Multiclassing. Do you use it and how balanced should it be

[ZiggZagg]

So I was reading over the new playtest for psionics, and I am very very impressed. The rules look wonderful, but I noticed one thing about 90% of people that had any issues with it. Everyone is immediately looking at it from a multiclassing perspective, which I feel is because most of us come from a D&D 3.5 background, and that was how we looked at everything. However, in 5th, multiclassing is a variant rule. With this in mind, I have a few questions, as I am still grasping the system and DMing for it.

1. Do you/your group use the multiclassing variant rule? Why or why not?

To be honest, I am leaning towards...not. And the reason is because of the second question.

2. Do you think that the game should be balanced around variant rule?

Variant rules are just that. Variants. Not official content. Therefore...I am not sure I believe the game should actually be immediately concerned with the balance of such a rule. And, I kind of have a feeling that might be why it was made a variant rule in the first place. And I am okay with that. The Paladin in my group took the oath breaker path in order to work with undead as a Paladin of Nerull (basically, death is a neutral force and they oversee graveyards, similar to the Blackguards of Morr from Warhammer), and is planning on going into the Cthulhu bladelock, and I am having trouble trying to find a reason he should be able to blend ancient, forbidden knowledge with his very devout follower of Nerull. It has me thinking heavily on the idea of just saying the multiclassing rule is not going to be used.

Anyway, discuss :)

[Demonic Spoon]

1. Yes. It has barely come up (one person plays a fighter 1/warlock X for pact of the blade). Multiclassing is a really janky system and not something I really like, but it's necessary sometimes because not all character concepts can be represented by a single class.

2. Variant rules need to be balanced, otherwise they are traps for people who don't know better. They put in variant rules so that people will use them. "Variant" is not slang for "This sucks don't use it".

And yes, they are absolutely official content. They're in the single most core book of the entire game, written by Wizards of the Coast, and presented as something that you can and should consider using in your game.


The Paladin in my group took the oath breaker path in order to work with undead as a Paladin of Nerull (basically, death is a neutral force and they oversee graveyards, similar to the Blackguards of Morr from Warhammer), and is planning on going into the Cthulhu bladelock, and I am having trouble trying to find a reason he should be able to blend ancient, forbidden knowledge with his very devout follower of Nerull. It has me thinking heavily on the idea of just saying the multiclassing rule is not going to be used.

I can create silly and nonsensical characters just fine with a single character class. Multiclassing isn't necessary. Of course, it's all about implementation and background - I could absolutely come up with a good IC justification for a Nerull paladin/Cthulhu warlock.

[ZiggZagg]

Yeah, "official content" was not the best choice of words that I could have used. That part was my fault.

[Shining Wrath]

Yes, I allow it, it allows for creativity.
I have not had anyone abuse it ... yet. I'm probably going to insist they give me a story reason that makes sense if someone wants to go beyond a 2nd class.
Character concept = good. Taking 4 classes to optimize, e.g., Eldritch Blast = a little munchkinish.

[Daishain]

snip
The majority of the variant rules in the PHB appear to have been listed that way not (at least primarily) due to balance concerns, but for the sake of simplicity. The developers wanted this edition to be something that anyone can easily come in, pick up, and play. The game without any of the "variant" rules is exactly that, something simple and easy, very little if any experience required. The prevailing opinion seems to be that leaving those particular variant rules out is like leaving the training wheels on, not really an option for serious players.

Multiclassing is balanced just fine in my experience. If anything, multiclassing is suboptimal in most cases. It takes a specific build and careful planning to take advantage of it.

Your paladin problem is a fluff problem, not a mechanical one. Had he for instance multiclassed for a few levels as a Cleric of Nerull, I suspect you wouldn't even have brought it up. I for one require that my players at minimum make an attempt to justify unusual mechanical choices from a fluff perspective. (*MCing to sorcerer* Hey, I've been working with the wizard and think I can wing some new tricks, he says I have a talent for it) Other tables don't give a damn, still others put fluff over all else and wouldn't allow a multiclass without significant in game character investment (spent a year at a bard's college)

P.S. Great Old One warlock does not necessarily equal cthulhu, or anything like that being for that matter. Nor does the warlock pact necessarily imply unfaithfulness to one's deity. In fact, GOO warlocks are specifically called out as having the option of siphoning power without the knowledge of their supposed patron.

[pwykersotz]

I agree that Multiclassing should not be the expected norm, but I do use it and I do look for pitfalls. That's primarily why this forum is so useful, the crowd-sourced method of looking for errors and problems to jump in front of is invaluable.

Realistically, I've never really had issues with my players doing ANY of the shenanigans we talk about. They would never think of wishing for a simulacrum, for example.

[GiantOctopodes]

1. We generally avoid multiclassing, and it is not an "assumed on" thing with us, but rather must get DM approval on a case by case basis, with the player and the DM partnering together to see if it makes sense and how it can be integrated into their character and the story. The character and the story come first, the mechanics arise to support those things, not the other way around. If a Wizard thinks he's going to take 2 levels of Warlock for Agonizing Blast and then forget about the deals he made with the devil and just act like any old Wizard for the rest of his career, well, he's got another thing coming.

2. Yes, the game must be balanced around them. It's a different matter to ask whether or not they currently *are* balanced around them, as everywhere you look you see the same crossbow expert ranged characters, 2 level warlock dips for at will damage on spellcasters, great weapon master and / or polearm master melee characters, and quarterstaff and shield duelists. All of the most "optimal" builds are those which take advantage of those variant rules to attain more than what can be obtained without them. It's totally fine and totally viable to say that you don't want them in your game, or that you'll only approve them on a case by case basis. One of our DMs uses feats, one does not.

In terms of the specific character, you are well within your rights to say that multiclassing in general is allowed, but that particular one is not, that no Great Old One is willing to take him on as a follower considering he already has a master. Is there a non-mechanical reason he wants that particular combo? Offhand it looks like he wants pact magic for refreshing slots for his smite and / or eldritch blast for when he's stuck in ranged combat, but is there an in character reason for the dual loyalties?

And I agree with Demonic Spoon, I could come up with about a dozen viable concepts that blend those two. However, if he cannot, then you know that it's all about the mechanics. Which is fine if you want to play that way, I enjoy games of that sort and there's nothing wrong with it being more of an aRPG kind of feel. If you want to grant him that multiclass and want better flavor, ask and we can offer suggestions on that front as well. Or, if you're worried it won't fit, and / or that he'll outshine other players at the table, and / or that it will prove to be a distraction and detriment overall, just say no. That's why it's a variant, so that you can just say no whenever you want.

[Daishain]

That's why it's a variant, so that you can just say no whenever you want.
It doesn't need to be a variant for that. DMs change the nonvariant rules and/or say NO to ridiculous RAW shenanigans within the same all the time quite freely.

Hell, several of the worst offenses out there don't require any kind of variant rule to function (Wish->simulacrum chain comes to mind)

[ZiggZagg]

He told me the reason for the multiclass, but the exact details escape me at the moment. However, I know they were entirely mechanical. It was a build he found somewhere on this forum. He wants D&D to be more about combat than what I usually make it, so that is his plan is to just be amazing in combat. I am not actually against it. This was more of just DM musings out loud :p

[Daishain]

He told me the reason for the multiclass, but the exact details escape me at the moment. However, I know they were entirely mechanical. It was a build he found somewhere on this forum. He wants D&D to be more about combat than what I usually make it, so that is his plan is to just be amazing in combat. I am not actually against it. This was more of just DM musings out loud :p
Playing D&D for the sake of combat and/or becoming as powerful as possible is a valid style of play. That stated, I tend to find it irritating, as do most of the players I game with. Do as you will, but if he's disrupting the fun of others, I suggest having a chat with him.

[Shining Wrath]

He told me the reason for the multiclass, but the exact details escape me at the moment. However, I know they were entirely mechanical. It was a build he found somewhere on this forum. He wants D&D to be more about combat than what I usually make it, so that is his plan is to just be amazing in combat. I am not actually against it. This was more of just DM musings out loud :p

It's fine for his character to be uber-awesome, so long as the other characters are at least awesome. It's probably not going to be fine if everyone else sits around and watches him win. "Thank you, awesome guy, for awesomely saving us with your awesomeness. Indeed you are awesome" is not something you want them saying every time.

[Xetheral]

I absolutely use the multiclass rules, and have houseruled away the stat requirements for doing so. I tend to encourage my players to use multiclass builds, and actively help them structure the build in a way that's fun to play throughout the level range I expect the campaign to span. If a build requires a new class to be picked up in play, I don't fluff it as a career change or require special RP: the character is still the same character, but has mastered a few new tricks. Single-classed NPCs in my campaign world are quite rare at anything except the lowest levels.

Perhaps it's just my own eclectic approach to life, but I have a hard time seeing single classed characters as at all realistic.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Multi-classing in 3.x was problematic simply because it could significantly boost your power to the point of absurdity. However in 5e, multi-classing has to be very carefully considered due to the nature of the system. It's often better to stick to one class. There are certain combinations of classes that work well together but even then, none that I've seen which are overpowered and you really have to know and consider how you do it otherwise you end up losing out on big class benefits and feats later on.

[LuisDantas]

My experience with D&D 5e is rather recent, but what I have seen suggests that Multiclassing is not really unbalancing... with the apparent exception of the Warlock. He is different enough from other casters to make multiclassing combos dangerously overpowered.

I expect future revisions of the PHB rules to make the spell slots of Warlocks somewhat differentiated from those of other casters in order to minimize that loophole.

[SharkForce]

the warlock dip on other casters is not without cost. it's fine. all it does is buff your "i don't care all that much" action.

which, i mean... it's what you do when you don't care that much about a fight. at level 5, you gave up fireball/hypnotic pattern and an ASI and spell slots so that you could throw a better cantrip. at level 7, you gave up polymorphing into a giant ape for better at-will damage (and also having a bunch of other utility and more spell slots) for... better at-will damage without the utility. and fewer spell slots. at level 9, you gave up level 5 spells and more spell slots, and an ASI. at level 11, single-classed casters start getting the really major spells and most of them get some kind of fairly important ability. and so on.

now, once you've got level 18 in your main class, then it probably isn't a huge deal to take a 2-level warlock splash. but then, you don't get agonizing blast until level 20 that way anyways, so who cares.

multiclassing doesn't break anything for casters. most non-casters pay a price to multi-class as well, and the ones that don't, well... having 9-level stretches where you don't get much of anything cool or awesome sounds like an argument in favour of multiclassing to me, not against it.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I expect future revisions of the PHB rules to make the spell slots of Warlocks somewhat differentiated from those of other casters in order to minimize that loophole.

What loop hole?

[Coidzor]

1. Do you/your group use the multiclassing variant rule? Why or why not?

2. Do you think that the game should be balanced around variant rule?

1. Because I like multiclassing.

2. I don't think multiclassing should be a variant rule, so...


Variant rules are just that. Variants. Not official content.

You have a very strange definition of official content then.


The Paladin in my group took the oath breaker path in order to work with undead as a Paladin of Nerull (basically, death is a neutral force and they oversee graveyards, similar to the Blackguards of Morr from Warhammer), and is planning on going into the Cthulhu bladelock, and I am having trouble trying to find a reason he should be able to blend ancient, forbidden knowledge with his very devout follower of Nerull.

That sounds like a problem of lack of imagination when you put it like that and can't see any way to connect it.

Although, honestly, it really sounds like your player had a brainfart which was why they didn't go with Vecna instead.


Multi-classing in 3.x was problematic simply because it could significantly boost your power to the point of absurdity.

You're thinking of prestige classes and staying as a single-classed fullcaster. :smalltongue:

[mephnick]

I allow one multiclass with a valid fluff reason. Paladin to Warlock is pretty easy to fluff, as a lot of warlocks don't know who their patron is, especially GOO's. They could easily be granted powers from two different sources. You could even make it a conflict in a story line!

You're going to have to work harder to convince me your cleric became a rogue for 3 levels though.

Other than a few well talked about abuses, I'm not sure there's really anything in multiclassing that will make you shine compared to your teammates.

I never do it as a player because I like single class systems.

[1Forge]

So I was reading over the new playtest for psionics, and I am very very impressed. The rules look wonderful, but I noticed one thing about 90% of people that had any issues with it. Everyone is immediately looking at it from a multiclassing perspective, which I feel is because most of us come from a D&D 3.5 background, and that was how we looked at everything. However, in 5th, multiclassing is a variant rule. With this in mind, I have a few questions, as I am still grasping the system and DMing for it.

1. Do you/your group use the multiclassing variant rule? Why or why not?

To be honest, I am leaning towards...not. And the reason is because of the second question.

2. Do you think that the game should be balanced around variant rule?

Variant rules are just that. Variants. Not official content. Therefore...I am not sure I believe the game should actually be immediately concerned with the balance of such a rule. And, I kind of have a feeling that might be why it was made a variant rule in the first place. And I am okay with that. The Paladin in my group took the oath breaker path in order to work with undead as a Paladin of Nerull (basically, death is a neutral force and they oversee graveyards, similar to the Blackguards of Morr from Warhammer), and is planning on going into the Cthulhu bladelock, and I am having trouble trying to find a reason he should be able to blend ancient, forbidden knowledge with his very devout follower of Nerull. It has me thinking heavily on the idea of just saying the multiclassing rule is not going to be used.

Anyway, discuss :)

Umm varient rules are official content, they are simply suggested styles of play you can choose from, unoffical content is like UA.

also discarding a rule that allows for many different playstyles of so many different players severly limits what your players can do. It's like disallowing feats, specific backgrounds, or races; When you start doing this it can be severely limiting to players by dis-allowing their character concepts.

By multiclassing players sacrifice valuble levels in their origonal class, and therefore class progression to gain utility and grow a character concept. I for example play a ex-paladin 1/ fighter. he lost his paladin status and dosent belive he can be forgiven, he then became a hired sword while avoiding the church at all costs. This adds backstory and it also creates opportunity for future RPing (if my character can recive forgiveness he will have paladin ablilities)

[Sigreid]

It's allowed, but so far no one has taken it. The classes are pretty well designed, and the costs associated with multiclassing make it a hard choice. In the end, there's nothing I have seen that would make me believe that multiclassing would ruin the game, but you have to know why you're doing it or it is only going to hurt you.

[CNagy]

As far as I am concerned, Multiclassing is a VINO system (variant in name only). You know, like Feats and Magic Items and other stuff that the Adventurers League games allow.

I tend to use it almost exclusively, but then I also prefer martial characters and character concepts that are best expressed by a greater or lesser degree of Jack-of-all-Trades-ishness. The lack of a class-dependent base attack bonus frees up multiclassing immensely; now the only concern is whether or not you can fulfill any one single role in the party. If you can, everything else is just extra toppings.

Example: one of the few characters I've actually taken all the way to level 20 was a throwback: 2e-style High Elf Fighter/Mage/Thief. He ended up as a Eldritch Knight 6/Conjurer 5/Arcane Trickster 9. For party purposes, he was a Rogue, doing the Rogue-things that Rogues do. Only he with handier with a sword than Rogues tend to be and he always seemed to have exactly what he needed on hand--even if what he needed was a key hanging from a jailer's belt several rooms away (Keen Mind + Conjurer's item creation.) Plus he had 3rd level spells and 5th level spell slots.

Should the game be balanced to include Multiclassing? Yes, as much as it can. The main concern is to prevent combinations from being so horrible as to be completely useless (5e does a pretty good job of this) and prevent any combinations from being so awesome that it is always preferable (your mileage may vary, but I think 5e does less of a good job on this--for the most part, I see no reason to take Fighter or Rogue past 12, as an example, and some class capstones can easily be traded away for a few levels of something else that amounts to a better set of options.)

[eleazzaar]

My personal opinion is that Multiclassing and Feats are "optional" rules, because they wanted to "default" to present the simplest, and easiest version of 5e to all the newcommers.

I don't belive for a second that WotC didn't expect most experienced players to use both these optional rules, and has put as much work into making them balanced as anything else. Because after all these rule are quite balanced and polished, it isn't the sort of thing that just happens without a lot of effort.

As for using multiclassing, yes I do, because it lets me create more varied and interesting characters.

[PoeticDwarf]

So I was reading over the new playtest for psionics, and I am very very impressed. The rules look wonderful, but I noticed one thing about 90% of people that had any issues with it. Everyone is immediately looking at it from a multiclassing perspective, which I feel is because most of us come from a D&D 3.5 background, and that was how we looked at everything. However, in 5th, multiclassing is a variant rule. With this in mind, I have a few questions, as I am still grasping the system and DMing for it.

1. Do you/your group use the multiclassing variant rule? Why or why not?

To be honest, I am leaning towards...not. And the reason is because of the second question.

2. Do you think that the game should be balanced around variant rule?

Variant rules are just that. Variants. Not official content. Therefore...I am not sure I believe the game should actually be immediately concerned with the balance of such a rule. And, I kind of have a feeling that might be why it was made a variant rule in the first place. And I am okay with that. The Paladin in my group took the oath breaker path in order to work with undead as a Paladin of Nerull (basically, death is a neutral force and they oversee graveyards, similar to the Blackguards of Morr from Warhammer), and is planning on going into the Cthulhu bladelock, and I am having trouble trying to find a reason he should be able to blend ancient, forbidden knowledge with his very devout follower of Nerull. It has me thinking heavily on the idea of just saying the multiclassing rule is not going to be used.

Anyway, discuss :)
1. Yes, if I play a rogue/monk/ranger I often have a one level dip in druid/bard/rogue, sometimes one level sorcerer. I do it because I can make a non caster a little bit caster, or I can get expertise.
2. yes, there are good options but not many gamebreaking ones. (I prefer 19 ranger 1 rogue about full ranger, but it isn't really OP or something).

[TheOOB]

Yes and yes. For groups that are willing to add a level of complexity to their game I think multiclassing is a good rule, but best avoided for new players. It is difficult to make a single classes character that isn't good, but it's quite difficult to make a multiclass character that is as good as a single class character, and easy to make one which is much worse.

I think a certain amount of balancing for multiclassing is necessary, and we can see that in practice. Both the paladin and especially the ranger have really important abilities they don't get until second level to make a one level dip in the class not as attractive, and the rogue is very similar as well. Multiclassing, like feats, is an "optional" rule that a significant portion if not the majority of the audience for the game uses, and thus it deserves proper attention.

When rules are not given attention because they are "optional" you get situations like magic item pricing. It would have been infinitely better for WotC to provide no magic item price guidelines at all than the half-assed system in the DMG.

[Psikerlord]

1. Yes. It has barely come up (one person plays a fighter 1/warlock X for pact of the blade). Multiclassing is a really janky system and not something I really like, but it's necessary sometimes because not all character concepts can be represented by a single class.

2. Variant rules need to be balanced, otherwise they are traps for people who don't know better. They put in variant rules so that people will use them. "Variant" is not slang for "This sucks don't use it".

And yes, they are absolutely official content. They're in the single most core book of the entire game, written by Wizards of the Coast, and presented as something that you can and should consider using in your game.


I can create silly and nonsensical characters just fine with a single character class. Multiclassing isn't necessary. Of course, it's all about implementation and background - I could absolutely come up with a good IC justification for a Nerull paladin/Cthulhu warlock.

Don't use MCing and haven't missed it. Game is better without it imo - most of the "minmax" threads involve some amount of MCing. Niche protection is also pretty solid if there is no MCing. If a player has a very specific want for his PC, we make a custom feat instead. Works great! :smallsmile:

[TheOOB]

Don't use MCing and haven't missed it. Game is better without it imo - most of the "minmax" threads involve some amount of MCing. Niche protection is also pretty solid if there is no MCing. If a player has a very specific want for his PC, we make a custom feat instead. Works great! :smallsmile:

Two things. First, the vast majority of multiclass builds are less powerful than single class builds in 5e, barbarian, fighter, and rogue are the only classes that don't lose extremely heavily for losing class levels, and second, there is nothing inherently wrong with min maxing. It's okay to want your character to be good in their strong areas and to minimize their weaknesses, to not try to do so is actually questionable roleplaying.

[SharkForce]

Two things. First, the vast majority of multiclass builds are less powerful than single class builds in 5e, barbarian, fighter, and rogue are the only classes that don't lose extremely heavily for losing class levels, and second, there is nothing inherently wrong with min maxing. It's okay to want your character to be good in their strong areas and to minimize their weaknesses, to not try to do so is actually questionable roleplaying.

...

within reason, that is.

if your devotion paladin is knowingly, willingly and freely making a warlock pact with a fiend so you can get shillelagh as a cha-based cantrip to combine with your channel divinity for double-cha to hit, you've probably gone a bit too far on the min/max scale. though i suppose there might be some extremely unusual circumstance i just haven't considered.

(also, that probably isn't entirely optimized, but the main point i was trying to make was that RP considerations may on occasion compel you to take slightly less optimal choices).

[Psikerlord]

Two things. First, the vast majority of multiclass builds are less powerful than single class builds in 5e, barbarian, fighter, and rogue are the only classes that don't lose extremely heavily for losing class levels, and second, there is nothing inherently wrong with min maxing. It's okay to want your character to be good in their strong areas and to minimize their weaknesses, to not try to do so is actually questionable roleplaying.

I mean excessive minmaxing. Nothing kills a campaign quicker ime.

[D.U.P.A.]

...

within reason, that is.

if your devotion paladin is knowingly, willingly and freely making a warlock pact with a fiend so you can get shillelagh as a cha-based cantrip to combine with your channel divinity for double-cha to hit, you've probably gone a bit too far on the min/max scale. though i suppose there might be some extremely unusual circumstance i just haven't considered.

(also, that probably isn't entirely optimized, but the main point i was trying to make was that RP considerations may on occasion compel you to take slightly less optimal choices).

Still you need 3 levels of Warlock, which is not negligible. Sure, you also get everything you need from Eldritch blast, but if you want to spam the blast, at this point you could just play Warlock. Also many such builds are for level 20, while barely any games go to that level, be more realistic and show a multiclass build of, for example, level 6 character and go through the trouble playing it.

And I prefer that multiclass is rather limited now, although it really depends which class have better low level abilities (Fighter, Warlock) than others (Bard, Ranger).

[GiantOctopodes]

Two things. First, the vast majority of multiclass builds are less powerful than single class builds in 5e, barbarian, fighter, and rogue are the only classes that don't lose extremely heavily for losing class levels, and second, there is nothing inherently wrong with min maxing. It's okay to want your character to be good in their strong areas and to minimize their weaknesses, to not try to do so is actually questionable roleplaying.

I challenge you to find any task in the game where the "best" build doesn't involve multiclassing, if they're by majority less powerful than single class builds.

And if you're saying that *most* MC builds are not optimal and are less powerful than single class builds, but done right MCing can be more powerful, then you create inbalance in the game by making a greater potential disparity in the power levels of any given character by allowing multiclassing. The classes are balanced around each other, a game without multiclassing and feats in it will always be more balanced than one where those things are included. This is doubly true as more supplements and classes are released.

As to the second thing, I certainly agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with min maxing, but strongly disagree that not doing so is "questionable roleplaying".

One of our DMs does not use feats, and has yet to approve a multiclass combo, as I previously indicated. I do not believe our game with him is in any way diminished as a result.

[SharkForce]

Still you need 3 levels of Warlock, which is not negligible. Sure, you also get everything you need from Eldritch blast, but if you want to spam the blast, at this point you could just play Warlock. Also many such builds are for level 20, while barely any games go to that level, be more realistic and show a multiclass build of, for example, level 6 character and go through the trouble playing it.

And I prefer that multiclass is rather limited now, although it really depends which class have better low level abilities (Fighter, Warlock) than others (Bard, Ranger).

build could come online as early as level 6, though level 8 or 9 would be much more recommended (ie first get 5-6 levels of paladin, then go warlock).

but again, that's not the point. the point i was trying to make is that in some cases, RP will dictate that you do not choose a certain character option no matter how optimal it is. devotion paladins should not be making pacts with fiends knowingly and of their own free will, regardless of how many levels they invest into it. in contrast, i would consider a paladin who makes a pact with, say, a fey lord or lady who they believe to be a force for good, or at least basically a good being that just doesn't go around trying to change the world, to be something you could play quite easily (though obviously ancients paladin would be an even better fit).

[Ralanr]

I have a hit or miss view on multiclassing. In pathfinder I saw it as more numbers to track (which I avoided). 5e is the only game where I've considered multiclassing.

Though it's lead my group to do things I don't like, like picking a save to swap with in the class you multiclass with. That's a table problem though, not a problem of multiclassing in of itself.

[Ramshack]

I allow it at my table, I think generally it can create more powerful early game characters but eventually the balance evens out and lets the characters play a concept more true to what they were envisioning. Though sometimes people simply use it to optimize but that's okay. The stronger they are the harder the fights I make for them.

[eleazzaar]

Though it's lead my group to do things I don't like, like picking a save to swap with in the class you multiclass with. That's a table problem though, not a problem of multiclassing in of itself.

Just to be clear, you realize the multiclass rules dont' allow that, right?

[Ralanr]

Just to be clear, you realize the multiclass rules dont' allow that, right?

Hence my dislike of it. Doubly so for the reason a friend used to justify it. Basically in training for this class you should be able to gain some defensive features.

Gaining basic features is supposed to be the reward for, "training" in multiclassing.

Edit: he's not a min/maxer (I'm the closest in the group to that). He just builds off of concepts that are hard to balance and he can be inflexible.

[Demonic Spoon]

To be clear, was he wanting to swap out a save proficiency, or gain additional save proficiencies?

[Ralanr]

To be clear, was he wanting to swap out a save proficiency, or gain additional save proficiencies?

Swap out. Though in hindsight I can't imagine what wizard had that could benefit paladin in terms of saves.

I need to shut off my optimization thinking sometimes.