is just about your personal bias and not about what is good for the game. You don't like multiclassing, we get it, but again, the changes you purpose are just terrible.
One could say the same on bias where defenders of MC is concerned. Multi-classing is a crutch and hampers creativity more than it encourages it.
Multi-classing which increases customization "hampers creativity", what? That makes literally no sense. Sorry but that view point and argument is just wrong. Multi-classing is something that those that partake enjoy, there is no requirement that somebody HAS to multi-class within 5E to begin with, it just adds more ways for people to enjoy character customization and role play. And let's be honest, people aren't coming here to complain about multi-classing because of balance, 5E doesn't have balance, they are complaining because they see people enjoying something and getting something, from something they themselves do not like, that is entirely bias on the side against multi-classing, nobody can actually give a decent argument against multi-classing. And this thread was about trying to ruin multi-classing via stealth buffs to "pure" builds, as if characters can only be limited to 1 class and that some how is "good".
there is no concept that "Requires" multi-classing. Every concept can be achieved by a judicious selection of skills, feats, sub-class, a conversation with the DM and an application of imagination.
If you are playing the mechanics then you are not playing the character.
Multi-classing which increases customization "hampers creativity", what? That makes literally no sense. Sorry but that view point and argument is just wrong. Multi-classing is something that those that partake enjoy, there is no requirement that somebody HAS to multi-class within 5E to begin with, it just adds more ways for people to enjoy character customization and role play. And let's be honest, people aren't coming here to complain about multi-classing because of balance, 5E doesn't have balance, they are complaining because they see people enjoying something and getting something, from something they themselves do not like, that is entirely bias on the side against multi-classing, nobody can actually give a decent argument against multi-classing. And this thread was about trying to ruin multi-classing via stealth buffs to "pure" builds, as if characters can only be limited to 1 class and that some how is "good".
there is no concept that "Requires" multi-classing. Every concept can be achieved by a judicious selection of skills, feats, sub-class, a conversation with the DM and an application of imagination.
If you are playing the mechanics then you are not playing the character.
This isn't about what is "required", it's about what makes the game better and more open to more players and Multiclassing does that. Some might homebrew, but homebrew is vastly more open to creating problems than Multiclassing is.
Who said multiclassing is just "playing with mechanics", literally one of the points I just made is it opens up MORE role play opportunities, whenever anybody in my group wants to multiclass the DM of which ever campaign it is, uses that as a hook for a plot to a story or side story which the whole group can roleplay around. Like when the bard wanted to get a level in cleric, the DM had us go around and do some small jobs for a local life cleric who taught the bard more about being a cleric. When I did it for a rogue/wizard, it was used as a plot point that my character's motivation was that they were a spy for one of the national powers and they were away from the family who mainly specialized in magical artifact research when one of the artifacts was stolen from that character's sister. He went back to the family and his mother reminded him of all his lessons as a child in magic which also lead to a small side quest of him needing to get a new magic book, which tied into the main story line as the book seller he sought out was actually an important NPC who had already been planned but gave a new way for us to run into that NPC.
That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
Multiclassing doesn't hurt the core game in anyway. It isn't even overpowered; I said it before and I'll say it again, single classes can keep up with the most optimized multiclass builds. Multiclassing does not warp the game balance. It is incredibly fun for those of us who enjoy it, especially those that find enjoyment in the crunchier side of the game.
there is no concept that "Requires" multi-classing. Every concept can be achieved by a judicious selection of skills, feats, sub-class, a conversation with the DM and an application of imagination.
If you are playing the mechanics then you are not playing the character.
Ever heard of Stormwind's Fallacy? Playing the mechanics and playing the character are not mutual exclusive. There is also nothing wrong with playing the crunchier side of things.
Furthermore, it is not about it being required. It is about people ENJOYING multiclassing. Most people I know, even the ones that don't multiclass themselves, would not ban multiclassing because they know that there are people who greatly enjoy it. This thread is basically just trying to stealth nerf multiclassing out of pure dislike. There is nothing wrong with 5E multiclassing.
That sounds more like the classes weren't designed right rather than the multi-class rules being wrong.
Exactly.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
Erm no, Multiclassing does not do that, the fact classes were poorly designed did that. Which is why we see in UA that Ranger got some massive buffs because Ranger was underpowered, Monk also was massively underpowered, meanwhile Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric were all overpowered and Druid and Bard were basically above average too. Paladins top the martials while some of the Barbarian subclasses got near no more features for DPR after level 5. The classes weren't working as intended, which again was shown by the critical change they tested in character origins playtest. 5E had some big issues with class balance, not that perfect balance is needed; Multiclassing however didn't break things worse than could already be done without multiclassing.
This again, is just about your personal bias and not about what is good for the game. You don't like multiclassing, we get it, but again, the changes you purpose are just terrible.
One could say the same on bias where defenders of MC is concerned. Multi-classing is a crutch and hampers creativity more than it encourages it.
Multi-classing which increases customization "hampers creativity", what? That makes literally no sense. Sorry but that view point and argument is just wrong. Multi-classing is something that those that partake enjoy, there is no requirement that somebody HAS to multi-class within 5E to begin with, it just adds more ways for people to enjoy character customization and role play. And let's be honest, people aren't coming here to complain about multi-classing because of balance, 5E doesn't have balance, they are complaining because they see people enjoying something and getting something, from something they themselves do not like, that is entirely bias on the side against multi-classing, nobody can actually give a decent argument against multi-classing. And this thread was about trying to ruin multi-classing via stealth buffs to "pure" builds, as if characters can only be limited to 1 class and that some how is "good".
there is no concept that "Requires" multi-classing. Every concept can be achieved by a judicious selection of skills, feats, sub-class, a conversation with the DM and an application of imagination.
If you are playing the mechanics then you are not playing the character.
Then how do you make the character that I asked about here with only a single class without losing anything about it?
Then how do you make the character that I asked about here with only a single class without losing anything about it?
that... that if I understand it correctly is close to being close an abserd character... wow.
And abserd was actively made as a troll of a character.
I dont see anything in that post states the goal or core concept of the character. And with out that there really is no concept just an attempt to abuse the Multi-class system.
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it. The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system. Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features. No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system. Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss. Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight. And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right. None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class. It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it. The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system. Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features. No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system. Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss. Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight. And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right. None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class. It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
I don't see any mess in the current multiclass system other than ASI's being a bit annoying, but that is rather minor and managable.
It can be both because it already is being both and works just fine. It isn't trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or spits in the sub-class system or anything like that. It is just a crunchier option and there is nothing wrong with that. I also disagree that you are able to make any concept with a single class; I have yet to find a way to accurately recreate Okita Alter in 5E with multiclassing, let alone single classing.
Also, Eldritch Knight is nothing like a proper 2E Fighter/Mage Dual Class. A fighter mage dual class would be closer to a fullcaster, same with Mage/Thief, due to how classes requiring different amount of xp per level.
The most inane multiclass combinations tend to show up among the Charisma casters because of the weird synergy between Hex Warrior, Pact Magic, Divine Smite, and Font of Magic, but even then, the players have to be deliberate in how stupid they get with them.
Wizard + Artificer dip is also pretty lulzy because you get a Wizard who can have an actual shield while still being able to cast shield, and medium armor frees you up to take something other than mage armor. And that's on top of being able to cast stuff like cure wounds and faerie fire.
The most inane multiclass combinations tend to show up among the Charisma casters because of the weird synergy between Hex Warrior, Pact Magic, Divine Smite, and Font of Magic, but even then, the players have to be deliberate in how stupid they get with them.
Wizard + Artificer dip is also pretty lulzy because you get a Wizard who can have an actual shield while still being able to cast shield, and medium armor frees you up to take something other than mage armor. And that's on top of being able to cast stuff like cure wounds and faerie fire.
And none of that really warps the game balance. An optimized single class character is still able to keep up with those multiclass combos. Before Artificer, Knowledge Cleric was a common pick as a dip for wizard due to the expertise in 2 knowledge skills, letting them grab Arcana for scribing checks.
The most inane multiclass combinations tend to show up among the Charisma casters because of the weird synergy between Hex Warrior, Pact Magic, Divine Smite, and Font of Magic, but even then, the players have to be deliberate in how stupid they get with them.
Wizard + Artificer dip is also pretty lulzy because you get a Wizard who can have an actual shield while still being able to cast shield, and medium armor frees you up to take something other than mage armor. And that's on top of being able to cast stuff like cure wounds and faerie fire.
And none of that really warps the game balance. An optimized single class character is still able to keep up with those multiclass combos. Before Artificer, Knowledge Cleric was a common pick as a dip for wizard due to the expertise in 2 knowledge skills, letting them grab Arcana for scribing checks.
You assume I have a problem with any of this. I'm just pointing some of the multiclasses that I tend to hear something about.
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it. The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system. Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features. No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system. Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss. Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight. And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right. None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class. It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
I don't see any mess in the current multiclass system other than ASI's being a bit annoying, but that is rather minor and managable.
It can be both because it already is being both and works just fine. It isn't trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or spits in the sub-class system or anything like that. It is just a crunchier option and there is nothing wrong with that. I also disagree that you are able to make any concept with a single class; I have yet to find a way to accurately recreate Okita Alter in 5E with multiclassing, let alone single classing.
Also, Eldritch Knight is nothing like a proper 2E Fighter/Mage Dual Class. A fighter mage dual class would be closer to a fullcaster, same with Mage/Thief, due to how classes requiring different amount of xp per level.
Well Keep in mind in 2e we used Multi-classing for a different reason than was/is used since 3.x. in 2e and previous we had level limits on certain races. MC was conceived of originally as a way around those limits. as to accurately recreating Okita Alter? I have no clue who that is. But when "re-creating" characters? never carbon copy, emulate, and aproximate. What is the basic concept of the character? What tropes does it use? etc...
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it. The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system. Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features. No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system. Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss. Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight. And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right. None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class. It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
I don't see any mess in the current multiclass system other than ASI's being a bit annoying, but that is rather minor and managable.
It can be both because it already is being both and works just fine. It isn't trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or spits in the sub-class system or anything like that. It is just a crunchier option and there is nothing wrong with that. I also disagree that you are able to make any concept with a single class; I have yet to find a way to accurately recreate Okita Alter in 5E with multiclassing, let alone single classing.
Also, Eldritch Knight is nothing like a proper 2E Fighter/Mage Dual Class. A fighter mage dual class would be closer to a fullcaster, same with Mage/Thief, due to how classes requiring different amount of xp per level.
Well Keep in mind in 2e we used Multi-classing for a different reason than was/is used since 3.x. in 2e and previous we had level limits on certain races. MC was conceived of originally as a way around those limits. as to accurately recreating Okita Alter? I have no clue who that is. But when "re-creating" characters? never carbon copy, emulate, and aproximate. What is the basic concept of the character? What tropes does it use? etc...
I already posted a video of her in a previous response and I have yet to find a way to re-create her in a satisfying manner. A huge noteworthy part of her fighting style is her teleport spam. And no, Eldritch Knight with misty step does not cut it. You say we shouldn't carbon copy, but that does not mean a shadow with barely a resembrence will suffice.
I am fine with multiclassing existing, and while balance may not be "warped", outside of full casters every optimized character multi classes. Does it break the game, no. But if its always the best option its probably not good for the game as it is currently implemented. Like i said earlier I think the fix should be making classes better as they level, don't have obvious break off points where classes gain very little after 5/7 etc. Have high level abilities act like high level abilities. If another cirt die is a good benefit at level 9(its not but this is just an example) the same dang thing 4 levels later will no longer be a good benefit. A wizard got 2 spell levels over those 4 levels and each level gave them increasingly powerful spells. The abilities a barbarian gains should be increasingly powerful as they level.
This still allows people to multi class because bard/barbarian fit the skald theme they were going for, or because they liked how feature B on this rogue subclass interacted with feature C of this sorcerer class. But it doesn't make it the obvious choice for mechanical power every time for non full casters. The same drivers that get players to stick with wizard for almost all levels should be there for fighters, rogues, barbarians.
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it. The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system. Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features. No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system. Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss. Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight. And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right. None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class. It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
I don't see any mess in the current multiclass system other than ASI's being a bit annoying, but that is rather minor and managable.
It can be both because it already is being both and works just fine. It isn't trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or spits in the sub-class system or anything like that. It is just a crunchier option and there is nothing wrong with that. I also disagree that you are able to make any concept with a single class; I have yet to find a way to accurately recreate Okita Alter in 5E with multiclassing, let alone single classing.
Also, Eldritch Knight is nothing like a proper 2E Fighter/Mage Dual Class. A fighter mage dual class would be closer to a fullcaster, same with Mage/Thief, due to how classes requiring different amount of xp per level.
Well Keep in mind in 2e we used Multi-classing for a different reason than was/is used since 3.x. in 2e and previous we had level limits on certain races. MC was conceived of originally as a way around those limits. as to accurately recreating Okita Alter? I have no clue who that is. But when "re-creating" characters? never carbon copy, emulate, and aproximate. What is the basic concept of the character? What tropes does it use? etc...
I already posted a video of her in a previous response and I have yet to find a way to re-create her in a satisfying manner. A huge noteworthy part of her fighting style is her teleport spam. And no, Eldritch Knight with misty step does not cut it. You say we shouldn't carbon copy, but that does not mean a shadow with barely a resembrence will suffice.
All I saw in that mobile game demo was a poorly animated imitation of a turn based fighters multi-attack and an over the top anime critical hit from an obviously special artifact level magic sword. To me there is nothing there to indicate she is any thing other than a basic fighter.
So far, the only argument I've seen that MCing should be discouraged, beyond the meaningless assertion that it just is, is that it's a suboptimal way of doing what you already can do with a single class.
If we accept that claim, arguendo, why is that even a reason to further punish it?
Is there really a reason to discourage it, beyond "eeeww, I don't like it, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either"? I don't MC myself, but I'm a little confused as to why this is a problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Then how do you make the character that I asked about here with only a single class without losing anything about it?
that... that if I understand it correctly is close to being close an abserd character... wow.
And abserd was actively made as a troll of a character.
He was definitely a troll/joke character, no doubts, doesn't stop the whole thing being funny. Of course, all he needed to do to be viable is take a second level in warlock (since 14 gave 2 classes, level 2), and picked up agonizing blast. Which when you think about it just shows how sorry the state of warlock is in 5E and how broken that whole class was, it was basically reliant on features you could get by 2nd level, with maybe the occasional higher-leveled spell. Which goes back to my original point of what is broken in 5E is not multiclassing, it's classes themselves.
Is there really a reason to discourage it, beyond "eeeww, I don't like it, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either"? I don't MC myself, but I'm a little confused as to why this is a problem.
If there was a real answer to that one, we would have heard it already, it's literally not a problem, some people just dislike that other people do it and enjoy it. Out of the 5 characters I have played in 5E, only 2 were multiclass and I had about as much fun on all of them, tho the Paladin/Sorcerer/Warlock has proved the most fun and interesting overall, but I'm not going to write 5 pages of A4 pieces of paper for the story to go over that.... The other character I mentioned before is Rogue/Wizard, which the campaign was put on hiatus due to real-life issue, so didn't get quiet as much time on.
There is no big problem with 5E multiclassing, never has been.
There is one, it's that multiclassing is often used as a band-aid for poor class design (sorlock, hexadin). But it's a problem of class design, not multiclassing in itself.
I don't think they will be changing how Cleric and Warlocks subclasses work due to how they work lore wise. They pick their archetype immediately because of how they are gaining their spellcasting.
Then again, paladins gain supernatural abilities from level 1, but only swear an oath to the divinity at level 3. In exactly the same manner, a warlock could dabble in the occult for the first two levels, then seal the pact at level 3 with a choice of subclass.
No. The classes work as intended for the most part. Having to design around multiclassing makes exploring and expanding them more constrained. Multiclassing is unnecessary and hurts the core game.
"For the most part" is the key phrase. Have you tried playing a warlock? Multiclassing is an optional feature, even in basic rules it is listed as such. It has a right to exist - as an option, so long that it doesn't make a game-changing difference. It doesn't make such difference even now.
One could say the same on bias where defenders of MC is concerned.
Multi-classing is a crutch and hampers creativity more than it encourages it.
Admittedly that is just my opinion based upon 45 years of observation on the inanity of MC characters that graced the tables of my groups.
Multi-classing which increases customization "hampers creativity", what? That makes literally no sense. Sorry but that view point and argument is just wrong. Multi-classing is something that those that partake enjoy, there is no requirement that somebody HAS to multi-class within 5E to begin with, it just adds more ways for people to enjoy character customization and role play. And let's be honest, people aren't coming here to complain about multi-classing because of balance, 5E doesn't have balance, they are complaining because they see people enjoying something and getting something, from something they themselves do not like, that is entirely bias on the side against multi-classing, nobody can actually give a decent argument against multi-classing. And this thread was about trying to ruin multi-classing via stealth buffs to "pure" builds, as if characters can only be limited to 1 class and that some how is "good".
there is no concept that "Requires" multi-classing.
Every concept can be achieved by a judicious selection of skills, feats, sub-class, a conversation with the DM and an application of imagination.
If you are playing the mechanics then you are not playing the character.
This isn't about what is "required", it's about what makes the game better and more open to more players and Multiclassing does that. Some might homebrew, but homebrew is vastly more open to creating problems than Multiclassing is.
Who said multiclassing is just "playing with mechanics", literally one of the points I just made is it opens up MORE role play opportunities, whenever anybody in my group wants to multiclass the DM of which ever campaign it is, uses that as a hook for a plot to a story or side story which the whole group can roleplay around. Like when the bard wanted to get a level in cleric, the DM had us go around and do some small jobs for a local life cleric who taught the bard more about being a cleric. When I did it for a rogue/wizard, it was used as a plot point that my character's motivation was that they were a spy for one of the national powers and they were away from the family who mainly specialized in magical artifact research when one of the artifacts was stolen from that character's sister. He went back to the family and his mother reminded him of all his lessons as a child in magic which also lead to a small side quest of him needing to get a new magic book, which tied into the main story line as the book seller he sought out was actually an important NPC who had already been planned but gave a new way for us to run into that NPC.
Multiclassing doesn't hurt the core game in anyway. It isn't even overpowered; I said it before and I'll say it again, single classes can keep up with the most optimized multiclass builds. Multiclassing does not warp the game balance. It is incredibly fun for those of us who enjoy it, especially those that find enjoyment in the crunchier side of the game.
Ever heard of Stormwind's Fallacy? Playing the mechanics and playing the character are not mutual exclusive. There is also nothing wrong with playing the crunchier side of things.
Also, I have yet to find a way to fully replicate some concepts such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvFOK-KFaNQ
Furthermore, it is not about it being required. It is about people ENJOYING multiclassing. Most people I know, even the ones that don't multiclass themselves, would not ban multiclassing because they know that there are people who greatly enjoy it. This thread is basically just trying to stealth nerf multiclassing out of pure dislike. There is nothing wrong with 5E multiclassing.
Then how do you make the character that I asked about here with only a single class without losing anything about it?
that... that if I understand it correctly is close to being close an abserd character... wow.
And abserd was actively made as a troll of a character.
I dont see anything in that post states the goal or core concept of the character. And with out that there really is no concept just an attempt to abuse the Multi-class system.
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it.
The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system.
Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features.
No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system.
Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss.
Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight.
And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right.
None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class.
It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
I don't see any mess in the current multiclass system other than ASI's being a bit annoying, but that is rather minor and managable.
It can be both because it already is being both and works just fine. It isn't trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or spits in the sub-class system or anything like that. It is just a crunchier option and there is nothing wrong with that. I also disagree that you are able to make any concept with a single class; I have yet to find a way to accurately recreate Okita Alter in 5E with multiclassing, let alone single classing.
Also, Eldritch Knight is nothing like a proper 2E Fighter/Mage Dual Class. A fighter mage dual class would be closer to a fullcaster, same with Mage/Thief, due to how classes requiring different amount of xp per level.
The most inane multiclass combinations tend to show up among the Charisma casters because of the weird synergy between Hex Warrior, Pact Magic, Divine Smite, and Font of Magic, but even then, the players have to be deliberate in how stupid they get with them.
Wizard + Artificer dip is also pretty lulzy because you get a Wizard who can have an actual shield while still being able to cast shield, and medium armor frees you up to take something other than mage armor. And that's on top of being able to cast stuff like cure wounds and faerie fire.
And none of that really warps the game balance. An optimized single class character is still able to keep up with those multiclass combos. Before Artificer, Knowledge Cleric was a common pick as a dip for wizard due to the expertise in 2 knowledge skills, letting them grab Arcana for scribing checks.
You assume I have a problem with any of this. I'm just pointing some of the multiclasses that I tend to hear something about.
Well Keep in mind in 2e we used Multi-classing for a different reason than was/is used since 3.x.
in 2e and previous we had level limits on certain races. MC was conceived of originally as a way around those limits.
as to accurately recreating Okita Alter? I have no clue who that is. But when "re-creating" characters? never carbon copy, emulate, and aproximate. What is the basic concept of the character? What tropes does it use? etc...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QvFOK-KFaNQ
I already posted a video of her in a previous response and I have yet to find a way to re-create her in a satisfying manner. A huge noteworthy part of her fighting style is her teleport spam. And no, Eldritch Knight with misty step does not cut it. You say we shouldn't carbon copy, but that does not mean a shadow with barely a resembrence will suffice.
I am fine with multiclassing existing, and while balance may not be "warped", outside of full casters every optimized character multi classes. Does it break the game, no. But if its always the best option its probably not good for the game as it is currently implemented. Like i said earlier I think the fix should be making classes better as they level, don't have obvious break off points where classes gain very little after 5/7 etc. Have high level abilities act like high level abilities. If another cirt die is a good benefit at level 9(its not but this is just an example) the same dang thing 4 levels later will no longer be a good benefit. A wizard got 2 spell levels over those 4 levels and each level gave them increasingly powerful spells. The abilities a barbarian gains should be increasingly powerful as they level.
This still allows people to multi class because bard/barbarian fit the skald theme they were going for, or because they liked how feature B on this rogue subclass interacted with feature C of this sorcerer class. But it doesn't make it the obvious choice for mechanical power every time for non full casters. The same drivers that get players to stick with wizard for almost all levels should be there for fighters, rogues, barbarians.
All I saw in that mobile game demo was a poorly animated imitation of a turn based fighters multi-attack and an over the top anime critical hit from an obviously special artifact level magic sword. To me there is nothing there to indicate she is any thing other than a basic fighter.
So far, the only argument I've seen that MCing should be discouraged, beyond the meaningless assertion that it just is, is that it's a suboptimal way of doing what you already can do with a single class.
If we accept that claim, arguendo, why is that even a reason to further punish it?
Is there really a reason to discourage it, beyond "eeeww, I don't like it, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either"? I don't MC myself, but I'm a little confused as to why this is a problem.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
He was definitely a troll/joke character, no doubts, doesn't stop the whole thing being funny. Of course, all he needed to do to be viable is take a second level in warlock (since 14 gave 2 classes, level 2), and picked up agonizing blast. Which when you think about it just shows how sorry the state of warlock is in 5E and how broken that whole class was, it was basically reliant on features you could get by 2nd level, with maybe the occasional higher-leveled spell. Which goes back to my original point of what is broken in 5E is not multiclassing, it's classes themselves.
If there was a real answer to that one, we would have heard it already, it's literally not a problem, some people just dislike that other people do it and enjoy it. Out of the 5 characters I have played in 5E, only 2 were multiclass and I had about as much fun on all of them, tho the Paladin/Sorcerer/Warlock has proved the most fun and interesting overall, but I'm not going to write 5 pages of A4 pieces of paper for the story to go over that.... The other character I mentioned before is Rogue/Wizard, which the campaign was put on hiatus due to real-life issue, so didn't get quiet as much time on.
There is one, it's that multiclassing is often used as a band-aid for poor class design (sorlock, hexadin). But it's a problem of class design, not multiclassing in itself.
Then again, paladins gain supernatural abilities from level 1, but only swear an oath to the divinity at level 3. In exactly the same manner, a warlock could dabble in the occult for the first two levels, then seal the pact at level 3 with a choice of subclass.
"For the most part" is the key phrase. Have you tried playing a warlock? Multiclassing is an optional feature, even in basic rules it is listed as such. It has a right to exist - as an option, so long that it doesn't make a game-changing difference. It doesn't make such difference even now.