Would You Prefer Multiclassing Because High Level Abilities Are Lackluster?

[Basement Cat]

While sitting back and reflecting upon my next character build I came to the realization that climbing above 15th level in practically any class didn't appeal to me more than multiclassing did because the highest tier benefits seem lacking compared to lower tier benefits.

That's especially true for clerics and most spell casters--the higher the spell level the far fewer spells available and beyond Clone, etc most are combat oriented and boring where role playing goes.

But the same holds true in general. The game seems designed to focus on the first 10 or so levels and a thread I made a few months ago indicated that the number of players who gamed above 12th level were the rare exception to the general community.

I even grinned at the idea of a character that was all about multiclassing--a couple of Warlock levels, maybe 3 levels Eldritch Fighter to get that "SummonWeapon" thing (beautiful for thrown weapons, especially). Maybe 6 levels in Bard for some spells and a plethora of skills and bonuses. You get the idea.

Does the idea of multiclassing appeal to you more than toughing it out for your 20th level bonus power?

[Aaron Underhand]

Be nice to be in a game that got beyond 5th.

That said there is always "wish"... which tends to limit the extent I multiclass spellcasters...

[Hrugner]

Since I don't expect to play a character much beyond sixth level, I do have a tendency to multiclass in order to tap a few front ended classes rather than hope for a perk from the double digits. Adding one level of cleric, 2 warlock, 2 warrior, 1 ranger, 1 mystic and so on can all provide a benefit better than a level or two further in your core class. Not all at once of course.

[Beelzebubba]

Maybe it's good for spellcasters so they don't end up dominating the game so much?

[Spiritchaser]

I'd say there's a pretty good reason for wizards to go past 15 and if you actually managed 20 on a Druid you'd be thankful you stayed with it.

I think some late game powers could be better but some are plenty strong

[Specter]

Usually yes. Ironically, Rangers and Paladins are more appealing to play than most because your hurting game really increases at 17th level, unlike other martials.

[Findulidas]

Well some classes at certain points. However I can see myself going pure on all as well. The casters actually more than the others. Lock is probably the one I would mc most with, although I really hate the class, its fluff and mechanics, so its safe to say thats why.

[skaddix]

Its a combination...but yeah weak higher level abilities and capstones plays a role plus most games don't go that long...I mean really only Moon Druids and Paladins have truly awesome Capstones in my mind.

[ZorroGames]

Depends on the class and my biases.

EDIT: due to my OD&D D4 hp class features experience with monks and wizards for example, some classes get the HP Paranoia build, especially wizards, of a dip into Cleric or Fighter first. For squishy classes starting hp is treated the same as ability in the initial build.

From listening and reading, a dip into a caster type class or subclass might work for martial classes if I ever get past Tier 2.

Some capstones just do not thrill me. If I get to 20, it won't be single class in certain classes, period.

I am personality wise driven to Dwarf, both types of humans, and Wood Elf Martials; comfort zone drawn to Clerics (ST/WI builds) and Fighters. So adding elements of thise to other classes is a constant temptation.

Capstones are just one factor.

[Corran]

The cost of multiclassing is not about missing high level abilities (it is about that when you hit level 20, and only then), but it is about delaying your progression in your main class for how many levels you are taking out of your main class (again, until you hit level 20).

That creates a shift in balance, where at level X our multiclasss build might be stronger than the singleclass build you would have if you had not multiclassed (example, a fighter 5/ barbarian 2 is probably stronger than a fighter 7), while at level Y the singleclass build is probably stronger than the multiclass build (example, a fighter 11 is probably better than a fighter 9/ barnarian 2).

Multiclassing, mechanically speaking, allows people to add versatility to their builds or lets them achieve gimmicks. IMO, usually a singleclass build is overall stronger than a multiclass build, for the reason that the classes are desinged carefully, while multiclass combinattions are often exposed to various weaknesses.

Especially when we are talking about fullcasters, unless the multiclassing aims at expanding or completelly changing the combat role of the character build, I would say that personally I find multiclassing causing more harm than good (for example, I am not fond of the warlock 2/ sorcerer X build, cause I value getting high level spells without delay more than improving the dpr of this character; however, under specific group composition, where a range dpr is what is missing, maybe I would value more the sorlock build).

So yeah, I guess what I am trying to say, is that generally, I think multiclassing more often leads to weaker than stronger builds than the respective singleclass builds, overall.

[SharkForce]

spellcasters get more abilities of increasing power the further they go into their single class, at least until level 17 (there may or may not be anything particularly compelling beyond level 17 in the specific class you are considering, I suppose).

and no, not just in combat either. there are some great spells for other uses for most spellcasters. I actually find clerics have the least compelling reason to get to level 9 spells, but even they have some pretty good ones.

[Haldir]

Cleric capstone might be worthwhile, but otherwise I totally agree with OP.

[DragonBaneDM]

Its a combination...but yeah weak higher level abilities and capstones plays a role plus most games don't go that long...I mean really only Moon Druids and Paladins have truly awesome Capstones in my mind.

Heh, no disagreement here. I'm playing a Moon Druid who dipped Paladin 2, and any time I look at 20s I cringe a little bit. Ah well, I just hit level 6. Plenty of stuff left to Bear Smite.

Multiclassing appeals to me in all my characters because of similar reasons posted above: I tend to play low level games, where an extra 2 levels spent picking up Agonizing Blast or Divine Smite is worth it damage wise.

[Talionis]

I think you are pointing out one of the few weaknesses of 5E. 5E is much more balanced letting nonmagical characters remain relevant at high levels. While 5E figured out to try to give something at each level to each character, it still front loaded the characters. The pastimes of many classes are poor, lending those classes to 2 and 3 level dips into other classes at minimal loss.

[MrStabby]

I do like multiclassing non casters with casters.

For example getting to level 11 as a battlemaster is nice and all, but I would prefer battlemaster 11 - wizard 3 to battlemaster 14. Access to misty step, a bundle of rituals, shield, absorb elements, invisibility and whatever adds so much more to what my character can do than just beefing up fighting. They are not about making the character a spellcaster but spells can add more to the fighting side of a character than more meat based classes do. Take misty step: if you want to beat things with a sword then this helps a lot - an extra 3 or 4 attacks for every time you would need to take a dash action to reach an opponent, an extra whole combat if you would be stuck behind a wall. The same with spells like expeditious retreat - your ability to get to things and hit them with a sword is pretty massively enhanced by being able to reach them.

Or if you want to tank - abjurer levels, some good use of shield spells... much better at tanking than the extra HP of being a fighter over a wizard.

[Anonymouswizard]

It depends.

My current character is a bit lacklustre, being Paladin 1/Bard 1 (houseruled allowing me to be Dex-based), but that's because I want abilities from both classes (Divine Smite, that nice save bonus aura, and Lore Bard spells and skills). I'm much more likely to multiclass because I want two level 3-8 features from different classes than multiple low level features or the high level options. The current plan is to end up at around Paladin 6/Bard 14 or Paladin 8/Bard 12 (I can't remember where all the abilities I want are). It's a rush up to level 5/6 in Paladin first before I get my second level of Bard.

I also considered single classed characters, but a multiclass just feels better to me. Some of the class concepts are narrow enough that I feel like single class characters end up as one notes in my mind.

[Tanarii]

That's especially true for clerics and most spell casters--the higher the spell level the far fewer spells available and beyond Clone, etc most are combat oriented and boring where role playing goes.Have you ever played a full spell caster to high level? I haven't. So I'm curious if your opinion is based on reading the spells and features, or actually continuing a single classed spell caster character and then deciding to multiclass out at level 15.

Like I said, I haven't. But based on reading the books, I feel like ... you're crazy. There's no way I'd give up level 9 spells for any full caster unless that was my intent from the bigginning (ie an EK 7 --> Wiz multiclass.)


But the same holds true in general. The game seems designed to focus on the first 10 or so levels and a thread I made a few months ago indicated that the number of players who gamed above 12th level were the rare exception to the general community.Yup. That's why wizards designed the game the way they did. XP is designed in such a way that you level to 4 quickly, then slow down from 4->11, the go back to rapid advancement. I think for the rest of the game, might be until 18.


Does the idea of multiclassing appeal to you more than toughing it out for your 20th level bonus power?I don't assume any character will make it to 20. Ever. The only time any characters I've ever seen at high levels, 15+, in a game is when characters started there. This includes in long running campaigns.

Theoretically you could do it in 5e, since advancement is so fast, if you focused on one set of characters and had a single adventuring path reading to go, plus something to fill in the level 16-20 play. If you play one adventuring day / session (2-3 hours of play), 1 session / week, it'd take something like 31 weeks to reach level 16, and 38 weeks to reach level 20. Assuming scheduling problems, you might be able to do that in a year to a year and a half of play.

But that's all theorycrafting. Actual gameplay? Hasn't happened in any game I've ever been in yet. Not even close.

[Pex]

To multiclass or not is a matter of one's personal taste. Those who do it will have their reasons to suit them. Those who don't have their own reasons. Everyone is right. Don't sweat it.

[Sariel Vailo]

As any full caster i go 17 caster and mc i want more intrigue and a ninth level spell.

[CaptainSarathai]

I tend not to worry about the high level captstones. Most campaigns, even if played to completion, won't get much further than 15th level. Even the official D&D modules end it around 15th level. And then of course, you have the campaigns that don't actually complete, and just fizzle out when everyone gets bored around 6th level or so.

Also, yeah, those high level capstones are great for the 2-3 major battles you get to use them in. That's something that I've seen while playing in AL games. People are so excited to hit that build later, that they completely miss the earlier level action.
"Oh yeah, you might be dealing twice as much damage as me now, but wait until I hit level N and get ability XYZ that I can combo (once per day)"
Meanwhile, I'm MCed Fighter/Warlock and smashing people in the face with TWS, Hex, and Action Surge starting at 4th level. The Fighter will eventually catch and surpass me if they take GWM at 4th, or they can wait until they get their 3rd attack at 11th level.
MCing can have similar issues, if you're building for late-game gains. Some people set up these multiclasses that don't even really "kick in" until they're 12 levels in, with 4 levels each in 3 classes or something. The infamous Sorcadin actually feels a bit like this - it's awesome, but you have to reach 8th level before it starts to really feel like the class that everyone wants from it. By the time it starts posting up numbers (health recovered, damage dealt, locks opened, whatever) an ability might not make up for all the of lost opportunities earlier in the game. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the lower level abilities will still carry forward reasonably well. Going back to my Warlock/Fighter - 6d6+3Stat isn't bad at-will damage even at higher levels, and that's assuming that I don't add anything to it on the way the there.

[Citan]

The cost of multiclassing is not about missing high level abilities (it is about that when you hit level 20, and only then), but it is about delaying your progression in your main class for how many levels you are taking out of your main class (again, until you hit level 20).

That creates a shift in balance, where at level X our multiclasss build might be stronger than the singleclass build you would have if you had not multiclassed (example, a fighter 5/ barbarian 2 is probably stronger than a fighter 7), while at level Y the singleclass build is probably stronger than the multiclass build (example, a fighter 11 is probably better than a fighter 9/ barnarian 2).

Multiclassing, mechanically speaking, allows people to add versatility to their builds or lets them achieve gimmicks. IMO, usually a singleclass build is overall stronger than a multiclass build, for the reason that the classes are desinged carefully, while multiclass combinattions are often exposed to various weaknesses.

Especially when we are talking about fullcasters, unless the multiclassing aims at expanding or completelly changing the combat role of the character build, I would say that personally I find multiclassing causing more harm than good (for example, I am not fond of the warlock 2/ sorcerer X build, cause I value getting high level spells without delay more than improving the dpr of this character; however, under specific group composition, where a range dpr is what is missing, maybe I would value more the sorlock build).

So yeah, I guess what I am trying to say, is that generally, I think multiclassing more often leads to weaker than stronger builds than the respective singleclass builds, overall.
I strongly agree with the bolded part (at some levels a single-class is stronger than may multiclass relying on it as a "chassis"), but strongly disagree on the italic one (single-class overall ends better in all cases).

Quite in the contrary, very often multiclassing, although it does eat at powerful end-game abilities, shores up blatant weaknesses of the class, not creating them.

People quoted the Fighter dip for casters giving them improved concentration and AC, meaning higher chance of survival, especially early game but really, all game long.

In the same way, a blatant weakness of a two-hander Fighter or Barbarian would be that its efficiency is really dependent on the ability to reach the enemy, and many things exist to prevent them to do that. Along that, lies the danger of facing powerful enemies and suffer a heavy blow on OA: although costly, a dip for Rogue's Cunning Action doubles their effective range or ensures a safe fall-back, improving their practical efficiency by leaps and bounds.

In the same spirit, a Champion Sharpshooter may still have trouble applying the high risk / high damage. One with decent WIS may tap into Cleric for a small but secure to-hit buff (Bless), or with decent CHA get into the Darkness+Devil's Sight combo (especially since, as a ranged attacker, he can easily set it up without bothering allies).
An Eldricht Knight longbow wielder may become a very trusty party buffer with a single level in Druid or Bard, applying Faerie Fire with Eldricht Strike, which ends as much more contributing to the party than a self-Haste, while eating much less resources.

Most classes have at least one weak spot, a few have serious ones. Some classes ultimately get built-in ways to deal with it, others don't.

Smart multiclassing is a good way to ease the game and may sometimes be the defining difference that allowed your character to reach 10th level and beyond in the first place. ;)

@OP: In spite of my argument just above, I in fact have a different opinion than you. If I knew beforehand I had any decent chance to reach level 20, I'd probably stay single-class with most (maybe even all except Bard and Ranger) at least to "know" the feeling of how the "whole" class was designed, often to get use of the many great capstones. :)

On another hand, if I...
- Think I won't ever reach past some threshold with a character...
- Or I think the campaign will be real hard on us...
- Or wants to shore distinct weakness the party has that cannot fit in a single-class.
- Or just want to make a character revolving around a single (stupid, brilliant, original, whatever) concept...
I won't hesitate one second to multiclass. Even more true if the campaign boostraps the character to some mid-level like char 4-6 (4 levels being often, ime, the minimum required to realize a character concept relying on multiclass, even if it doesn't have all the goal features).

[Foxhound438]

Generally no. There are a few capstones that I don't feel are good or impactful, but for "high level abilities" in general I would say that there's plenty of good stuff to pick up for every class, even though there may be some dead levels in between-

for example, a monk 12/fighter 2 gets action surge and doesn't have the dead weight of tongue of sun and moon, but you also lose out on the incredibly powerful diamond soul.

Similarly, a paladin 12/ warlock 3 gets improved divine smite up close and eldritch blast for ranged encounters, but they lose out on both 4th level spell options (banishment comes to mind) and whatever 15th level subclass feature they would have, like soul of vengeance.

Full casters get even worse to MC out of before 17, as it costs you what would be your highest level spell options.

[Tanarii]

the dead weight of tongue of sun and moon
What kind of campaigns do you play in where the ability to undaerstand any spoken language isn't an incredibly powerful feature*? My players are always cursing because no one knows some esoteric language, so they can't understand the battle commands of the enemy, or something overheard while sneaking around an adventure site.

For that matter, they're often cursing because the only shared language they all have is Common, so when the players are talking tactics during a battle (which players ALWAYS do) the enemy often can understand what they plan to do.

*edit: okay. I'm overselling it. :smallyuk: But it's still no-where near dead weight unless your DM is just hand waving all languages into one language.

[Foxhound438]

What kind of campaigns do you play in where the ability to undaerstand any spoken language isn't an incredibly powerful feature*?

ones where the DM allows an "any magic item you want" shop to exist, making it so anyone can pick up a helm of comprehending languages, making it totally redundant.

[Tanarii]

ones where the DM allows an "any magic item you want" shop to existFair enough. But that will make lots of class features (and spells) totally redundant.