Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
And yet a great many people on this board use the two interchangeably, and always targeted at the negative connotation you provided. The idea that anyone who makes good mechanical decisions for a character are doing so purely out of smug spite, with the conscious and explicit desire to degrade the experience of everyone else at the table. Why is that, if 'the hobby at large' has settled so conclusively on fixed definitions for the two terms?
Might it be that the rapid influx of new players has upset what some folks consider to be norms, and not everyone who's part of these ongoing 'discussions' is a three-decade hobby veteran?
because its not as well described or thought out as hes thinking (and i can say that as a near three decade veteran) the stigma has been there for both, and while in his place of play it might be different, in varoius others the two terms are used interchangibly and there has been mass discussion/argument about this for awhile, with some claiming both are bad, others claiming one is a good term, its a whole mess
Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
And yet a great many people on this board use the two interchangeably, and always targeted at the negative connotation you provided. The idea that anyone who makes good mechanical decisions for a character are doing so purely out of smug spite, with the conscious and explicit desire to degrade the experience of everyone else at the table. Why is that, if 'the hobby at large' has settled so conclusively on fixed definitions for the two terms?
Might it be that the rapid influx of new players has upset what some folks consider to be norms, and not everyone who's part of these ongoing 'discussions' is a three-decade hobby veteran?
because its not as well described or thought out as hes thinking (and i can say that as a near three decade veteran) the stigma has been there for both, and while in his place of play it might be different, in varoius others the two terms are used interchangibly and there has been mass discussion/argument about this for awhile, with some claiming both are bad, others claiming one is a good term, its a whole mess
I think it is safe to say that in the context of this discussion we are speaking of the Toxic variant and at this point are trying be disingenuous about being obtuse because of "loose" definitions.
Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
And yet a great many people on this board use the two interchangeably, and always targeted at the negative connotation you provided. The idea that anyone who makes good mechanical decisions for a character are doing so purely out of smug spite, with the conscious and explicit desire to degrade the experience of everyone else at the table. Why is that, if 'the hobby at large' has settled so conclusively on fixed definitions for the two terms?
Might it be that the rapid influx of new players has upset what some folks consider to be norms, and not everyone who's part of these ongoing 'discussions' is a three-decade hobby veteran?
because its not as well described or thought out as hes thinking (and i can say that as a near three decade veteran) the stigma has been there for both, and while in his place of play it might be different, in varoius others the two terms are used interchangibly and there has been mass discussion/argument about this for awhile, with some claiming both are bad, others claiming one is a good term, its a whole mess
I think it is safe to say that in the context of this discussion we are speaking of the Toxic variant and at this point are trying be disingenuous about being obtuse because of "loose" definitions.
I mean, I dont think they are purposefully being obtuse though, they make a valid point, you are generalizing and making untrue statements
Both terms have been well and clearly defined in the hobby at large for over 2 decades (almost 3) now. You failing to stay abreast of developments outside of an isolated sphere does not invalidate their usages.
And yet a great many people on this board use the two interchangeably, and always targeted at the negative connotation you provided. The idea that anyone who makes good mechanical decisions for a character are doing so purely out of smug spite, with the conscious and explicit desire to degrade the experience of everyone else at the table. Why is that, if 'the hobby at large' has settled so conclusively on fixed definitions for the two terms?
Might it be that the rapid influx of new players has upset what some folks consider to be norms, and not everyone who's part of these ongoing 'discussions' is a three-decade hobby veteran?
because its not as well described or thought out as hes thinking (and i can say that as a near three decade veteran) the stigma has been there for both, and while in his place of play it might be different, in varoius others the two terms are used interchangibly and there has been mass discussion/argument about this for awhile, with some claiming both are bad, others claiming one is a good term, its a whole mess
I think it is safe to say that in the context of this discussion we are speaking of the Toxic variant and at this point are trying be disingenuous about being obtuse because of "loose" definitions.
I mean, I dont think they are purposefully being obtuse though, they make a valid point, you are generalizing and making untrue statements
Yurei "And we're back to "min-maxers are evil and shouldn't be allowed to play". Cool. Thread now actually solved - make sure your character is terrible and has no realistic chance of succeeding on an adventure without DM fiat and you're good to go."
The originating post for me jumping in... you decide
The argument as I understand it then, Damian, is that multiclassing is a terrible horrible no good very bad rule that has only ever been used by The Bad Kind of optimizer to, as you put it, "get one opver on the DM". Multiclassing has never been used by anyone to fulfill an off-kilter class concept, represent unusual character growth or changes in the direction of their story, or as a means of livening up an otherwise dull character - no. Multiclassing is ONLY used by The Bad Kind of optimizer and as such it should be done away with entirely.
Is this correct, and/or absurd enough to get the point across?
Solo classes ARE viable, so that point is moot, some classes might be slightly overpowered or under powered but they are all viable. the only exception might be the battle rager barbarian since exhaustion mechanics in 5E punished it way too much.
That is very game dependent. Take the whole Sneak Attack thing going on. There are literally people who claim rogue is not a viable class to play without finding someway to hit BB + double SA. There are plenty who claim Monk isn't a viable single class in their games. Or sorcerer.
Perception is reality. If you beleive something strongly, that belief becomes reality for you, irregardless of what others think. And, given that games vary between tables, they might very well be correct. The default assumptions that WotC offers for balance are kinda ... almost never used, so they're meaningless.
Nah, I think trying to punish a player for making a creative choice by taking away a benefit they've already been given feels super bad. 0/10 would not recommend.
This I agree with. But an ability that fails to grow/improve outside of its class? is that punishing a player or is that just the price of multiclassing?
With the exception of cantrips, every feature already stops growing unless the class you're multi-classing into already has something that improves or grows that, such as spell slots, extra attack/sneak attack/etc on weapon attacks, or whatever. That continues as you take levels in the alternative class, you don't need some "extra" thing, it already exists.
Psi knight / soul knife is a popular multiclass in no small part due to the fact that both classes have separate die pools that grow based on proficency bonus, not class level. So not entirely true that cantrips are unique here.
Ok, I can't remember every feature off top of my head, but yes, there aren't many things that grow without leveling the class, cantrips are just the most obvious example. While Monk is underachieving, it's still viable, people are just afraid because reputation is it has less power, this isn't a multiclass problem anyway, this is balance issue between the classes. But sorcerer is just weird, the numbers sorcerer hits, it's basically the most viable class in the game, it out does wizard easily.
Booming Blade and double sneak attack were mostly oversights in the first place. Rogue currently as of the UA, has good DPR, not the best but good and much more consistent than in 5E, but as the UA shows, all of this issue mainly stemmed from sneak attack, not from multiclassing, after all you can get double sneak attack and booming blade without even multiclassing, if you ally with somebody who has haste or something like commander's strike from battle master... yeah. This is all the result of fundamentally broken features.
As of the UA, the only feature from the expert classes scaling with proficiency is bardic inspiration, but only number of uses, you'd still get stuck with a d6 instead of the dies from higher levels of bard.
The argument as I understand it then, Damian, is that multiclassing is a terrible horrible no good very bad rule that has only ever been used by The Bad Kind of optimizer to, as you put it, "get one opver on the DM". Multiclassing has never been used by anyone to fulfill an off-kilter class concept, represent unusual character growth or changes in the direction of their story, or as a means of livening up an otherwise dull character - no. Multiclassing is ONLY used by The Bad Kind of optimizer and as such it should be done away with entirely.
Is this correct, and/or absurd enough to get the point across?
Have I ever said it needs to go away? You are being disingenuous again. While I do not agree with the OPs idea of a feature that goes away. the Idea of a LOYALTY feature has merit at this point. Since obviously anything that remotely even hints at making the cost for MC truly fair (a delayed and never paid cost is not a fair cost) is a call for the complete dismantling of the mechanic.
As to your "absurd" example? Oddly enough... That "bad kind" as you put it? That is only multi-classer I have actually ever seen come to the table since the introduction of 3e. Oh I believe the "good kind" exist. At least according to all the message boards and forums they do. The Stormwind Fallacy says they do. But the reality of it? Never once have I met a player of a Multi-classed character that was not a table troll only concerned with their fun.
... As to your "absurd" example? Oddly enough... That "bad kind" as you put it? That is only multi-classer I have actually ever seen come to the table since the introduction of 3e. Oh I believe the "good kind" exist. At least according to all the message boards and forums they do. The Stormwind Fallacy says they do. But the reality of it? Never once have I met a player of a Multi-classed character that was not a table troll only concerned with their fun.
Hi, Damian. My name is Yurei. I'm a D&D player of 'bout fourish, four and a half years now, roleplayer for my entire adult life and a chunk before that before then, and the player of several multiclass characters who do not and never have existed as 'table trolls'.
This one, for example - Starlight Through Driving Rain, my current longest-running character. An artificer 11/wizard 1, whose wizard level is both mechanical - a single level of wizard is immensely beneficial to artificers as a means of diversifying their casting, relieving cantrip pressure, and enabling access to staple utility rituals - and narrative; Star's father is a powerful and well-regarded, if thoroughly retired, battlemage who started Star on the road to artifice after she proved to have a head for it during her initial forays into wizardry. She's the tactician and Designated Dad of her team, even though her combat output is lolterrible.
There's also this one, Ilyara Thundertale, an experiment in actively self-sabotaging multiclassing I'm using in a PbP game here on DDB. Ilyara's two classes mechanically fight each other, hard - but narratively they mesh very well, as a Trickster cleric with Trickster rogue levels provides all the tricks. Ilyara's been a boon to her games, as best I can tell - she's not much in a fight as, sadly, my experiment in "how many different sources of bonus damage can I apply to one attack?" didn't work for spit, but she's gotten the party out of a few holes with clever applications of lower-level spellcraft and roguish cunning.
Those are the two multiclass characters I'm actively playing right now. And I introduced myself. So, now you cannot say you've never met someone who used multiclassing solely as a means of trolling tables. Same with Ophidimancer, should he care to more formally introduce himself - I happen to know Ophidimancer's current longest-running character is a three-class multiclass aimed at evoking a certain archetype of character that 5e simply does not allow for.
Did you not pay attention to the part where I said I know they should exist because the forums and boards say they do? The implication there is that when it came time for them to sit at my table THEY LIED about being the good kind.
It is easy to claim to be one of the good ones when you know you will never sit at the persons table. I have no reason to believe you. And given your past behavior in this thread every reason to suspect you are not being genuine now.
Given my past (decades) experiences with the toxic min/max crowd which do you think is the more likely scenario? You are being Truthful or... ? Now do you see the problem. Thanks to the trolls even the good ones are being painted with a brush that places them in a bad light.
No it is not a cop out. You provided a link to a 15 min vid of what amounts to a fight scene from an 8-bit JRPG gussied up with images for a cell phone. Nothing in the data provided even hints at what you claim it does. I saw a character make Multi-attacks and then an anime uber critical. The vid made it a point to concentrate on the sword for said anime style attack so what else can someone unfamiliar with the game conclude? the weapon is the source of the beam attack. You are calling it a cop out because my conclusion did not match yours. Twice you linked the same vid. If there was additional lore I needed to be aware of maybe you should have linked to that instead?
Considering that someone else was able to figure it out without me giving them any additional information and the fact that we are talking about multiclassing, not equipment, it is pretty clear I was looking to use class features to replicate her. The answer you gave is a cop out.
The cost of multiclassing is delaying and missing out on other features, including Feats/ASI's. What was suggested in this thread is just punishing the player for multiclassing.
Delays that are not impactful until later levels. Levels that (as the companies own metrics tell us) are seldom if ever reached. A cost delayed and never paid is not a valid cost.
Delays are impact at the earliest levels not the later ones for multiclassing. A single 1 level dips delays extra attack/3rd level spells until 6th level; 2 levels delays it to 7th level, which is massive. Missing out on those key T2 features is often what hurts the most when multiclassing. The biggest weakness of Multiclassing is that the builds often take a while before coming online; meaning those levels where WotC tells us are seldomly played are when multiclassing is at its best. I can also confirm this from experience as I regularly multiclass.
Reality should matter more and those thoughts aren't really prevalent from my experience.
Reality should matter but as any politician can tell you "Perception is reality." While your experiences do not show you those thoughts as prevalent. Mine and the experiences of others says otherwise. The number of threads not just here but on other sites asking about the ideal multiclass build for class XYZ over the last 8 plus years; says it is that prevalent.
This isn't politics. If that is your experience, then your population sample is either small or you seen outliers, because I have frequent a plethora of sites on min/maxed multiclass builds and played in multiple AL conventions. Fighter 2 is almost never taken due to how much it delays your spellcasting progression. A wizard dipping into 2 levels of fighter from the start? Not going to see spells like Fire Ball, Hypnotic Pattern, Tiny Hut, etc. until 7th level. You don't even get spell slots from the fighter levels so you can't even upcast spells. I am very much sure that the perception of 2 levels of fighters being needed as a fullcaster is very rare.
Did you not pay attention to the part where I said I know they should exist because the forums and boards say they do? The implication there is that when it came time for them to sit at my table THEY LIED about being the good kind.
It is easy to claim to be one of the good ones when you know you will never sit at the persons table. I have no reason to believe you. And given your past behavior in this thread every reason to suspect you are not being genuine now.
Given my past (decades) experiences with the toxic min/max crowd which do you think is the more likely scenario? You are being Truthful or... ? Now do you see the problem. Thanks to the trolls even the good ones are being painted with a brush that places them in a bad light.
Considering how it is more commonly accepted that min/maxing is not a bad thing. Back in the day, the term min/maxing was automatically equated to a negative conocation. However, nowadays it is attributed to something neutral and considered to be a valid play style. I got more flak for enjoying min/maxing in the past than modern day. Honestly, I seen just as much of the toxic RP crowd, but they always seemed to have gotten a pass in the past. Honestly, I find the people having an issue with min/maxing nowadays tend to be a vocal subgroup of the old guard hlding onto misconceptions or traditions rather than the majority of newer players playing now.
The common belief is that min/maxing is a perfectly valid play style, especially in 5E where it doesn't warp the game's balance as you have to intentionally try to make an unviable character. There is not too much difference between the power of a viable character and min/maxed character, especially when you compare it to the large power gaps in 3.5E.
I may not have 45 years of experience, but I still have a respectable number of years playing D&D under my belt (20 years to be precise), so I've seen how it was back in 3.5E. I also have played 2E and I know how dual classing and multiclassing worked back then as well. I have also seen my fair share of toxic players, and let me tell you, they were not all min/maxers.
Considering how it is more commonly accepted that min/maxing is not a bad thing. Back in the day, the term min/maxing was automatically equated to a negative conocation. However, nowadays it is attributed to something neutral and considered to be a valid play style. I got more flak for enjoying min/maxing in the past than modern day. Honestly, I seen just as much of the toxic RP crowd, but they always seemed to have gotten a pass in the past. Honestly, I find the people having an issue with min/maxing nowadays tend to be a vocal subgroup of the old guard hlding onto misconceptions or traditions rather than the majority of newer players playing now.
The common belief is that min/maxing is a perfectly valid play style, especially in 5E where it doesn't warp the game's balance as you have to intentionally try to make an unviable character. There is not too much difference between the power of a viable character and min/maxed character, especially when you compare it to the large power gaps in 3.5E.
I may not have 45 years of experience, but I still have a respectable number of years playing D&D under my belt (20 years to be precise), so I've seen how it was back in 3.5E. I also have played 2E and I know how dual classing and multiclassing worked back then as well. I have also seen my fair share of toxic players, and let me tell you, they were not all min/maxers.
No doubt they were not all min/maxers. Not every Toxic Player at my tables was a Min/Maxer. Many were Gatekeepers, Rules Lawyers, Lorekeepers, Metagamers, Dice manipulators, Spotlight hogs/Divas and Munchkins. And those? Those could be reasoned with, utilized to aid newbie players, etc... But so far every single Min/Maxer since 3.x that ever sat down to my table was as toxic as they come. And absolutely refused to work with anyone at the table. I dont think every Min/maxer is evil/toxic but their track record aint looking so good.
Considering how it is more commonly accepted that min/maxing is not a bad thing. Back in the day, the term min/maxing was automatically equated to a negative conocation. However, nowadays it is attributed to something neutral and considered to be a valid play style. I got more flak for enjoying min/maxing in the past than modern day. Honestly, I seen just as much of the toxic RP crowd, but they always seemed to have gotten a pass in the past. Honestly, I find the people having an issue with min/maxing nowadays tend to be a vocal subgroup of the old guard hlding onto misconceptions or traditions rather than the majority of newer players playing now.
The common belief is that min/maxing is a perfectly valid play style, especially in 5E where it doesn't warp the game's balance as you have to intentionally try to make an unviable character. There is not too much difference between the power of a viable character and min/maxed character, especially when you compare it to the large power gaps in 3.5E.
I may not have 45 years of experience, but I still have a respectable number of years playing D&D under my belt (20 years to be precise), so I've seen how it was back in 3.5E. I also have played 2E and I know how dual classing and multiclassing worked back then as well. I have also seen my fair share of toxic players, and let me tell you, they were not all min/maxers.
No doubt they were not all min/maxers. Not every Toxic Player at my tables was a Min/Maxer. Many were Gatekeepers, Rules Lawyers, Lorekeepers, Metagamers, Dice manipulators, Spotlight hogs/Divas and Munchkins. And those? Those could be reasoned with, utilized to aid newbie players, etc... But so far every single Min/Maxer since 3.x that ever sat down to my table was as toxic as they come. And absolutely refused to work with anyone at the table. I dont think every Min/maxer is evil/toxic but their track record aint looking so good.
I mean...but again, thats your table, there are forum games here that prove otherwise, and a whooollle bunch of toxic players are also rp centric also like...a good number of people here min max and are decent, and have proven such in this own places forums, and Mana is right, it is a valid playstyle that can be fun and isnt very harmful
Considering how it is more commonly accepted that min/maxing is not a bad thing. Back in the day, the term min/maxing was automatically equated to a negative conocation. However, nowadays it is attributed to something neutral and considered to be a valid play style. I got more flak for enjoying min/maxing in the past than modern day. Honestly, I seen just as much of the toxic RP crowd, but they always seemed to have gotten a pass in the past. Honestly, I find the people having an issue with min/maxing nowadays tend to be a vocal subgroup of the old guard hlding onto misconceptions or traditions rather than the majority of newer players playing now.
The common belief is that min/maxing is a perfectly valid play style, especially in 5E where it doesn't warp the game's balance as you have to intentionally try to make an unviable character. There is not too much difference between the power of a viable character and min/maxed character, especially when you compare it to the large power gaps in 3.5E.
I may not have 45 years of experience, but I still have a respectable number of years playing D&D under my belt (20 years to be precise), so I've seen how it was back in 3.5E. I also have played 2E and I know how dual classing and multiclassing worked back then as well. I have also seen my fair share of toxic players, and let me tell you, they were not all min/maxers.
No doubt they were not all min/maxers. Not every Toxic Player at my tables was a Min/Maxer. Many were Gatekeepers, Rules Lawyers, Lorekeepers, Metagamers, Dice manipulators, Spotlight hogs/Divas and Munchkins. And those? Those could be reasoned with, utilized to aid newbie players, etc... But so far every single Min/Maxer since 3.x that ever sat down to my table was as toxic as they come. And absolutely refused to work with anyone at the table. I dont think every Min/maxer is evil/toxic but their track record aint looking so good.
I mean...but again, thats your table, there are forum games here that prove otherwise, and a whooollle bunch of toxic players are also rp centric also like...a good number of people here min max and are decent, and have proven such in this own places forums, and Mana is right, it is a valid playstyle that can be fun and isnt very harmful
Not saying it isnt. And as I pointed out earlier... Conceptually I know the non-toxic ones have to exist. The Forums and the boards prove/say that. The problem is my experiences outside of those venues. (I am an IRL DM/Player for the most part... I Dont do the randos online; I get enough grief with those IRL) Every single one that has physically sat at a table with me (as a DM or a Player) has been nothing but toxic. And pretending they dont exist will not make them go away. Is it bad luck? Am I getting outliers? After 40 years as a "professional" DM (Yes I have been getting paid to run games for that long) I dont think so; but it is a possibility. Selection Bias when I look back at the records of my games? Possibly... But with the runner on toxic Min/maxers I have had you would think the Good ones would stand out and shine even brighter. But then the reason may be they never bothered to advertise themselves as such due to the negative image the toxic ones reinforce? (well that is certainly food for thought on my part).
Those are the two multiclass characters I'm actively playing right now. And I introduced myself. So, now you cannot say you've never met someone who used multiclassing solely as a means of trolling tables. Same with Ophidimancer, should he care to more formally introduce himself - I happen to know Ophidimancer's current longest-running character is a three-class multiclass aimed at evoking a certain archetype of character that 5e simply does not allow for.
Hullo, that's me. If you want my thought process behind my character Fiego you can read THIS OLD THREAD, but I'll spoiler my post.
As for multiclassing in general I find myself doing it more often than not. While I've been gaming since the mid 90's I "grew up" with rpg's that were not class based, so classes have always seemed restraining to me. Very rarely do I have a character concept that fits neatly into a class and so I use multiclassing to get a character closer to the concept that I want. I definitely do not hold class identities as sacred. They are great as rough archetypes, but blurring the lines between them does them no disrespect in my eyes.
Is multiclassing often used to optimize? Sure, but I don't have a problem with that. I don't think optimization is at odds with roleplay. I am an avid roleplayer and an optimizer both and here's where I think those two things meet: "Competence breeds confidence." It's a bit short and pithy, but basically the mechanics define a character's baseline competence at doing things, and doing things in certain ways, in the game world, right? Competence in a task shapes the personality of the character because of the feedback loop between success and repeated application. So as a roleplayer who has a certain character personality in mind, one wants the character abilities to reinforce that personality rather than detract from it. I know a lot of people think "optimization" is all about doing the most damage, but really it's just about competence. When I build a character, I want them to be competent in the things they should be competent in and not competent in other areas. Many of my characters tend to be somewhat specialized in about two areas and weak in others, because Mary Sue-ish omni-competence is frankly boring.
If you wanted a dashing swashbuckler who runs, jumps, and climbs over obstacles like Errol Flynn, but didn't know (as I didn't, since it was my first D&D character) that it was Strength and Athletics that governed those things rather than Dexterity and Acrobatics would you alter your character sheet or would you just sacrifice your concept? As a roleplayer I think the numbers on the character need to support the character concept rather than the other way around, but as a stickler I would rather find a legitimate way to make the character sheet fit my character than just handwave and houserule. The Athletics vs Acrobatics change is rather small and easily exchanged for most classes, but I feel the same way about class features and spells, too. This doesn't mean I won't flex my concept to work with the rules, but generally only in areas where the concept was more vague to begin with, the core competencies and style of the character should be supported or I would view it as a failure of the game system. Note that this doesn't mean I expect to be able to make a space pirate or an intelligent shade of blue in a typical D&D game, I understand how basic premises work.
This is also influenced by exactly how competent you envision your character to be. I know I asked that we start out game at higher than level 1 because I wanted character who had a little bit of adventuring under their belt and had already developed a signature style. A character's style is very important for me in roleplaying and again competence come into play here, because unless I'm playing a comedic character, I want to lessen the chances of the character having silly pratfalls in what is supposed to be their main area of competence. In storytelling there are various types of conflict that make up dramatic conflict (character vs character, character vs environment, character vs self, etc) and I guess some of my personal preferences are that I'm just not that interested in character vs mundane annoyances, which is what I kind of feel comes up more often at level 1 and 2. Again I view the game system as a tool for me to have fun, not a video game where I must start at 1 and level up to 20. So why not have a curated experience of D&D? I'm the one who's going through the experience, right? Another note: I know this is a group experience and I am highly sensitive that everyone around the table including the DM is there to have fun. I think it is the responsibility of everyone at the game table to make the experience fun for everyone else. Sometimes I think players forget that they should also strive to entertain the DM.
That brings me to the issue of planning a character out to level 20. I don't know about you, but my DM does ask us "what kinds of adventures do you want your character do experience?" and "where do you want your character to end up?" For me rpg's are a storytelling device and I like having a planned progression in my storytelling. That's not to say that I want to dictate everything that happens to my character, but I do know that there are certain types of things I want them to do and certain plot types I want them involved in. I also have a vision for what I want their style to be at different "tiers." Meaning I know what I want them to be like after a lot more adventuring. This again has more to do with style then mechanics, but I want and need the mechanics to support the style I want. I'm also still responsive to the other player characters and the plot that the DM gives us. It's kind of like ... I want my character to still be my character, but which alternate multiverse version of them ends up happening depends on the plot. There's always some sort of essential essence that makes up any character and where that lies and which parts of the mechanical character sheet need to reflect that depends, from character to character.
Which brings me to my personal anecdote about my current character. I was a veteran roleplayer, but still pretty new to D&D. My DM had tried to run a game of 3.5, but it died after one session so when I recycled the character for his 5Ed game, I still thought of him as my first D&D character. I love bards and wanted to play a gish, someone who uses magic to enhance their swordplay rather than a spellcaster who occasionally swings a sword, so I chose to play a College of Swords Bard. I requested that we start at level 3 because I wanted everyone to have some sort of signature style inherent in their gameplay and I saw the subclasses as adding that, just my personal view. After half a dozen sessions and hitting level 4 I finally had gained enough knowledge about 5Ed to stop pulling out the books for basic stuff like attack rolls and spells and could think more critically about my gaming experience. I looked ahead and realized a bit glumly that Bards are full spellcasters and that I wasn't really going to be getting much better at swinging a sword than I already was, while my spells would far outstrip and outshine my martial skills. I could keep playing the same way I had been and start to look like a low level minion compared to my partymates, or I could switch my tactics and completely go against the playstyle that I wanted to play. Neither of these seemed fun for me, so I started looking around for options. My actually DM let me completely rebuild my character in another class for one session to try it out and I really enjoyed playing as a level 4 Swashbuckler Rogue, but I did miss all of the social utility that I had become accustomed to as a Bard, which was the other half of the playstyle I wanted, a charming gish. So after awhile I came up with a plan to have my cake and eat it, too.
I had always been a fan of Eilistraee and her sword dancers and wanted that grace to be a part of this character's gish style, so I reverted my character back to the 4th level Swords Bard and when I hit level 5 I took 1 level of Hexblade, reskinned as Eilistraee's Moonblade. Now my Dex and Cha were even at this time so there was no sudden disparity in sword skill to smooth over. We had also just escaped from a foray into the Underdark. The session was unavoidably cut short due to a scheduling issue and my DM was forced to handwave and teleport us back to Waterdeep and I asked him if it was okay to say that the sound of mysterious hunting horns led us back to the surface, which allowed me to write a dream sequence where my bard met Eilistraee and received her blessing. This allowed me to pick up Shield as well as proficiency with shields, which I reskinned as a cloak wrapped around an arm so I could be a spanish style rapier and cloak fencer. Booming Blade rounded out my magical melee skill set.
Then I started taking levels of Rogue, becoming a Swashbuckler at level 8, and getting my second ASI at level 9, which I put into Charisma. This means I'm using Charisma for melee, for spellcasting, and as an initiative boost, which allows me to grow as a swordsman and a spellslinger at the same time. Plotting out my levels ahead of time I intended to end roughly at Swords 6/ Hexblade 3/ Swashbuckler 11 because that maintains a character who is mainly a charming swordsman (I love Panache and the idea of just being that silver tongued that I can do that without a spell) but also has enough magic tricks up his sleeve to make that swordplay flashier. I wouldn't have any spells higher than 3rd level, which I viewed as a benefit since I mostly wanted spells that were utility and enhancement and not spells that were huge game changers in and of themselves, that didn't fit the character concept I wanted. At level 9 (Swords 4/Swashbuckler 4/Hexblade 1) any level I took would result in meaningful growth, which allowed me to still be responsive to the plot in how I progress in my plan. I just hit level 10 in my game, for example, and we're currently in a plot arc that has open terrain and military leanings so I took that level in Bard, allowing me to better support my Fighter partymate in his quest to take over as warlord of the local orc horde.
In the end it's up to your group how you want to play this, of course. For me as a player or if I ever DM I 1) don't hold classes to be sacrosanct, 2) think the mechanics should be subservient to narrative, and 3) want characters to be optimized in order to support deep roleplay and will try and make the system give me both if at all possible.
I think you may be begging the question by including toxicity into your definition of a min maxer. The logical fallacy is such that you would never accept any sort of evidence of the existence of a non-toxic min maxer because you would just say "Well that makes them not a min maxer."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think you may be begging the question by including toxicity into your definition of a min maxer. The logical fallacy is such that you would never accept any sort of evidence of the existence of a non-toxic min maxer because you would just say "Well that makes them not a min maxer."
well I did say I have some thinking to do. There very likely is a selection bias going on in my recollections. and there have been non-toxic min/maxers I just never acknowledged them as such.
Considering how it is more commonly accepted that min/maxing is not a bad thing. Back in the day, the term min/maxing was automatically equated to a negative conocation. However, nowadays it is attributed to something neutral and considered to be a valid play style. I got more flak for enjoying min/maxing in the past than modern day. Honestly, I seen just as much of the toxic RP crowd, but they always seemed to have gotten a pass in the past. Honestly, I find the people having an issue with min/maxing nowadays tend to be a vocal subgroup of the old guard hlding onto misconceptions or traditions rather than the majority of newer players playing now.
The common belief is that min/maxing is a perfectly valid play style, especially in 5E where it doesn't warp the game's balance as you have to intentionally try to make an unviable character. There is not too much difference between the power of a viable character and min/maxed character, especially when you compare it to the large power gaps in 3.5E.
I may not have 45 years of experience, but I still have a respectable number of years playing D&D under my belt (20 years to be precise), so I've seen how it was back in 3.5E. I also have played 2E and I know how dual classing and multiclassing worked back then as well. I have also seen my fair share of toxic players, and let me tell you, they were not all min/maxers.
No doubt they were not all min/maxers. Not every Toxic Player at my tables was a Min/Maxer. Many were Gatekeepers, Rules Lawyers, Lorekeepers, Metagamers, Dice manipulators, Spotlight hogs/Divas and Munchkins. And those? Those could be reasoned with, utilized to aid newbie players, etc... But so far every single Min/Maxer since 3.x that ever sat down to my table was as toxic as they come. And absolutely refused to work with anyone at the table. I dont think every Min/maxer is evil/toxic but their track record aint looking so good.
I mean...but again, thats your table, there are forum games here that prove otherwise, and a whooollle bunch of toxic players are also rp centric also like...a good number of people here min max and are decent, and have proven such in this own places forums, and Mana is right, it is a valid playstyle that can be fun and isnt very harmful
Not saying it isnt. And as I pointed out earlier... Conceptually I know the non-toxic ones have to exist. The Forums and the boards prove/say that. The problem is my experiences outside of those venues. (I am an IRL DM/Player for the most part... I Dont do the randos online; I get enough grief with those IRL) Every single one that has physically sat at a table with me (as a DM or a Player) has been nothing but toxic. And pretending they dont exist will not make them go away. Is it bad luck? Am I getting outliers? After 40 years as a "professional" DM (Yes I have been getting paid to run games for that long) I dont think so; but it is a possibility. Selection Bias when I look back at the records of my games? Possibly... But with the runner on toxic Min/maxers I have had you would think the Good ones would stand out and shine even brighter. But then the reason may be they never bothered to advertise themselves as such due to the negative image the toxic ones reinforce? (well that is certainly food for thought on my part).
that....says more about you as a dm and your opinions on the subject, then the minmax community at large tbh, as theres more then likely a heavy bias affecting it
Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass.
How about if I want to do a human that has always been a thief who suddenly finds that he has draconic ancestry? A Rogue with a level or so dip in Draconic Sorceror would be ideal. Very thematic. I'm not sure that it's any more powerful than just a straight Rogue.
If you're going to respond with something along the lines with that I should be a Rogue and just roleplay the sorceror bit...then really you're against classes. Just cut all of them back to Fighter, Rogue and Wizard and everyone just roleplay the various archetypes. Works exactly the same, so having a Sorceror is just playing mechanics not theme.
You don't really need a multiclass for that concept. For example, you could represent your draconic ancestry with a feat (Fitzban's are great for that). But even without a feat, you can describe that draconic ancestry any way you want. Your skin could be draconic looking. Your voice could have a sonority reminiscent of dragons. You could even reskin your sneak attack (for example) to represent an ancient power of your blood that awakens when you need it (perhaps changing the look of your eyes to be dragon-like for a few seconds). Or anything else you can think of. You could also go the other way. Being a sorcerer and giving you a thief background (with skills like Sleight of Hand). You could also choose from your list of spells, spells that reinforce your role as a thief. You don't need a multiclass at all to do that concept. Not for that one, not for any of them. You can play anything you can think of with a singleclass.
And by the way, I'm not saying you can't multiclass if your DM allows it (it's an optional rule at the moment). But the idea that should be clear is that it is not necessary to play one or the other concept. It's just a mechanical thing, not thematic.
Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass. Do you want to play a soldier who is also a priest? You just have to make a soldier and play him in such a way that he behaves like a priest (not doing anything to the children, but praying at every opportunity).
So basically you're against Paladin being a class, since that is basically what Paladin is, a soldier who is also a priest, you aren't even arguing against a multi-class but a single class with this one.
But no, having features link to a background can mean something. For example a fighter who sold their soul to the devil, you have some levels in warlock but mostly level fighter, you might have a subplot of trying to get your soul back, these things link to better than just trying to 100% role play it without the character classes and it reflects in what your character can and can not do, that they have made such a pact. It's the same thing as being a soldier who prays every where, picking up paladin instead of being a fighter that just prays a lot, shows the power of that character's devotion and belief of their faith.
No, what I'm saying is that you don't need to be a fighter with dip in cleric for that. And by the way, don't confuse being a priest with having divine powers. Clerics don't have to be priests, paladins don't either. A cleric is someone chosen by a god to channel his power. By concept, it is logical to think that a cleric can be a priest of that god. But it is not a requirement. Absolutely. In 5th edition a paladin channels divine magic through his oaths. I liked the old concept of the paladin better, but today the concept is that. It can be a priest warrior, of course. But in reality what he is is a divine warrior.
Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass. Do you want to play a soldier who is also a priest? You just have to make a soldier and play him in such a way that he behaves like a priest (not doing anything to the children, but praying at every opportunity).
So basically you're against Paladin being a class, since that is basically what Paladin is, a soldier who is also a priest, you aren't even arguing against a multi-class but a single class with this one.
But no, having features link to a background can mean something. For example a fighter who sold their soul to the devil, you have some levels in warlock but mostly level fighter, you might have a subplot of trying to get your soul back, these things link to better than just trying to 100% role play it without the character classes and it reflects in what your character can and can not do, that they have made such a pact. It's the same thing as being a soldier who prays every where, picking up paladin instead of being a fighter that just prays a lot, shows the power of that character's devotion and belief of their faith.
No, what I'm saying is that you don't need to be a fighter with dip in cleric for that. And by the way, don't confuse being a priest with having divine powers. Clerics don't have to be priests, paladins don't either. A cleric is someone chosen by a god to channel his power. By concept, it is logical to think that a cleric can be a priest of that god. But it is not a requirement. Absolutely. In 5th edition a paladin channels divine magic through his oaths. I liked the old concept of the paladin better, but today the concept is that. It can be a priest warrior, of course. But in reality what he is is a divine warrior.
Not all priests are clerics, not all clerics are priests, and not all priests serve a deity (some serve Great Old Ones, demons, angels, and so on).
It's also worth noting that in some settings printed for 5e, like Ravnica and Eberron, not all clerics even serve a deity. The clerics of the Blood of Vol, Path of Light, and Undying Court in Eberron don't have deities, and neither do clerics of the Azorius, Boros, or Orzhov guilds in Ravnica.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
because its not as well described or thought out as hes thinking (and i can say that as a near three decade veteran) the stigma has been there for both, and while in his place of play it might be different, in varoius others the two terms are used interchangibly and there has been mass discussion/argument about this for awhile, with some claiming both are bad, others claiming one is a good term, its a whole mess
I think it is safe to say that in the context of this discussion we are speaking of the Toxic variant and at this point are trying be disingenuous about being obtuse because of "loose" definitions.
I mean, I dont think they are purposefully being obtuse though, they make a valid point, you are generalizing and making untrue statements
The originating post for me jumping in... you decide
The argument as I understand it then, Damian, is that multiclassing is a terrible horrible no good very bad rule that has only ever been used by The Bad Kind of optimizer to, as you put it, "get one opver on the DM". Multiclassing has never been used by anyone to fulfill an off-kilter class concept, represent unusual character growth or changes in the direction of their story, or as a means of livening up an otherwise dull character - no. Multiclassing is ONLY used by The Bad Kind of optimizer and as such it should be done away with entirely.
Is this correct, and/or absurd enough to get the point across?
Please do not contact or message me.
Ok, I can't remember every feature off top of my head, but yes, there aren't many things that grow without leveling the class, cantrips are just the most obvious example. While Monk is underachieving, it's still viable, people are just afraid because reputation is it has less power, this isn't a multiclass problem anyway, this is balance issue between the classes. But sorcerer is just weird, the numbers sorcerer hits, it's basically the most viable class in the game, it out does wizard easily.
Booming Blade and double sneak attack were mostly oversights in the first place. Rogue currently as of the UA, has good DPR, not the best but good and much more consistent than in 5E, but as the UA shows, all of this issue mainly stemmed from sneak attack, not from multiclassing, after all you can get double sneak attack and booming blade without even multiclassing, if you ally with somebody who has haste or something like commander's strike from battle master... yeah. This is all the result of fundamentally broken features.
As of the UA, the only feature from the expert classes scaling with proficiency is bardic inspiration, but only number of uses, you'd still get stuck with a d6 instead of the dies from higher levels of bard.
Have I ever said it needs to go away? You are being disingenuous again.
While I do not agree with the OPs idea of a feature that goes away.
the Idea of a LOYALTY feature has merit at this point.
Since obviously anything that remotely even hints at making the cost for MC truly fair (a delayed and never paid cost is not a fair cost) is a call for the complete dismantling of the mechanic.
As to your "absurd" example?
Oddly enough...
That "bad kind" as you put it?
That is only multi-classer I have actually ever seen come to the table since the introduction of 3e.
Oh I believe the "good kind" exist. At least according to all the message boards and forums they do.
The Stormwind Fallacy says they do.
But the reality of it?
Never once have I met a player of a Multi-classed character that was not a table troll only concerned with their fun.
Hi, Damian. My name is Yurei. I'm a D&D player of 'bout fourish, four and a half years now, roleplayer for my entire adult life and a chunk before that before then, and the player of several multiclass characters who do not and never have existed as 'table trolls'.
This one, for example - Starlight Through Driving Rain, my current longest-running character. An artificer 11/wizard 1, whose wizard level is both mechanical - a single level of wizard is immensely beneficial to artificers as a means of diversifying their casting, relieving cantrip pressure, and enabling access to staple utility rituals - and narrative; Star's father is a powerful and well-regarded, if thoroughly retired, battlemage who started Star on the road to artifice after she proved to have a head for it during her initial forays into wizardry. She's the tactician and Designated Dad of her team, even though her combat output is lolterrible.
There's also this one, Ilyara Thundertale, an experiment in actively self-sabotaging multiclassing I'm using in a PbP game here on DDB. Ilyara's two classes mechanically fight each other, hard - but narratively they mesh very well, as a Trickster cleric with Trickster rogue levels provides all the tricks. Ilyara's been a boon to her games, as best I can tell - she's not much in a fight as, sadly, my experiment in "how many different sources of bonus damage can I apply to one attack?" didn't work for spit, but she's gotten the party out of a few holes with clever applications of lower-level spellcraft and roguish cunning.
Those are the two multiclass characters I'm actively playing right now. And I introduced myself. So, now you cannot say you've never met someone who used multiclassing solely as a means of trolling tables. Same with Ophidimancer, should he care to more formally introduce himself - I happen to know Ophidimancer's current longest-running character is a three-class multiclass aimed at evoking a certain archetype of character that 5e simply does not allow for.
Trouble solved, yes?
Please do not contact or message me.
Did you not pay attention to the part where I said I know they should exist because the forums and boards say they do?
The implication there is that when it came time for them to sit at my table THEY LIED about being the good kind.
It is easy to claim to be one of the good ones when you know you will never sit at the persons table.
I have no reason to believe you.
And given your past behavior in this thread every reason to suspect you are not being genuine now.
Given my past (decades) experiences with the toxic min/max crowd which do you think is the more likely scenario? You are being Truthful or... ?
Now do you see the problem. Thanks to the trolls even the good ones are being painted with a brush that places them in a bad light.
Considering that someone else was able to figure it out without me giving them any additional information and the fact that we are talking about multiclassing, not equipment, it is pretty clear I was looking to use class features to replicate her. The answer you gave is a cop out.
Delays are impact at the earliest levels not the later ones for multiclassing. A single 1 level dips delays extra attack/3rd level spells until 6th level; 2 levels delays it to 7th level, which is massive. Missing out on those key T2 features is often what hurts the most when multiclassing. The biggest weakness of Multiclassing is that the builds often take a while before coming online; meaning those levels where WotC tells us are seldomly played are when multiclassing is at its best. I can also confirm this from experience as I regularly multiclass.
This isn't politics. If that is your experience, then your population sample is either small or you seen outliers, because I have frequent a plethora of sites on min/maxed multiclass builds and played in multiple AL conventions. Fighter 2 is almost never taken due to how much it delays your spellcasting progression. A wizard dipping into 2 levels of fighter from the start? Not going to see spells like Fire Ball, Hypnotic Pattern, Tiny Hut, etc. until 7th level. You don't even get spell slots from the fighter levels so you can't even upcast spells. I am very much sure that the perception of 2 levels of fighters being needed as a fullcaster is very rare.
Considering how it is more commonly accepted that min/maxing is not a bad thing. Back in the day, the term min/maxing was automatically equated to a negative conocation. However, nowadays it is attributed to something neutral and considered to be a valid play style. I got more flak for enjoying min/maxing in the past than modern day. Honestly, I seen just as much of the toxic RP crowd, but they always seemed to have gotten a pass in the past. Honestly, I find the people having an issue with min/maxing nowadays tend to be a vocal subgroup of the old guard hlding onto misconceptions or traditions rather than the majority of newer players playing now.
The common belief is that min/maxing is a perfectly valid play style, especially in 5E where it doesn't warp the game's balance as you have to intentionally try to make an unviable character. There is not too much difference between the power of a viable character and min/maxed character, especially when you compare it to the large power gaps in 3.5E.
I may not have 45 years of experience, but I still have a respectable number of years playing D&D under my belt (20 years to be precise), so I've seen how it was back in 3.5E. I also have played 2E and I know how dual classing and multiclassing worked back then as well. I have also seen my fair share of toxic players, and let me tell you, they were not all min/maxers.
No doubt they were not all min/maxers.
Not every Toxic Player at my tables was a Min/Maxer.
Many were Gatekeepers, Rules Lawyers, Lorekeepers, Metagamers, Dice manipulators, Spotlight hogs/Divas and Munchkins.
And those? Those could be reasoned with, utilized to aid newbie players, etc...
But so far every single Min/Maxer since 3.x that ever sat down to my table was as toxic as they come. And absolutely refused to work with anyone at the table.
I dont think every Min/maxer is evil/toxic but their track record aint looking so good.
I mean...but again, thats your table, there are forum games here that prove otherwise, and a whooollle bunch of toxic players are also rp centric
also like...a good number of people here min max and are decent, and have proven such in this own places forums, and Mana is right, it is a valid playstyle that can be fun and isnt very harmful
Not saying it isnt.
And as I pointed out earlier...
Conceptually I know the non-toxic ones have to exist.
The Forums and the boards prove/say that.
The problem is my experiences outside of those venues. (I am an IRL DM/Player for the most part... I Dont do the randos online; I get enough grief with those IRL)
Every single one that has physically sat at a table with me (as a DM or a Player) has been nothing but toxic.
And pretending they dont exist will not make them go away.
Is it bad luck? Am I getting outliers? After 40 years as a "professional" DM (Yes I have been getting paid to run games for that long) I dont think so; but it is a possibility.
Selection Bias when I look back at the records of my games? Possibly... But with the runner on toxic Min/maxers I have had you would think the Good ones would stand out and shine even brighter. But then the reason may be they never bothered to advertise themselves as such due to the negative image the toxic ones reinforce? (well that is certainly food for thought on my part).
Hullo, that's me. If you want my thought process behind my character Fiego you can read THIS OLD THREAD, but I'll spoiler my post.
As for multiclassing in general I find myself doing it more often than not. While I've been gaming since the mid 90's I "grew up" with rpg's that were not class based, so classes have always seemed restraining to me. Very rarely do I have a character concept that fits neatly into a class and so I use multiclassing to get a character closer to the concept that I want. I definitely do not hold class identities as sacred. They are great as rough archetypes, but blurring the lines between them does them no disrespect in my eyes.
Is multiclassing often used to optimize? Sure, but I don't have a problem with that. I don't think optimization is at odds with roleplay. I am an avid roleplayer and an optimizer both and here's where I think those two things meet: "Competence breeds confidence." It's a bit short and pithy, but basically the mechanics define a character's baseline competence at doing things, and doing things in certain ways, in the game world, right? Competence in a task shapes the personality of the character because of the feedback loop between success and repeated application. So as a roleplayer who has a certain character personality in mind, one wants the character abilities to reinforce that personality rather than detract from it. I know a lot of people think "optimization" is all about doing the most damage, but really it's just about competence. When I build a character, I want them to be competent in the things they should be competent in and not competent in other areas. Many of my characters tend to be somewhat specialized in about two areas and weak in others, because Mary Sue-ish omni-competence is frankly boring.
If you wanted a dashing swashbuckler who runs, jumps, and climbs over obstacles like Errol Flynn, but didn't know (as I didn't, since it was my first D&D character) that it was Strength and Athletics that governed those things rather than Dexterity and Acrobatics would you alter your character sheet or would you just sacrifice your concept? As a roleplayer I think the numbers on the character need to support the character concept rather than the other way around, but as a stickler I would rather find a legitimate way to make the character sheet fit my character than just handwave and houserule. The Athletics vs Acrobatics change is rather small and easily exchanged for most classes, but I feel the same way about class features and spells, too. This doesn't mean I won't flex my concept to work with the rules, but generally only in areas where the concept was more vague to begin with, the core competencies and style of the character should be supported or I would view it as a failure of the game system. Note that this doesn't mean I expect to be able to make a space pirate or an intelligent shade of blue in a typical D&D game, I understand how basic premises work.
This is also influenced by exactly how competent you envision your character to be. I know I asked that we start out game at higher than level 1 because I wanted character who had a little bit of adventuring under their belt and had already developed a signature style. A character's style is very important for me in roleplaying and again competence come into play here, because unless I'm playing a comedic character, I want to lessen the chances of the character having silly pratfalls in what is supposed to be their main area of competence. In storytelling there are various types of conflict that make up dramatic conflict (character vs character, character vs environment, character vs self, etc) and I guess some of my personal preferences are that I'm just not that interested in character vs mundane annoyances, which is what I kind of feel comes up more often at level 1 and 2. Again I view the game system as a tool for me to have fun, not a video game where I must start at 1 and level up to 20. So why not have a curated experience of D&D? I'm the one who's going through the experience, right? Another note: I know this is a group experience and I am highly sensitive that everyone around the table including the DM is there to have fun. I think it is the responsibility of everyone at the game table to make the experience fun for everyone else. Sometimes I think players forget that they should also strive to entertain the DM.
That brings me to the issue of planning a character out to level 20. I don't know about you, but my DM does ask us "what kinds of adventures do you want your character do experience?" and "where do you want your character to end up?" For me rpg's are a storytelling device and I like having a planned progression in my storytelling. That's not to say that I want to dictate everything that happens to my character, but I do know that there are certain types of things I want them to do and certain plot types I want them involved in. I also have a vision for what I want their style to be at different "tiers." Meaning I know what I want them to be like after a lot more adventuring. This again has more to do with style then mechanics, but I want and need the mechanics to support the style I want. I'm also still responsive to the other player characters and the plot that the DM gives us. It's kind of like ... I want my character to still be my character, but which alternate multiverse version of them ends up happening depends on the plot. There's always some sort of essential essence that makes up any character and where that lies and which parts of the mechanical character sheet need to reflect that depends, from character to character.
Which brings me to my personal anecdote about my current character. I was a veteran roleplayer, but still pretty new to D&D. My DM had tried to run a game of 3.5, but it died after one session so when I recycled the character for his 5Ed game, I still thought of him as my first D&D character. I love bards and wanted to play a gish, someone who uses magic to enhance their swordplay rather than a spellcaster who occasionally swings a sword, so I chose to play a College of Swords Bard. I requested that we start at level 3 because I wanted everyone to have some sort of signature style inherent in their gameplay and I saw the subclasses as adding that, just my personal view. After half a dozen sessions and hitting level 4 I finally had gained enough knowledge about 5Ed to stop pulling out the books for basic stuff like attack rolls and spells and could think more critically about my gaming experience. I looked ahead and realized a bit glumly that Bards are full spellcasters and that I wasn't really going to be getting much better at swinging a sword than I already was, while my spells would far outstrip and outshine my martial skills. I could keep playing the same way I had been and start to look like a low level minion compared to my partymates, or I could switch my tactics and completely go against the playstyle that I wanted to play. Neither of these seemed fun for me, so I started looking around for options. My actually DM let me completely rebuild my character in another class for one session to try it out and I really enjoyed playing as a level 4 Swashbuckler Rogue, but I did miss all of the social utility that I had become accustomed to as a Bard, which was the other half of the playstyle I wanted, a charming gish. So after awhile I came up with a plan to have my cake and eat it, too.
I had always been a fan of Eilistraee and her sword dancers and wanted that grace to be a part of this character's gish style, so I reverted my character back to the 4th level Swords Bard and when I hit level 5 I took 1 level of Hexblade, reskinned as Eilistraee's Moonblade. Now my Dex and Cha were even at this time so there was no sudden disparity in sword skill to smooth over. We had also just escaped from a foray into the Underdark. The session was unavoidably cut short due to a scheduling issue and my DM was forced to handwave and teleport us back to Waterdeep and I asked him if it was okay to say that the sound of mysterious hunting horns led us back to the surface, which allowed me to write a dream sequence where my bard met Eilistraee and received her blessing. This allowed me to pick up Shield as well as proficiency with shields, which I reskinned as a cloak wrapped around an arm so I could be a spanish style rapier and cloak fencer. Booming Blade rounded out my magical melee skill set.
Then I started taking levels of Rogue, becoming a Swashbuckler at level 8, and getting my second ASI at level 9, which I put into Charisma. This means I'm using Charisma for melee, for spellcasting, and as an initiative boost, which allows me to grow as a swordsman and a spellslinger at the same time. Plotting out my levels ahead of time I intended to end roughly at Swords 6/ Hexblade 3/ Swashbuckler 11 because that maintains a character who is mainly a charming swordsman (I love Panache and the idea of just being that silver tongued that I can do that without a spell) but also has enough magic tricks up his sleeve to make that swordplay flashier. I wouldn't have any spells higher than 3rd level, which I viewed as a benefit since I mostly wanted spells that were utility and enhancement and not spells that were huge game changers in and of themselves, that didn't fit the character concept I wanted. At level 9 (Swords 4/Swashbuckler 4/Hexblade 1) any level I took would result in meaningful growth, which allowed me to still be responsive to the plot in how I progress in my plan. I just hit level 10 in my game, for example, and we're currently in a plot arc that has open terrain and military leanings so I took that level in Bard, allowing me to better support my Fighter partymate in his quest to take over as warlord of the local orc horde.
In the end it's up to your group how you want to play this, of course. For me as a player or if I ever DM I 1) don't hold classes to be sacrosanct, 2) think the mechanics should be subservient to narrative, and 3) want characters to be optimized in order to support deep roleplay and will try and make the system give me both if at all possible.
Excuse you? Yurei is hyperbolic for sure, but she is anything but ingenuine.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think you may be begging the question by including toxicity into your definition of a min maxer. The logical fallacy is such that you would never accept any sort of evidence of the existence of a non-toxic min maxer because you would just say "Well that makes them not a min maxer."
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
well I did say I have some thinking to do.
There very likely is a selection bias going on in my recollections.
and there have been non-toxic min/maxers I just never acknowledged them as such.
that....says more about you as a dm and your opinions on the subject, then the minmax community at large tbh, as theres more then likely a heavy bias affecting it
You don't really need a multiclass for that concept.
For example, you could represent your draconic ancestry with a feat (Fitzban's are great for that). But even without a feat, you can describe that draconic ancestry any way you want. Your skin could be draconic looking. Your voice could have a sonority reminiscent of dragons. You could even reskin your sneak attack (for example) to represent an ancient power of your blood that awakens when you need it (perhaps changing the look of your eyes to be dragon-like for a few seconds). Or anything else you can think of.
You could also go the other way. Being a sorcerer and giving you a thief background (with skills like Sleight of Hand). You could also choose from your list of spells, spells that reinforce your role as a thief.
You don't need a multiclass at all to do that concept. Not for that one, not for any of them. You can play anything you can think of with a singleclass.
And by the way, I'm not saying you can't multiclass if your DM allows it (it's an optional rule at the moment). But the idea that should be clear is that it is not necessary to play one or the other concept. It's just a mechanical thing, not thematic.
No, what I'm saying is that you don't need to be a fighter with dip in cleric for that.
And by the way, don't confuse being a priest with having divine powers. Clerics don't have to be priests, paladins don't either. A cleric is someone chosen by a god to channel his power. By concept, it is logical to think that a cleric can be a priest of that god. But it is not a requirement. Absolutely.
In 5th edition a paladin channels divine magic through his oaths. I liked the old concept of the paladin better, but today the concept is that. It can be a priest warrior, of course. But in reality what he is is a divine warrior.
Not all priests are clerics, not all clerics are priests, and not all priests serve a deity (some serve Great Old Ones, demons, angels, and so on).
It's also worth noting that in some settings printed for 5e, like Ravnica and Eberron, not all clerics even serve a deity. The clerics of the Blood of Vol, Path of Light, and Undying Court in Eberron don't have deities, and neither do clerics of the Azorius, Boros, or Orzhov guilds in Ravnica.