Why does multiclassing need to punish martials?

[Dr_Dinosaur]

5e makes multiclassing much more attractive to spellcasters. Still not always better than staying single, but not nearly as rough as in 3.P

So why do martials get shafted? Extra Attack and ASI/Feats (which noncasters care about more) are locked to individual class levels, meaning a Barbarian who decides to learn some finesse with a few levels of Rogue risks gimping themselves more than seems appropriate, especially compared to a Warlock taking Wizard or Sorcerer levels.

Am I totally off base or did Wizards take their seeming prejudice against noncasters even further with this edition? Are there homebrew rules out there that return character level-based extra attacks and feats?

[RazorChain]

I think you should be ashamed of yourself badmouthing the caster, don't you realize that now I can't fly and be invisible at the same time without using magic items and that is unfair!

[Vaz]

WotC can't balance for ****, but the intention was to remove creative freedom from class options so that they could siphon off more money from less work due to how supply and demand of new material.

Straight classing was almost always intended to be better in 5e, but it's WotC and they kind of messed it up. Some classes are rarely splashed tho: Rogue, Ranger, Wizard, Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Monk don't play nice on the whole with others.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's not that bad. You can't go straight to dipping around for the best low-level features anymore, but once you do get your Extra Attack you're pretty free to start multiclassing your ass off-- the extra boosts you pick up that way are generally in line with or better than higher level class features. Casters have a much stronger incentive to stick to their guns, I think.

[Sception]

access to third level spells is supposed to be a big step up from even upcast spells of lower level, to the point that delaying a 5th caster level is supposed to be as much a penalty as delaying extra attack for melee types.

The extent to which it actually pans out that way is... I'll be generous and say 'up to interpretation'.

That said, I've seen plenty of fighter/barbarians and ranger/rogues. And I've seen very few wizard/clerics or sorcerer/druids, so I'm not so sure that I agree martial multiclasses are always 'punished' compared to caster multiclasses. Indeed, the multiclasses I /most/ often see mix martial and magical types. Fighter/warlocks, monk/clerics, paladin/sorcerers, etc.

[Sigreid]

access to third level spells is supposed to be a big step up from even upcast spells of lower level, to the point that delaying a 5th caster level is supposed to be as much a penalty as delaying extra attack for melee types.

The extent to which it actually pans out that way is... I'll be generous and say 'up to interpretation'.

That said, I've seen plenty of fighter/barbarians and ranger/rogues. And I've seen very few wizard/clerics or sorcerer/druids, so I'm not so sure that I agree martial multiclasses are always 'punished' compared to caster multiclasses. Indeed, the multiclasses I /most/ often see mix martial and magical types. Fighter/warlocks, monk/clerics, paladin/sorcerers, etc.

Wizard clerics are popular in discussion to get your wizard good armor. I've not actually seen it at the table though. But then I only play in one 5 person group so I'm not representative.

[Talamare]

5e makes multiclassing much more attractive to spellcasters. Still not always better than staying single, but not nearly as rough as in 3.P

So why do martials get shafted? Extra Attack and ASI/Feats (which noncasters care about more) are locked to individual class levels, meaning a Barbarian who decides to learn some finesse with a few levels of Rogue risks gimping themselves more than seems appropriate, especially compared to a Warlock taking Wizard or Sorcerer levels.

Am I totally off base or did Wizards take their seeming prejudice against noncasters even further with this edition? Are there homebrew rules out there that return character level-based extra attacks and feats?

Not sure if kidding

Barbarian Rogue is basically the strongest combat build in the game

[lunaticfringe]

You can always go play 3.X Martials have no issues there, right?

And honestly getting extra attack at 6 isn't bad and 7-8 is fine if you have PAM, Crossbow Expert, GWM, SS, Blade Cantrips, Sneak Attack Dice, or TWF imho. There are ways around the delayed attack if you absolutely MUST dip whatever before 5.

[Unoriginal]

Am I totally off base or did Wizards take their seeming prejudice against noncasters even further with this edition?

Yes, you are totally off base.

First, even if it was true, I don't see why not being the best classes to multiclass means that Martials were "shafted" or that WotC is prejudiced against them.

Second, your claim isn't accurate in itself.




So why do martials get shafted? Extra Attack and ASI/Feats (which noncasters care about more) are locked to individual class levels, meaning a Barbarian who decides to learn some finesse with a few levels of Rogue risks gimping themselves more than seems appropriate, especially compared to a Warlock taking Wizard or Sorcerer levels.

Yes, I'm sure the Wizard/Warlock is better than Rogue/Barbarian.

Seriously, though, some of the most recommended build include Rogue/Barbarian, Paladin/Warlock, Paladin/Sorcerer (at a certain period, at least) and the like. To say nothing of stuff like "dip Fighter to get heavy armor".

And believe me, no, casters don't care less about ASI. They just get less.

[bid]

Am I totally off base or did Wizards take their seeming prejudice against noncasters even further with this edition?
The real shaft WotC rammed through martials was the 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests. Everyone knows casters and DM prefer the 5-minutes day.

[Potato_Priest]

The real shaft WotC rammed through martials was the 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests. Everyone knows casters and DM prefer the 5-minutes day.

You put it in blue, but it's true. I do wilderness survival games a lot, and 6-8 medium difficulty encounters for a party of PCs in one day is just unreasonably dense for any wilderness. Gritty rest variant doesn't work either since the party is usually in the woods for long enough that they can't just head back to town for a week when they need a long rest. Thus, my games suffer heavily from 5 minute rest syndrome.

[Unoriginal]

You put it in blue, but it's true. I do wilderness survival games a lot, and 6-8 medium difficulty encounters for a party of PCs in one day is just unreasonably dense for any wilderness. Gritty rest variant doesn't work either since the party is usually in the woods for long enough that they can't just head back to town for a week when they need a long rest. Thus, my games suffer heavily from 5 minute rest syndrome.

... if you're playing a *survival game*, why is the party not being to take long rest a problem?

Why do you let them take 5 minute work day if the goal is survival?


The "6-8 encounter per day" thing isn't about a literal day, it's the time between which the PCs can properly rest for 8 hours or so without getting attacked.

[Knaight]

You can always go play 3.X Martials have no issues there, right?

Why is it that with any criticism of D&D people hide behind other editions of D&D that were even worse about that particular criticism? There's no shortage of other games out there, it's not unreasonable to expect WotC to have learned something from some of them.

[lunaticfringe]

Why is it that with any criticism of D&D people hide behind other editions of D&D that were even worse about that particular criticism? There's no shortage of other games out there, it's not unreasonable to expect WotC to have learned something from some of them.

Shrugs, because sarcasm is fun?

Is 5 levels of whatever really a big deal to grab extra attack?

[Malifice]

5e makes multiclassing much more attractive to spellcasters.

Until you realise you're losing access to high level spells by MCing.


Still not always better than staying single, but not nearly as rough as in 3.P

True.


So why do martials get shafted? Extra Attack and ASI/Feats (which noncasters care about more) are locked to individual class levels, meaning a Barbarian who decides to learn some finesse with a few levels of Rogue risks gimping themselves more than seems appropriate, especially compared to a Warlock taking Wizard or Sorcerer levels.

They didnt.

A Wizard/ Sorcerer that MCs before 5th level delays gamechangers like (Fireball, Haste, Fly, Counterspell). A Cleric that does it delays gamechangers like (Revivify, Spirit Guardians). A Bard that does it delays (Inspiration on a short rest instead of long rest).

MCing before 5th level is generally speaking a terrible idea, and you never want to dip more than 1 level in another class before 5th (Fighter 1 for Bladelocks).

[Unoriginal]

Why is it that with any criticism of D&D people hide behind other editions of D&D that were even worse about that particular criticism? There's no shortage of other games out there, it's not unreasonable to expect WotC to have learned something from some of them.

OP implied that 3.Pathfinder addressed that particular criticism better than 5e when they wrote "did Wizards take their seeming prejudice against noncasters even further with this edition?"

Such, it is relevant to point out to those games.

[Malifice]

And honestly getting extra attack at 6 isn't bad and 7-8 is fine if you have PAM, Crossbow Expert, GWM, SS, Blade Cantrips, Sneak Attack Dice, or TWF imho.

Not when the guy standing next to you has the exact same things, AND also has extra attack.

Trust me. MCing before 5th level is a really bad idea in 5E.

[Varlon]

It's not that bad. You can't go straight to dipping around for the best low-level features anymore, but once you do get your Extra Attack you're pretty free to start multiclassing your ass off-- the extra boosts you pick up that way are generally in line with or better than higher level class features. Casters have a much stronger incentive to stick to their guns, I think.

I agree. I have a Rogue 5/Fighter 5 who has just been zig-zagging around haphazardly with levels, and I don't feel punished at all. Meanwhile, a caster that decides to multiclass even a single level is immediately punished by being behind in spell progression, permanently.

[lunaticfringe]

Not when the guy standing next to you has the exact same things, AND also has extra attack.

Trust me. MCing before 5th level is a really bad idea in 5E.

Yeah you aren't optimized, but you will catch up because I assume you are doing something weird that will balance out at higher level. If you are just randomly dipping like a 3.5 toon you is screwed. Also Blade Cantrips don't really help that guy and it can vary with sneak attack dice the guy w/ extra attack usually has fewer.

[Malifice]

Yeah you aren't optimized, but you will catch up because I assume you are doing something weird that will balance out at higher level. If you are just randomly dipping like a 3.5 toon you is screwed. Also Blade Cantrips don't really help that guy and it can vary with sneak attack dice the guy w/ extra attack usually has fewer.

Here is an example of things that come online at 5th level

Martials (all): Extra attack. Doubling of your combat effectiveness, at will. Has flow on effect for Fighters (thanks to action surge exponentially improving to 4 attacks when spammed)
Monks (also get): Stunning strike
Barbarians (also get): Fast Movement
Paladins/ Rangers (also get): 2nd level spells and instead of 3 slots day/ now have 6 slots/ day

Rogues: +3d6 sneak attack, uncanny dodge (half damage 1 attack/ round)

Casters (all): 3rd level spells (Counterspell, revivify, fireball, dispell magic, fly, haste, spirit guardians, lightning bolt etc). All the gamechangers (spells that literally change the way you play the game) come online here at 3rd level.

Bards (also get): Bardic inspiration on a short rest (not a long rest).

These are all exponential power increases for single class PCs at this level.

I see it time and time again. PCs that MC before 5th level regretting the **** out of it for several levels (and dozens of sessions) thereafter.

The only time I've ever done it and been OK with it was Fighter1/ Warlock X (blade pact). Even then, 5th level hurt bad.

[Asmotherion]

5e makes multiclassing much more attractive to spellcasters. Still not always better than staying single, but not nearly as rough as in 3.P

So why do martials get shafted? Extra Attack and ASI/Feats (which noncasters care about more) are locked to individual class levels, meaning a Barbarian who decides to learn some finesse with a few levels of Rogue risks gimping themselves more than seems appropriate, especially compared to a Warlock taking Wizard or Sorcerer levels.

Am I totally off base or did Wizards take their seeming prejudice against noncasters even further with this edition? Are there homebrew rules out there that return character level-based extra attacks and feats?

Nope. They just made multiclassing more interesting. A Martial can multiclass the same easy way as a Caster can. And to be honest, when there are magic wielding guys around, Wish Users and the like it is kinda improbable that the world will either be saved or destroyed by the one guy who dedicated 20 levels into NOT wielding magic at all, and instead being "really good with a mundane sword, that was unable to harm the BBEG". Thankfully, even a small feat/1 level dip can change that. I see it as making each character more unique, and less depending on magical items, instead learning a bit of magic on his own, one way or the other.


WotC can't balance for ****, but the intention was to remove creative freedom from class options so that they could siphon off more money from less work due to how supply and demand of new material.

Straight classing was almost always intended to be better in 5e, but it's WotC and they kind of messed it up. Some classes are rarely splashed tho: Rogue, Ranger, Wizard, Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Monk don't play nice on the whole with others.

Appart from the fact that this is entirelly disrespectfull to the creators, it is also entirelly inaccurate. You do realise they gave away 3/4 of 5e to download for free via the Oppen Game Licence and Unearthed Arcana, right? They also dedicate time and effort to make UA to get constant feedback from us, the players on what we want to see next.

If that sounds to you like an enterprise that "wants to siphon more money from less work", I think you have a very immature view on the world's ecconomy, esspecially if you compare it with some other gaming buisness politics.

[Luccan]

You can always go play 3.X Martials have no issues there, right?

I mean, to be fair to this point, few if any of the 3.X martial builds I see have fewer than 3 classes, so technically it was more favorable. But that was because martials sucked compared to casters, so switching classes for niche abilities was necessary for a good build.

More to OPs point, it's hard to multiclass martials because multiclassing isn't the intended way to play the game in 5e. WotC is already bad at balance with variable factors, in all likelihood multiclassing martials wasn't given the thought it needed, while they tried to make multiclassing between spellcasting classes more appealing than in previous editions (where there was rarely any point in doing so, since a single class caster already had all the power+versatility it needed). Now, others with more 5e experience are probably right: Once you get your second attack*, you're probably fine to start dipping. But to be fair, I wouldn't want to be the caster that missed out on 3rd level spells when everyone else got them, so...

*Conveniently, you'll also have gotten whatever feat your build/concept needs by that point (feats were certainly improved in this edition. No need to take more than one or two for most builds)

[Malifice]

More to OPs point, it's hard to multiclass martials

Its not hard to do it. You just need to wait a little.

I see plenty of Barbarian + Fighter (champion 3 is common) and Rogue + Fighters. Ranger + Fighter and Paladin + Fighter etc.

The trick is not to do it before 5th level. Hit 5th, get extra attack, then branch out for a few levels.

This also applies to Casters. Even a single level dip before 5th level delays the 'gamechanger' spells (Revivify, Fireball, Counter spell, Fly, Haste, Spirit Guardians etc).

These spells radically change the way the game is played.

Ive seen plenty of Players read crap on forums and MC before 5th level, only to hit 5th level next to a single classed PC and really really regret it when playing along side that 5th level single classed guy.

Sorlocks being the most common offender.

[MxKit]

Martials (all): Extra attack. Doubling of your combat effectiveness, at will. Has flow on effect for Fighters (thanks to action surge exponentially improving to 4 attacks when spammed)

Mostly just jumping in here to say that at level 5, Fighters absolutely do not get 4 attacks and can't spam Action Surge very much:

"On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action. Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice before a rest, but only once on the same turn."

At fifth level, you'll be able to have two attacks per turn consistently, and three attacks once per combat if you're very lucky and your DM is insanely generous with the short rests; if not, it's three attacks on one turn until you can take a short rest, and two attacks otherwise.

When you hit level 11, you'll be able to attack four times on a turn, but again, only once between short rests; it's three attacks otherwise. At level 17, you'll be able to attack four times on a turn twice between short rests. And if you go straight Fighter, you can attack five times on a turn twice between short rests when you hit level 20, and four attacks per turn otherwise. You can't really spam Action Surge, unfortunately, even at later levels, and if you ever dip more than three levels into any other class(es), you'll never be able to spam it.

That said, I'd agree that hitting level 5 and not getting a second attack (and once-per-short-rest three attacks!) would definitely hurt. However...


I see it time and time again. PCs that MC before 5th level regretting the **** out of it for several levels (and dozens of sessions) thereafter.

I think it would depend on the player, the amount of multiclass, the build, how they take the other levels, and the table itself. Uncanny Dodge is amazing and an extra d6 to Sneak Attack is always a step up, but will every player who plays a Rogue 3/Fighter 2 feel upset that they multiclassed early at a 5th-level table? I think that would depend on how highly they value/how much they enjoy having a fighting style and Action Surge. Same with Rogue 3/Warlock 2: How much is the player getting out of their magic, a potential access to darkvision on steroids (especially if they aren't playing a race that gets darkvision naturally), their initial Patron feature? If they do regret it, they'll have to regret it for two levels, yes, but depending on how quickly the table tends to level up, it's not necessarily going to take dozens of sessions for them to hit Rogue 5.

I would definitely advise players to really consider what they're getting from their multiclass and how that compares to what they'll be getting in their base class. Not even just next level, but when the rest of the party is hitting a different tier in their main class, and when their main class caps out—hell, whether they want to multiclass before reaching their next ASI/feat! A lot of people don't put enough thought into it, and even more people than that, I think, just underestimate how important certain class features are, and over-estimate how important others are, in action.

But I don't think it's always going to be something a player regrets, or regrets more than a little even if they do kinda regret it. Some players will really feel like they're getting a lot out of that heavy armor proficiency, or darkvision, or eldritch blast, or hell, will even just love the flavor of being a Dragonborn Draconic Sorcerer 1/Swords Bard 4. And, hell, sometimes you'll find yourself in a game where everyone is multiclassing, so everyone hitting the boost in power at level 6 or 7 won't feel that bad at all.

[LeonBH]

The nice thing about being a caster is your cantrips scale with character level, so even if you delay the high level spells, your cantrip progression continues.

"Game changing" spells also begin at level 3 for them with Suggestion and Phantasmal Force. I say "game changing" here as spells that can totally invalidate a combat encounter by turning it from a Deadly one to an Easy one.

This means, for some casters, multiclassing before 5th level is very viable.

[Malifice]

Mostly just jumping in here to say that at level 5, Fighters absolutely do not get 4 attacks and can't spam Action Surge very much:

"On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action. Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice before a rest, but only once on the same turn."

At fifth level, you'll be able to have two attacks per turn consistently, and three attacks once per combat if you're very lucky and your DM is insanely generous with the short rests; if not, it's three attacks on one turn until you can take a short rest, and two attacks otherwise.

One addtional action when you action surge. The ATTACK action.

You you take the Attack action (AND attack twice thanks to extra attack) AND then you action surge and take the Attack action again, and attack twice more.

You make 4 attacks. Plus your bonus action as well if you have something you want to do with it.

With 2-3 short rests per long rest the median average (as suggested in the DMG) you'll have 3-4 action surges per day.


When you hit level 11, you'll be able to attack four times on a turn, but again, only once between short rests; it's three attacks otherwise.

Nope. Its 6 attacks on your turn. 3 from the 1st attack action, and 3 more from the second attack action.


At level 17, you'll be able to attack four times on a turn twice between short rests.
And if you go straight Fighter, you can attack five times on a turn twice between short rests when you hit level 20,

Nope. Its 8 attacks (4 from the first attack action, and 4 from the second attack action).

Read the rules bro.


I think it would depend on the player, the amount of multiclass, the build, how they take the other levels, and the table itself. Uncanny Dodge is amazing and an extra d6 to Sneak Attack is always a step up, but will every player who plays a Rogue 3/Fighter 2 feel upset that they multiclassed early at a 5th-level table?

Yes they will.

A Fighter 5 is spamming extra attack (and a Feat). A Rogue 5 is spamming 3d6 sneak attack (instead of 2d6), plus uncanny dodge (and a Feat).

A Rogue 3 Fighter 2 will be behind the power curve. The F/S makes up for the damage loss from losing a d6 sneak attack, but they're also down a feat/ ASI and uncanny dodge (1/ round half damage).


I think that would depend on how highly they value/how much they enjoy having a fighting style and Action Surge. Same with Rogue 3/Warlock 2: How much is the player getting out of their magic, a potential access to darkvision on steroids (especially if they aren't playing a race that gets darkvision naturally), their initial Patron feature? If they do regret it, they'll have to regret it for two levels, yes, but depending on how quickly the table tends to level up, it's not necessarily going to take dozens of sessions for them to hit Rogue 5.

Compare Rogue 3/ Lock 2 to Warlock 5.

Fiend lock, blade pact. [Fireball + Counterspell, extra attack, GWM feat, greatsword].

He's on a different level. He's got gamechanging spells and exponentially better combat potential than his M/C buddy.

Thats not to say the MC'd PC is '****'. It's just he doesnt have the same impact that a single classed 5th level PC has and it shows at the table.

[Malifice]

The nice thing about being a caster is your cantrips scale with character level, so even if you delay the high level spells, your cantrip progression continues.

"Game changing" spells also begin at level 3 for them with Suggestion and Phantasmal Force. I say "game changing" here as spells that can totally invalidate a combat encounter by turning it from a Deadly one to an Easy one.

This means, for some casters, multiclassing before 5th level is very viable.

I dont consider a SoS spell like suggestion to be the same level of gamechanging as Revivify (PCs no longer fear death), Spirit Guardians, Fireball, Fly, Haste, Counterspell etc.

Once those spells come online, they literally change the way you play your PC.

[LeonBH]

I dont consider a SoS spell like suggestion to be the same level of gamechanging as Revivify (PCs no longer fear death), Spirit Guardians, Fireball, Fly, Haste, Counterspell etc.

Once those spells come online, they literally change the way you play your PC.

Revivify has a gold cost and cannot be spammed at the level you gain it, so PCs can still fear death. Fireball is boring, and Spirit Guardians is an immobile damage area. Fly, Haste, and Counterspell are top picks, but you don't need them that badly just yet.

They definitely change the game, but they don't invalidate encounters. They give you massive power ups so you can do more of the things you were already doing at level 4 (Haste: more movement, more actions), or do it differently (Fly: stay out of melee range while firing ranged attacks). Counterspell is a gem, but I doubt you will die at level 6 and 7 due to not having it yet.

Suggestion and Phantasmal Force change the game as well. They are potent upgrades to the caster's arsenal and can carry them through the early levels. Casters who have access to it can afford to wait a bit more since they also have game changers at their disposal.

[MxKit]

One addtional action when you action surge. The ATTACK action.

You you take the Attack action (AND attack twice thanks to extra attack) AND then you action surge and take the Attack action again, and attack twice more.

You make 4 attacks. Plus your bonus action as well if you have something you want to do with it.

With 2-3 short rests per long rest the median average (as suggested in the DMG) you'll have 3-4 action surges per day.



Nope. Its 6 attacks on your turn. 3 from the 1st attack action, and 3 more from the second attack action.



Nope. Its 8 attacks (4 from the first attack action, and 4 from the second attack action).

... /)_= That was legitimately my bad and I'm sorry. I've even played in games with Fighters (though, if you couldn't tell, not many), I don't know why I had such a critical failure just now.

That said, I wouldn't call that spamming it per se, but so long as the DM does give the characters 2-3 short rests per day, it's definitely consistent enough and four attacks is a big enough jump that it's pretty incredible.


Yes they will.

A Fighter 5 is spamming extra attack (and a Feat). A Rogue 5 is spamming 3d6 sneak attack (instead of 2d6), plus uncanny dodge (and a Feat).

A Rogue 3 Fighter 2 will be behind the power curve. The F/S makes up for the damage loss from losing a d6 sneak attack, but they're also down a feat/ ASI and uncanny dodge (1/ round half damage).

I mean, I do agree that they'll be behind the power curve. My argument is that not every player is going to feel upset by it, and not even all the players who regret it will feel that much regret over it. It's not optimized and they're going to have to wait a level to get their feat/ASI and two levels to get Uncanny Dodge, yes, but I don't think that it follows that every player is going to feel upset about that. Especially if they go in really thinking about whether or not they're okay with delaying those things.


Compare Rogue 3/ Lock 2 to Warlock 5.

Fiend lock, blade pact. [Fireball + Counterspell, extra attack, GWM feat, greatsword].

He's on a different level. He's got gamechanging spells and exponentially better combat potential than his M/C buddy.

Thats not to say the MC'd PC is '****'. It's just he doesnt have the same impact that a single classed 5th level PC has and it shows at the table.

And again, I really do agree with this. But that's straight Warlock, and maybe a player does not want to play straight Warlock, or start with Warlock, or go more than two or three levels into Warlock, but still wants access to the Warlock features ASAP.

My argument here really is only that some players may well feel that what they get out of the multiclass works for them well enough that they are fine putting off reaching those 5th level class abilities. They might even be a little disappointed but aware that when they planned out their build they knew they were going to be a bit behind but decided that trade-off was okay with them. I would agree that a fair number of players would probably be upset! But I don't think that all players will "regret the **** out of it" for dozens of sessions and feel like they made a significant mistake doing it that way.

And, full disclosure, I'm saying this as someone who has weighed multiclassing for myself multiple times and decided I'd rather not multiclass, in 99% of situations, before level 4 or 5. I am rarely willing to delay that very first ASI/feat at all, and I'd usually rather reach that level 5 jump-up you're talking about. But I've also known people for whom that's not true. And I've played at tables where everyone, or everyone except one guy, multiclassed early, so the delay was pretty much table-wide and didn't feel bad at all to me. And I've played at tables where everyone was way more interested in the flavor than the efficacy of the characters (very laid back friends-playing-together situation, which I know isn't an everyday way to game or especially the way things feel at AL, but still!), and early dips having people behind wasn't really an issue there either.

And, I mean, I've seen people play the PHB standard Ranger and the Four Elements Monk and have a blast. So again, mostly I'm arguing that not every player's going to be significantly upset even by being, as you rightfully say, behind where they'd otherwise be.

ETA: That said, I don't think we disagree totally when it comes to answering the OP. Both of us do feel that multiclassing doesn't punish martials more than spellcasters, after all! It just seems we differ as to whether multiclassing before fifth level punishes everyone a huge amount to the point that a player wouldn't enjoy it full-stop, or if the punishment might not feel as crippling for every player.

[strangebloke]

Cantrips do scale off of character level, not class level, which is somewhat inconsistent with how martial classes' damage progression works. You don't get sneak attack progression or improved smite just because you took a two level dip in rogue or paladin five levels ago. It'd make more sense if each caster got a 'improved cantrip' feature that increased the number of damage die to 2/3/4 respectively.

Particularly when it feels like they sometimes want Warlock to be 'Eldritch Blast: The Class'

However, multiclassing for casters is and will always be worse, since you lose access to high-level spells, and because, unlike a martial, you can't pick your primary attribute. A Barb/Rogue works in part because you can pick to use STR for both classes. You can't pick to use WIS for both cleric and sorcerer.

But overall multiclassing is fun. You're just expected to multiclass only once instead of like three or four times like in 3.5e.

[Asmotherion]

I dont consider a SoS spell like suggestion to be the same level of gamechanging as Revivify (PCs no longer fear death), Spirit Guardians, Fireball, Fly, Haste, Counterspell etc.

Once those spells come online, they literally change the way you play your PC.

Granted, 3rd level spells are what makes the differance between "I know some spells" and "I am a caster". Still, delaying your progression for 1 or 2 levels to gain something in return that may allow you to enjoy your character development earlier on instead of waiting, is not neceserally a bad choice, since you'll eventually catch up. Sometimes, it's less about actual optimisation, and more about wanting to play this aspect of your character.

[LeonBH]

Granted, 3rd level spells are what makes the differance between "I know some spells" and "I am a caster". Still, delaying your progression for 1 or 2 levels to gain something in return that may allow you to enjoy your character development earlier on instead of waiting, is not neceserally a bad choice, since you'll eventually catch up. Sometimes, it's less about actual optimisation, and more about wanting to play this aspect of your character.

I thought that was 6th level spells (half casters get only up to 5th level)

[Kane0]

Barbarian 2+
Cleric 1+
Fighter 1+
Paladin 2+
Rogue 2+
Warlock 1+

How do these shaft martials? Some of these are considered the strongest options for dipping or multiclassing.

[Malifice]

Revivify has a gold cost and cannot be spammed at the level you gain it, so PCs can still fear death.

Death at 1st-4th level is death.

Once Revivify comes online, you no longer need to fear death as much as long as your Cleric lives and has a 3rd level+ slot spare.

It subtly but fundamentally changes the way the game is played.


Fireball is boring, and Spirit Guardians is an immobile damage area. Fly, Haste, and Counterspell are top picks, but you don't need them that badly just yet.

They are game changers though mate. Fireball (and spirit guardians) clears a room of mooks in ways that no upcast 1st or 2nd level spell does. Fly can be an encounter ender as well for critters that lack ranged attacks. Counterspell is a life saver as well. Haste is huge when used properly.

3rd level spells is the first wave of really good spells. Spells that really change the way you play the game.

This was intentional IMO. 5th level (3rd level spells come online) is intentionally when all classes recieve a huge (exponential even) power boost.


They definitely change the game, but they don't invalidate encounters.

Try Fireball vs a dozen [Orcs, Hobgoblins, etc] plus a [Boss monster]. The encounter is over. The Fighter(s) can mop up the Boss after you've levelled the Mooks.

5E relies on many encounters featuring a 'Boss' monster [Orc Chieftan, Hobgoblin Warlord, Bandit Captain], a couple of 'heavies' [Orogs, Thugs, Hobgoblin Champion] and lots of Mooks [Orcs, Hobgoblins, Bandits, Cultists] that remain dangerous thanks to bounded accuracy.

AoE spells like Fireball make these encounters trivial. You get left with a badly scorched boss facing 5 PCs about to action economy crush him, and lot of dead mooks.

Its a big change from 3E where fireball sucked. Its now a huge deal when it first comes on line.

[Asmotherion]

I thought that was 6th level spells (half casters get only up to 5th level)
Well, I have a whole table about that XD

5th level spells is the limit of "common" magic, as in the magic publically known. The most well known Archmage is officially reported using 5th level spells. That's the limit of what "magical science can explain".

6th level spells (and above) is practically the level of magic that trancends "arcane scinece" and goes in the domain of the "supernatural". Things of Legend. Spells that people don't oppenly talk about. Necromancy of that level can give means of indirect immortality, Evocation can Disintegrade things etc.

It's not really official, just how I see it, and use it in my games.

[Malifice]

Granted, 3rd level spells are what makes the differance between "I know some spells" and "I am a caster". Still, delaying your progression for 1 or 2 levels to gain something in return that may allow you to enjoy your character development earlier on instead of waiting, is not neceserally a bad choice, since you'll eventually catch up. Sometimes, it's less about actual optimisation, and more about wanting to play this aspect of your character.

Im not saying it cripples you. Just that the difference in relative power is noticable.

A fighter 2/ Rogue 3 is perfectly viable. Its just the power difference is noticable between them and (say) a 5th level single classed [Fighter] or [Rogue].

Same deal with a Cleric 2/ Wizard 3. Perfectly viable. Again though in actual play, there is a noticable power lag between that guy and (say) a straight Wizard 5 or Cleric 5.

The 5th class single classed guys really hit their straps at 5th level with class features that exponentially increase thier power (stunning strike, improved bardic inspiration, uncanny dodge, 3rd level spells, extra attack etc).

MC PCs miss out at this level. A 2 level dip (like above) generally means they have to sit in the shadows of the single classed PCs for several sessions before 'catching up'.

[thereaper]

Given the way that martial dpr eventually stagnates, while multiclassing into a caster is easy and a lot of low-level spells are extremely powerful, I would argue that multiclassing actually benefits martials more than casters. Focusing your entire build into dpr seems a bit silly if you're going to start losing ground to the monsters eventually anyway. The smarter move would therefore seem to be to stick with a martial for 3-6 levels and then multiclass into a caster. You end up with decent dpr, some nice features, and spellcasting. Heck, even barbarians can pull it off if they think like a Moon Druid ("okay, does my party need me to cast this encounter, or tank?").

[Malifice]

Given the way that martial dpr eventually stagnates,

How is it stagnating?

Fighters get another attack at 11th and again at 20th. Sup dice (on a Battlemaster) increase as you level up as well.

Plus 2/ Action surges/ short rest eventually. And a ton of ASI/ feats.

[LeonBH]

Death at 1st-4th level is death.

Once Revivify comes online, you no longer need to fear death as much as long as your Cleric lives and has a 3rd level+ slot spare.

It subtly but fundamentally changes the way the game is played.

Sure, but death at level 5 without the prerequisite gold is also still death. And yes, it does change the game nonetheless.


They are game changers though mate. Fireball (and spirit guardians) clears a room of mooks in ways that no upcast 1st or 2nd level spell does. Fly can be an encounter ender as well for critters that lack ranged attacks. Counterspell is a life saver as well. Haste is huge when used properly.

3rd level spells is the first wave of really good spells. Spells that really change the way you play the game.

This was intentional IMO. 5th level (3rd level spells come online) is intentionally when all classes recieve a huge (exponential even) power boost.

I agree all those spells change the game. But have you tried to suggest an orc hold down his fellow orc because he has committed sacrilege against Gruumsh (or whatever other reason is valid in that circumstance), to take out two combatants in the encounter immediately? On a Sorcerer who twins the spell, that is four combatants removed. That also changes the game.


Try Fireball vs a dozen [Orcs, Hobgoblins, etc] plus a [Boss monster]. The encounter is over. The Fighter(s) can mop up the Boss after you've levelled the Mooks.

Agreed, a Fireball is effective when you have a dozen of [mooks] and a [boss monster] for the purpose of wiping out the mooks. I find it a boring tactic, but it's definitely effective.

It is also effective to use Phantasmal Force on the [boss monster] such that they [surrender/command a retreat/are instantly out of the fight] as the Fighter cleans up the mooks.


5E relies on many encounters featuring a 'Boss' monster [Orc Chieftan, Hobgoblin Warlord, Bandit Captain], a couple of 'heavies' [Orogs, Thugs, Hobgoblin Champion] and lots of Mooks [Orcs, Hobgoblins, Bandits, Cultists] that remain dangerous thanks to bounded accuracy.

AoE spells like Fireball make these encounters trivial. You get left with a badly scorched boss facing 5 PCs about to action economy crush him, and lot of dead mooks.

Its a big change from 3E where fireball sucked. Its now a huge deal when it first comes on line.

No disagreement here, Fireball is super effective. It's just that certain spells that come online at 3rd level are also game changers, and can carry you through level 5 if you multiclassed before then.

[Laserlight]

I think ”never MC until you hit L5 in your first class” is a bit extreme; sure, a cleric 1/wizard X (for example) is going to spend some sessions where a straight wizard could have cast a higher level spell (once a day), but the c/w has more flexibility.
Now, if you said ”you'll probably enjoy a 1/5 or 5/1 more than a 3/3”, I'd agree.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Cantrips do scale off of character level, not class level, which is somewhat inconsistent with how martial classes' damage progression works. You don't get sneak attack progression or improved smite just because you took a two level dip in rogue or paladin five levels ago. It'd make more sense if each caster got a 'improved cantrip' feature that increased the number of damage die to 2/3/4 respectively.
Sure, but even with the progression damaging cantrips are pretty bad. The 5th level boost makes them about as effective as a single weapon attack WITHOUT anything like feats or fighting styles to boost it.

[thereaper]

How is it stagnating?

Fighters get another attack at 11th and again at 20th. Sup dice (on a Battlemaster) increase as you level up as well.

Plus 2/ Action surges/ short rest eventually. And a ton of ASI/ feats.

Look at Kryx's dpr chart (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1470229917). Martial dpr generally starts tapering off in the teens. Meanwhile, monster hitpoints are still going up. Therefore, after a certain point, a martial character's ability to kill CR-appropriate monsters within a given timeframe (that is, the thing they specialize in) starts decreasing with level. Keep in mind, in order to keep up with the ever-increasing power of spellcasters to solve problems, a martial character must, at the very least, get better at killing CR-appropriate monsters with each level. The KPR section shows the opposite.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if one is going to play a martial at the levels where this becomes an issue, and they care about their character's ability to contribute, they should diversify into spellcasting to at least some degree. War Cleric, for example, gives some martial prowess as well as good spellcasting (including some spells that don't need higher level slots, such as Healing Word or Bless).

Multiclassing does mean losing even more ground to the monsters in terms of KPR, but why care too much about that if you're going to be losing ground either way? To me, it makes far more sense to simply maintain an adequate KPR that is above that of the party spellcasters and improve the character's overall ability to contribute to the party by getting some spellcasting of one's own.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

[JellyPooga]

Im not saying it cripples you. Just that the difference in relative power is noticable.

A fighter 2/ Rogue 3 is perfectly viable. Its just the power difference is noticable between them and (say) a 5th level single classed [Fighter] or [Rogue].

Same deal with a Cleric 2/ Wizard 3. Perfectly viable. Again though in actual play, there is a noticable power lag between that guy and (say) a straight Wizard 5 or Cleric 5.

The 5th class single classed guys really hit their straps at 5th level with class features that exponentially increase thier power (stunning strike, improved bardic inspiration, uncanny dodge, 3rd level spells, extra attack etc).

MC PCs miss out at this level. A 2 level dip (like above) generally means they have to sit in the shadows of the single classed PCs for several sessions before 'catching up'.

It depends on what, exactly, you're looking for in your character. "Power" is a nebulous term that's too often equated with "DPR". A Fighter 2/Rogue 3 might not have the same damage output of a single Class Fighter or the defensive capabilities of a single Class Rogue, but he does have a very effective blend of both, being able to utilise better armour and nova potential than the single Class Rogue and also enjoying superior mobility and skills to the single Class Fighter. Which is the "most powerful" is entirely subjective.

The difference for spellcasters is much more noticeable, in my opinion, because spellcasting is already a versatile tool. Missing out on Extra Attack for a couple of levels means losing out on a single aspect; i.e. damage output. Missing out on 3rd level spells means losing out on a whole range of options; i.e. the entire 3rd level spell list for your Class. Spellcasters are hit far more by multiclassing than Martials, because they usually give up "many options" in order to gain "one specific thing" (or at least a small number of things), where for martials the reverse is usually the case. e.g. a Sorcerer 3/Warlock 2 might give up 3rd level spells largely speaking for the sole purpose of grabbing Eldritch Blast, as compared to the Fighter 3/Rogue 2 who has given up one thing in Extra Attack, in order to gain the many options offered by Expertise and Cunning Action. In this example, the Sorcerer has suffered for his dip far more than the Fighter because the former has lost versatility while the latter has gained it.

[Unoriginal]

Look at Kryx's dpr chart (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1470229917). Martial dpr generally starts tapering off in the teens. Meanwhile, monster hitpoints are still going up. Therefore, after a certain point, a martial character's ability to kill CR-appropriate monsters within a given timeframe (that is, the thing they specialize in) starts decreasing with level. Keep in mind, in order to keep up with the ever-increasing power of spellcasters to solve problems, a martial character must, at the very least, get better at killing CR-appropriate monsters with each level. The KPR section shows the opposite.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if one is going to play a martial at the levels where this becomes an issue, and they care about their character's ability to contribute, they should diversify into spellcasting to at least some degree. War Cleric, for example, gives some martial prowess as well as good spellcasting (including some spells that don't need higher level slots, such as Healing Word or Bless).

Multiclassing does mean losing even more ground to the monsters in terms of KPR, but why care too much about that if you're going to be losing ground either way? To me, it makes far more sense to simply maintain an adequate KPR that is above that of the party spellcasters and improve the character's overall ability to contribute to the party by getting some spellcasting of one's own.

You are, of course, free to disagree.


Err, dude, this chart place the Casters' KPR into the "two low" category.

I might be misreading it, but as far as I see there is nothing that says "casters are better than martials from the mid-tens onward".

[Pex]

My 8th level paladin recently multiclassed to sorcerer at 9th level. I gain a range attack with a Cantrip which I previously lacked due to 10 DX. +4 hit for 1d8 damage does not compare to +7 to hit for 2d10 damage (16 CH). I get the Shield spell for a two-handed weapon using character. I also get Absorb Elements. What would have I gotten as a 9th level paladin? Aura of Vitality spell. Certainly a nice spell, but what I get is worth not having it.

I'm choosing my next 4 levels, including this one, to be sorcerer, because I want the ability score increase of CH 16 to 18. At 8th level I had taken Resilient CON to increase CO 15 to 16 for the hit points and automake Concentration checks of DC 10. The 18 CH is more about the bonus to saving throws than spellcasting. The cost is delaying becoming immune to fear as a 10th level paladin and +1d8 to damage rolls as an 11th level paladin, but I'll be ready for those later. 3rd level sorcerer spells are nice but not crucial for this character. So levels 9-12 go into Sorcerer and levels 13-15 are Paladin. Level 16 might be paladin to for another ability score increase, such as CH to 10. Then I'll be a level 12 Paladin/Level 4 Sorcerer. After that I'll have to think about it. I don't need level 15 paladin as much since I can Quicken Protection From Evil and Good if need be, so taking the rest as sorcerer is likely.

I don't feel punished at all.

[Vaz]

My 8th level paladin recently multiclassed to sorcerer at 9th level. I gain a range attack with a Cantrip which I previously lacked due to 10 DX. +4 hit for 1d8 damage does not compare to +7 to hit for 2d10 damage (16 CH). I get the Shield spell for a two-handed weapon using character. I also get Absorb Elements. What would have I gotten as a 9th level paladin? Aura of Vitality spell. Certainly a nice spell, but what I get is worth not having it.

I'm choosing my next 4 levels, including this one, to be sorcerer, because I want the ability score increase of CH 16 to 18. At 8th level I had taken Resilient CON to increase CO 15 to 16 for the hit points and automake Concentration checks of DC 10. The 18 CH is more about the bonus to saving throws than spellcasting. The cost is delaying becoming immune to fear as a 10th level paladin and +1d8 to damage rolls as an 11th level paladin, but I'll be ready for those later. 3rd level sorcerer spells are nice but not crucial for this character. So levels 9-12 go into Sorcerer and levels 13-15 are Paladin. Level 16 might be paladin to for another ability score increase, such as CH to 10. Then I'll be a level 12 Paladin/Level 4 Sorcerer. After that I'll have to think about it. I don't need level 15 paladin as much since I can Quicken Protection From Evil and Good if need be, so taking the rest as sorcerer is likely.

I don't feel punished at all.

You'd also be one level closer to Improved Divine Smite. And you already had Ranged Ability thanks to Javelins.

But you could equally say that by taking Paladin, you're a worse Sorcerer.

[thereaper]

Err, dude, this chart place the Casters' KPR into the "two low" category.

I might be misreading it, but as far as I see there is nothing that says "casters are better than martials from the mid-tens onward".

At no point did I claim otherwise. Spellcasters outscale martials because they do so many things, and the list gets longer with each level. Moreover, most of it remains of roughly the same usefulness regardless of level, so they are scaling faster than the game's challenges. Martials, as it turns out, seem to lose ground after a certain point. That presents them with a choice: either keep specializing in dpr (resulting in your ability to contribute to the party decreasing with each level), or diversify into that spellcasting that outscales the game's challenges (allowing your ability to contribute to increase or at least remain even with each new level). My personal conclusion is that the latter is preferable to the former.

[Talamare]

Look at Kryx's dpr chart (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1470229917). Martial dpr generally starts tapering off in the teens. Meanwhile, monster hitpoints are still going up. Therefore, after a certain point, a martial character's ability to kill CR-appropriate monsters within a given timeframe (that is, the thing they specialize in) starts decreasing with level. Keep in mind, in order to keep up with the ever-increasing power of spellcasters to solve problems, a martial character must, at the very least, get better at killing CR-appropriate monsters with each level. The KPR section shows the opposite.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if one is going to play a martial at the levels where this becomes an issue, and they care about their character's ability to contribute, they should diversify into spellcasting to at least some degree. War Cleric, for example, gives some martial prowess as well as good spellcasting (including some spells that don't need higher level slots, such as Healing Word or Bless).

Multiclassing does mean losing even more ground to the monsters in terms of KPR, but why care too much about that if you're going to be losing ground either way? To me, it makes far more sense to simply maintain an adequate KPR that is above that of the party spellcasters and improve the character's overall ability to contribute to the party by getting some spellcasting of one's own.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

They stagnate because their power increases changes from built in to item based

[borg286]

I was the author of the DPR King Candidates in the hay days of 4e. I saw when the Stormwarden was the king and DMs banning the key cheese it relied on. As time went it got outclassed by others, and soon became a Meh build. When I presented KPR analysis to the boards, and later to Kryx, it became clear that some builds just didn't keep up at certain levels. Level 1 optimization had so much brains behind it that it also achieved a KPR of 0.96 with a fair chunk in the .7-.8 range. We then found that the stormwarden had a measly .54 KPR compared to the .8's of the cool kids.
Soon hybrid classes came out and it was hard to find builds that didn't make use of it. It is the same thing with 5e. The designers embeded into 5e game mastery rewards and challenges. Namely you are rewarded for gaming the system and finding these combos as the main way of dealing with high level encouters. Pure fighters, paladins, and barbs are KPR kings for a while, but the multiclassers are the ones that are going to be on the top of the list at the end of the day. It won't take long before multiclassers are also beating straight classes at lower and lower levels.
My personal bets are on sorcerers that can optimize for a given known day. "There will be 20 rounds, split up into 4 encouters. 2 encouters are back to back, the other 2 are an hour from the others. You will face 1 solo, and 2 brutes, 4 ranged, and 10 mooks"
The fighter is great at doing high KPR round after round, encounter after encounter, and has a great nova. But multiclassers, and with the right params, casters will be able to outshine him in most departments where he currently sits as king. Just give it time. Uncommon items will come out and become mandatory. Feats will make humans ubiquitous. Hexblades are already making charisma the best stat to have as primary.

The thing I don't understand is what about the game design makes getting to haste at level 5 so mandatory. So many class features you list can be boiled down to DPR boosts. When you step back and look at builds objectively you realize that the sacred "2nd attack" gets outclassed by class synergy. When you take the area under the DPR growth curve you realize that some investments pay off.
When you hit level 5, do monsters suddenly gain flight? Do enemy caster also get fireball that needs to be countered? If each caster in the group dipped 2 levels, would the monsters they face be all that much harder? Are you sure it isn't just competing with the Jones'? Are 9th level spells all that special when the campaign is only going to go till 12th level?

[Chaosticket]

At no point did I claim otherwise. Spellcasters outscale martials because they do so many things, and the list gets longer with each level. Moreover, most of it remains of roughly the same usefulness regardless of level, so they are scaling faster than the game's challenges. Martials, as it turns out, seem to lose ground after a certain point. That presents them with a choice: either keep specializing in dpr (resulting in your ability to contribute to the party decreasing with each level), or diversify into that spellcasting that outscales the game's challenges (allowing your ability to contribute to increase or at least remain even with each new level). My personal conclusion is that the latter is preferable to the former.

Look up LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards sometime.

Martial Classes are linear like you say and the article follows. The most interesting martial classes are ones that have additional abilities, namely skills, buffs, and outright supernatural abilities.

Martial classes actually tend to get the best out of multiclass, at least in other editions. You get the minimum necessary to fight, but then you add non-standard abilities. a Fighter than can Fly into melee? a Rogue that turns invisible?

Its actually casters that get the worst of it in 5th edition. Multiclassing limits your total casting ability to the equivalent of a single class caster so no extra spells per day...Unless youre a Warlock multiclass. So its just as bad as 3.5 in how much of a failure the Mystic Theurge(Arcane/cleric Prestige build) is. Its better to actually use a Bard if you want a combined casting list.

[strangebloke]

Sure, but even with the progression damaging cantrips are pretty bad. The 5th level boost makes them about as effective as a single weapon attack WITHOUT anything like feats or fighting styles to boost it.
EB isn't bad damage.

And the cantrip scaling is one part of why martial->caster works so well in multi classing.

But I'm just pointing out a solitary mechanical distinction where the OPs thesis is correct. In general he's wrong

[BigONotation]

They stagnate because their power increases changes from built in to item based

While I completely agree with you and it is absolutely designed this way, you're going to get a bunch of parrots in here saying "You can play the game without magic items." WotC has largely given up on saying that once they realized that A. people like magic items, B. at high level without magic items even 1/2 casters are badly outclassed by full casters, C. they couldn't even balance their launch adventure without them and the author of that adventure (Tyranny of Dragons) even said he included sparse magic items because there was no guidance on them from WotC.

[strangebloke]

"magic items are optional" is still a statement I treasure since it means that players don't gripe when there isn't a magic shop in every City with every magic item available.

[Sigreid]

"magic items are optional"is still a statement I treasure since it means that players don't gripe when there isn't a magic shop in every City with every magic item available.

I can see that but in AD&D most of the magic items really seemed to 've targeted for use by fighters.

[Potato_Priest]

"magic items are optional"is still a statement I treasure since it means that players don't gripe when there isn't a magic shop in every City with every magic item available.

If the DM promised to ignore "immune/resistant to piercing, bludgeoning and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons" I would be happy to never see a magic item again. As long as tons of monsters have that however, magic weapons are not really optional for your fighters, barbarians, and rangers. That doesn't mean they need to be able to buy them in towns, however.

[Pex]

"magic items are optional"is still a statement I treasure since it means that players don't gripe when there isn't a magic shop in every City with every magic item available.

That's fine and dandy but players wouldn't be wrong to gripe there are never magic items at all found in treasure, meaning more than just the occasional healing potion. It's wonderful the game does not require a PC have any particular magic item to function, but that is not the same thing as saying 5E doesn't use magic items.

Magic items exist in 5E. Magic items do not break the game. A player is not entitled to have any particular item. There's nothing wrong with the DM letting him acquire a magic item he wants. Of course a magic item could be too powerful for the campaign and should not be given to the player no matter how much he wants it. A Helm of Brilliance does not fit every campaign. However, if for whatever reason a warrior player likes to use a halberd no harm is done he finds a magic halberd of some nifty ability instead of a long sword when the time is right he gets a magic weapon.

[strangebloke]

That's fine and dandy but players wouldn't be wrong to gripe there are never magic items at all found in treasure, meaning more than just the occasional healing potion. It's wonderful the game does not require a PC have any particular magic item to function, but that is not the same thing as saying 5E doesn't use magic items.

Magic items exist in 5E. Magic items do not break the game. A player is not entitled to have any particular item. There's nothing wrong with the DM letting him acquire a magic item he wants. Of course a magic item could be too powerful for the campaign and should not be given to the player no matter how much he wants it. A Helm of Brilliance does not fit every campaign. However, if for whatever reason a warrior player likes to use a halberd no harm is done he finds a magic halberd of some nifty ability instead of a long sword when the time is right he gets a magic weapon.

Yes, you do need magic items.

Or rather, if you don't have them, the game swings severely in favor of casters, since whole classes of monsters will suddenly have resistance.

So in this sense, saying that they're optional is bad 'prompting' for DMs. A new DM might not think they're needed, and cause huge problems. Which is, you know, kinda a theme with these 'optional' features.

In terms of design methodology, though I rather like it. I like that magic items are essentially a module that you can include or not include. The same goes for feats. Having all the systems be interdependent (you need feats for a certain class, you need a certain class for magic items, You can't use certain items without certain spells, some spells give you feats but only temporarily, some feats give you spells) was just a huge snarly mess.

Only thing being that... they aren't optional, really. Ha! I use magic items to balance my games. If a player can't contribute in a certain dungeon (can't swim, for instance) I'll have one of the players (not usually the one who needs it) stumble across an item to offset that problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, you do need magic items.

Or rather, if you don't have them, the game swings severely in favor of casters, since whole classes of monsters will suddenly have resistance.

So in this sense, saying that they're optional is bad 'prompting' for DMs. A new DM might not think they're needed, and cause huge problems. Which is, you know, kinda a theme with these 'optional' features. The problem has to do with team play. How many casters keep/use spells that help them to enchant the martial's weapons so that the foes with resistance/immunity can be attacked?

In a team focused group, maybe not such a problem. If this is a bunch of self centered individuals playing, the problem starts to grow early in the campaign ...

[Tanarii]

:smallconfused: Multiclassing doesn't punish Maritals, with the sole exception of stacking Extra Attack. Generally speaking, Multiclassing Martial is more powerful than multiclassing spellcasting feature casters, because not having your highest level spells possible is punishing. Upcast spells don't carry the same power. Whereas martials can get fairly good synergy between various low-level features working together.

[JellyPooga]

If the DM promised to ignore "immune/resistant to piercing, bludgeoning and slashing damage from nonmagical weapons" I would be happy to never see a magic item again. As long as tons of monsters have that however, magic weapons are not really optional for your fighters, barbarians, and rangers. That doesn't mean they need to be able to buy them in towns, however.

Speak for yourself. I would totally play in a no-magic items game that was chocked full of monsters that were resistant or immune to B/P/S damage. Overcoming challenges is the name of the game (well...it's not, but it's the point of the game...well, it sort of is, but not really...ok, so it's part of what makes the game fun...for me...at least), so if my Maul-wielding, Javelin-chucking Barbarian comes up against an Iron Colossus that my weapon bounces off of to no effect, I'm going to start looking for an alternative, like using a giant hairpin to unscrew the cork in its ankle to let out its molten lava-like "blood" to defeat it instead (#harryhausen). If the Wizard has to find alternatives to flinging Firebolt at everything when we're adventuring in the Temple of Eternal Flame, I don't mind finding alternatives to mindlessly rolling the same old attacks with the same old weapons.

Having a Magic Weapon actually makes a lot of fights...well, boring for a martial character, because it turns it into just another fight, just like the last one and the hundred others before it. You know, the one that goes; "I approach the [insert bad guy here] and attack it!" Every. Single. Round. Except you have, like, +1 to hit or whatever. Woo :smallsigh:. If you want to give a martial a magic item, give him something interesting that doesn't just do what he does already but a little bit better.

[thereaper]

Look up LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards sometime.

Martial Classes are linear like you say and the article follows. The most interesting martial classes are ones that have additional abilities, namely skills, buffs, and outright supernatural abilities.

Martial classes actually tend to get the best out of multiclass, at least in other editions. You get the minimum necessary to fight, but then you add non-standard abilities. a Fighter than can Fly into melee? a Rogue that turns invisible?

Its actually casters that get the worst of it in 5th edition. Multiclassing limits your total casting ability to the equivalent of a single class caster so no extra spells per day...Unless youre a Warlock multiclass. So its just as bad as 3.5 in how much of a failure the Mystic Theurge(Arcane/cleric Prestige build) is. Its better to actually use a Bard if you want a combined casting list.

I was trying to show how that phenomenon occurs in this edition.


They stagnate because their power increases changes from built in to item based

Putting aside the fact that such bonuses are specifically not assumed in this edition, what happens when the casters have them too?

Moreover, even if we accept your idea, it doesn't change my logic that diversifying is still a better choice for higher level martials. The less martial prowess relies on class, the more attractive spellcasting becomes.

[GlenSmash!]

I only play Martials. I've never found them punished by multiclassing.

Almost all multiclass builds work best with a Main class and or more dips. No combo that I know of, either Caster or Martial, works best with no class having a level above 5.

[rooneg]

I only play Martials. I've never found them punished by multiclassing.

Almost all multiclass builds work best with a Main class and or more dips. No combo that I know of, either Caster or Martial, works best with no class having a level above 5.

I don't know about "no class having a level above 5", that's pretty extreme, but there are certainly skill monkey builds that take levels in up to 4 different classes, only one of which gets above level 5. You can easily spend levels 1-10 never getting past level 5 in any one class for those sort of characters.

Agreed that multiclassing isn't any worse for martial characters than it is for casters though. Especially early in the game that level 5 bump in power is pretty consistent across the board, delaying that bump by 1 or 2 levels is a big deal for almost any character.

[Chaosticket]

I see a lot of people multiclassing but thats in Pathfinder where they are 30 regular classes with about 300 Archetypes so there is always something to synergise with something else.

Spells per day are fixed and Extra Attacks dont stack, so that means dipping into classes doesnt work so well. Its not impossible. Putting 2 levels means you gain Proficiencies. I would have to double-check if you get Full 2-6 Proficiencies but Im going to guess on how 5th edition is, answer is no.

Other abilities actually can work well. Unarmored Defense can theoretically work with Mage Armor to give you a 13+Dex+con AC.
SCRATCH THAT, found out thats not possible.

Multiclassing isnt worthless but from what 5th edition looks like I think WOTC went in an prevented any obvious combinations like Unarmored Defense+mage Armor above.

[KorvinStarmast]

Jelly, magic weapons don't have to be weapons with +1 to hit/damage etc. There are a variety of magic weapons that are magic (so they over come immunity) but whose magical effect is "something else/unusual." Immunities and resistances, unless there is a way around them or a compensating vulnerability, just make combat longer. (A grind). Grinding is fine in a computer game, but it is one of the things that make some RPG's unappealing at table nowadays. (Back in the grognard years, we would often grind and be happy with it since that's roughly all there was ... except that there was a lot for room for trying out of the box stuff. Rule of Cool was an unwritten thing. There are other options now, and IMO grinding isn't one of the better play options).

My core complaint with 5e is that there are almost no vulnerabilities, but a host of resistances and immunities. Half-Arsed design.

[Unoriginal]

I see a lot of people multiclassing but thats in Pathfinder where they are 30 regular classes with about 300 Archetypes so there is always something to synergise with something else.

Good thing this is not Pathfinder, then.


I would have to double-check if you get Full 2-6 Proficiencies but Im going to guess on how 5th edition is, answer is no.

You get the full proficiency bonus, but not necessarily more skills.



SCRATCH THAT, found out thats not possible.


Yes, it's a good thing.




Multiclassing isnt worthless but from what 5th edition looks like I think WOTC went in an prevented any obvious combinations like Unarmored Defense+mage Armor above.

It's not obvious combinations. They prevented ways to get ridiculous stacking bonuses

[JellyPooga]

Jelly, magic weapons don't have to be weapons with +1 to hit/damage etc. There are a variety of magic weapons that are magic (so they over come immunity) but whose magical effect is "something else/unusual." Immunities and resistances, unless there is a way around them or a compensating vulnerability, just make combat longer. (A grind). Grinding is fine in a computer game, but it is one of the things that make some RPG's unappealing at table nowadays. (Back in the grognard years, we would often grind and be happy with it since that's roughly all there was ... except that there was a lot for room for trying out of the box stuff. Rule of Cool was an unwritten thing. There are other options now, and IMO grinding isn't one of the better play options).

My core complaint with 5e is that there are almost no vulnerabilities, but a host of resistances and immunities. Half-Arsed design.

Fighting a monster with a resistance is only a grind if you make it so. If your attacks seem to be ineffective, you always have the option of switching to something more effective, which can include capture, surrender or just plain running away to fight again when you're better prepared; not every scenario has to be a "win" for the PCs. Additionally, I consider it good GMing to provide alternatives when throwing monsters with resistance or immunity (such as the previously mentioned Iron Colossus), precisely to avoid the dreaded and dull "grind".

[GlenSmash!]

Multiclassing isnt worthless but from what 5th edition looks like I think WOTC went in an prevented any obvious combinations like Unarmored Defense+mage Armor above.

Smites and extra spell slots is pretty obvious.

Thinks that add damage to each attack like hunters mark or hex combined with more Attacks form Action surge is also obvious.

Advantage from reckless attack, blus expanded crit range from chamion was pretty obvious to me too.

I think what WotC did was make sure most of these combos don't easily outstrip singleclass options.

[GlenSmash!]

Fighting a monster with a resistance is only a grind if you make it so. If your attacks seem to be ineffective, you always have the option of switching to something more effective, which can include capture, surrender or just plain running away to fight again when you're better prepared; not every scenario has to be a "win" for the PCs. Additionally, I consider it good GMing to provide alternatives when throwing monsters with resistance or immunity (such as the previously mentioned Iron Colossus), precisely to avoid the dreaded and dull "grind".

I tend to throw McGuffins that can bypass resistance or immunities in my campaigns. I find it doesn't hurt to reward some Exploration time.

[Potato_Priest]

Having a Magic Weapon actually makes a lot of fights...well, boring for a martial character, because it turns it into just another fight, just like the last one and the hundred others before it. You know, the one that goes; "I approach the [insert bad guy here] and attack it!" Every. Single. Round. Except you have, like, +1 to hit or whatever. Woo :smallsigh:. If you want to give a martial a magic item, give him something interesting that doesn't just do what he does already but a little bit better.

Having the tools to deal with something violently doesn't preclude creative solutions. Being physically capable of killing something just ensures that you can get past an obstacle if you really need to after your more creative and unconventional approaches have failed.

[Luccan]

The problem has to do with team play. How many casters keep/use spells that help them to enchant the martial's weapons so that the foes with resistance/immunity can be attacked?

In a team focused group, maybe not such a problem. If this is a bunch of self centered individuals playing, the problem starts to grow early in the campaign ...

Most casters don't like feeling like a buff bot.

Most martials want to be able to fight without having to ask the casters to spend spells making them function against the enemy.

You can call that selfish, but most people want to be able to function in their specialty without asking for help all the time and most people want to prepare spells for things other than making sure the fighter can damage enemies today.

[Chaosticket]

I think what WotC did was make sure most of these combos don't easily outstrip singleclass options.

And trying to make a superior character through combination is one part of the appeal of Multiclassing.

[Random cooking analogy] to explain how the whole should be better than the sum of its parts.

[Talionis]

I will say this that Extra Attack not stacking is an issue that hurts Martial Multiclassing.

If you ever want to do more than dip a class and take 5 levels or more of a Martial Class, you get nothing in place of Extra Attack which is a very powerful feature. I believe it is a design flaw. I understand it was designed to keep Fighter's special. I understand they didn't want someone to go Paladin 5, Ranger 5, Monk 5, Fighter 5 and have 5 attacks, more if you Flurry of Blows.

But even if they didn't want to have Extra Attacks stack, they should have allowed the Extra Attacks to be replaced with something. A good example would be any of the Combat Styles. That way at least you get some benefit in place of Extra Attacks which is a significant benefit.

[Tanarii]

Most casters don't like feeling like a buff bot.

Most martials want to be able to fight without having to ask the casters to spend spells making them function against the enemy.

You can call that selfish, but most people want to be able to function in their specialty without asking for help all the time and most people want to prepare spells for things other than making sure the fighter can damage enemies today.It's not selfish, but it sure misses the point. D&D is a cooperative team game, and sometimes the PCs need to support each other, by shoring up their occasional weakness and by finding ways to synergize their strengths.

Besides, from what I've seen most casters absolutely LOVE feeling like a buff-bot. Bless, Faerie Fire, Haste are all commonly used IMX. Plus Polymorph, especially since it's exceptionally OP for its level.

[GlenSmash!]

And trying to make a superior character through combination is one part of the appeal of Multiclassing.

[Random cooking analogy] to explain how the whole should be better than the sum of its parts.

No it should't.

It should be different. Stronger in some areas weaker in others.

Multiclassing should (and currently does) have trade-offs.

Edit: it turns out I have more to say!

Player should be encouraged to do well by the choices they make in the game, not just the decisions they make in character creation/level up.

I'll take using tactics on a "boring" character over playing an one-trick pony OP multiclass any day.

[lunaticfringe]

And trying to make a superior character through combination is one part of the appeal of Multiclassing.

[Random cooking analogy] to explain how the whole should be better than the sum of its parts.

That is true for some classes in some editions in some games and it should be. Applying that logic to all multiclassing in all editions of all games is flawed.

[Unoriginal]

You can literally bypass "immunity to all but magic attacks" just with a Moon-Touched Sword. Which is a Common magic item.

[Morinfen]

How do you all view multiclassing post-5th level? For example, an Eldritch Knight 5 going into wizard? Or maybe Cleric if he dumped int for wis?

[Potato_Priest]

You can literally bypass "immunity to all but magic attacks" just with a Moon-Touched Sword. Which is a Common magic item.

What book is that in?

Also, that'd be more than enough to please me. I don't care about magic weapons of +____ as long as I can do damage. Hell, I'll even be satisfied with a ring of _____ if it makes my punches with that hand deal magical damage.

[GlenSmash!]

How do you all view multiclassing post-5th level? For example, an Eldritch Knight 5 going into wizard? Or maybe Cleric if he dumped int for wis?

I'd personally take an EK to 6 for the ASI and 7 for War Magic, but Wizard is an excellent multiclass for EK. I especially like School of Abjuration for even more toughness. War Wizard might be good too, but I haven't tried it yet.

[Unoriginal]

What book is that in?

Also, that'd be more than enough to please me. I don't care about magic weapons of +____ as long as I can do damage. Hell, I'll even be satisfied with a ring of _____ if it makes my punches with that hand deal magical damage.

It's in the Xanathar's Book to Everything.

It's a sword that shine in darkness.

So basically:

http://78.media.tumblr.com/50b9532001b5692d4c3fbe889ccebfcd/tumblr_mzvomtimOO1qhz95yo1_500.gif

[GlenSmash!]

It's in the Xanathar's Book to Everything.

It's a sword that shine in darkness.

So basically:

http://78.media.tumblr.com/50b9532001b5692d4c3fbe889ccebfcd/tumblr_mzvomtimOO1qhz95yo1_500.gif

I was thinking more like Sting, but you know that too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I was thinking more like Sting, but you know that too.

Those are more Sunblades. For a high power (and level) game I gave a rogue a rapier whose blade was a tear in reality, opening to the void. Basically a sunblade but force damage and granting temp hit points as it drained life. This went well with his other which did extra radiant (like the fire sword, but holy)... But that's off topic.

[Pex]

The problem has to do with team play. How many casters keep/use spells that help them to enchant the martial's weapons so that the foes with resistance/immunity can be attacked?

In a team focused group, maybe not such a problem. If this is a bunch of self centered individuals playing, the problem starts to grow early in the campaign ...

That's not necessarily a selfish player problem. Magic Weapon is a concentration spell, up to an hour. Same thing with Elemental Weapon. That's asking a whole lot of a spellcaster to enable the warrior to fight a monster. A spellcaster has many other spells that are worth more to spend their concentration on even warriors would want them to do.

If those spells were not concentration they'd see more use.

[Luccan]

It's not selfish, but it sure misses the point. D&D is a cooperative team game, and sometimes the PCs need to support each other, by shoring up their occasional weakness and by finding ways to synergize their strengths.

Besides, from what I've seen most casters absolutely LOVE feeling like a buff-bot. Bless, Faerie Fire, Haste are all commonly used IMX. Plus Polymorph, especially since it's exceptionally OP for its level.

To your first point: Yes, PCs can and should shore up each others weaknesses. What they shouldn't have to do all the time is make choices based on the fact that other players aren't being allowed to contribute effectively. Which would happen if you threw Mundane=No enemies at the party all the time. Obviously, this is unlikely to happen in real games (these are theoretical, after all), but that's because most DMs will either realize that magic items are needed for mundanes to effectively contribute against many more powerful foes or they'll provide other means of bypassing those weaknesses that the game does not.

On your second: Yeah, those are great spells. However, I'd argue buffs are not going to make up the majority of spells many characters know/prepare every day and even if they do, I'm sure they'd occasionally like to do things other than buff party members that are not able to help otherwise. I may have misspoken however: a buff bot for party members that are allowed competency without that help can be really fun and in desperate situations, it may well be worth it to spend your concentration slot on a Magic Weapon spell. Having to do it every fight because the non-casters aren't allowed to have magic weapons against all the creatures that resist or ignore non-magic attacks is not fun for any of the players involved.

Basically: yeah, people should help each other; no, they shouldn't have to do it because some party members are having the rules turned against them for daring to pick a non-caster. Again, it's not like needing to rely on other people to do your job all the time is fun for the player that has too either.

[Tanarii]

To your first point: Yes, PCs can and should shore up each others weaknesses. What they shouldn't have to do all the time is make choices based on the fact that other players aren't being allowed to contribute effectively. Which would happen if you threw Mundane=No enemies at the party all the time. Obviously, this is unlikely to happen in real games (these are theoretical, after all), but that's because most DMs will either realize that magic items are needed for mundanes to effectively contribute against many more powerful foes or they'll provide other means of bypassing those weaknesses that the game does not.What we've got here is two different arguments.

You're arguing they shouldn't have to do it all the time.

I was arguing they shouldn't have to never do it.

We're arguing against opposite extreme ends here. :smallwink:


On your second: Yeah, those are great spells. However, I'd argue buffs are not going to make up the majority of spells many characters know/prepare every day and even if they do, I'm sure they'd occasionally like to do things other than buff party members that are not able to help otherwise. I may have misspoken however: a buff bot for party members that are allowed competency without that help can be really fun and in desperate situations, it may well be worth it to spend your concentration slot on a Magic Weapon spell. Having to do it every fight because the non-casters aren't allowed to have magic weapons against all the creatures that resist or ignore non-magic attacks is not fun for any of the players involved.I wasn't envisioning a buff-bot having a list full of slots. In fact, because of the way 5e works, that's counterproductive. A buff-bot would be someone that generally uses their concentration slot for a single buff in fights, as opposed to for area control and/or directly offensively. It might just be, or is even likely to be, key spells on their list. (I'm not counting Magic Weapon as typically being a 'key spell' btw.)

I've seen players load up with concentration spells, and they usually regret it and change up their spells.


Basically: yeah, people should help each other; no, they shouldn't have to do it because some party members are having the rules turned against them for daring to pick a non-caster. Again, it's not like needing to rely on other people to do your job all the time is fun for the player that has too either.
Agree on that. Magic Weapon is most likely to be prepared as a contingency spell, to be cast in the case it's needed. And it should only be for a small window of the game that an offensive damage physical dealer doesn't have a magic weapon, and is somewhat commonly fighting enemies immune to resistant to non-magical damage.

Of course, if you're playing a game with no or very rare magic items, you need to plan your characters accordingly. But that's the exception, not the rule.

[SharkForce]

Look at Kryx's dpr chart (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1470229917). Martial dpr generally starts tapering off in the teens. Meanwhile, monster hitpoints are still going up. Therefore, after a certain point, a martial character's ability to kill CR-appropriate monsters within a given timeframe (that is, the thing they specialize in) starts decreasing with level. Keep in mind, in order to keep up with the ever-increasing power of spellcasters to solve problems, a martial character must, at the very least, get better at killing CR-appropriate monsters with each level. The KPR section shows the opposite.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if one is going to play a martial at the levels where this becomes an issue, and they care about their character's ability to contribute, they should diversify into spellcasting to at least some degree. War Cleric, for example, gives some martial prowess as well as good spellcasting (including some spells that don't need higher level slots, such as Healing Word or Bless).

Multiclassing does mean losing even more ground to the monsters in terms of KPR, but why care too much about that if you're going to be losing ground either way? To me, it makes far more sense to simply maintain an adequate KPR that is above that of the party spellcasters and improve the character's overall ability to contribute to the party by getting some spellcasting of one's own.

You are, of course, free to disagree.

remember, level 15 doesn't mean you only face CR 15 creatures. in fact, CR 15 creatures should be fairly rare. you should be facing mostly groups of lower CR creatures, with only the occasional high-CR opponent (which should probably still usually be paired up with a few weaker enemies).

additionally, to a large extent, AC stops progressing (while attack bonus continues), and once you start talking about CR 15 creatures, you're definitely at a point where stuff like legendary resistance comes into play fairly often. and i gotta say, legendary resistance is plenty painful enough to compete with HP growth.

[Luccan]

What we've got here is two different arguments.

You're arguing they shouldn't have to do it all the time.

I was arguing they shouldn't have to never do it.

We're arguing against opposite extreme ends here. :smallwink:

I wasn't envisioning a buff-bot having a list full of slots. In fact, because of the way 5e works, that's counterproductive. A buff-bot would be someone that generally uses their concentration slot for a single buff in fights, as opposed to for area control and/or directly offensively. It might just be, or is even likely to be, key spells on their list. (I'm not counting Magic Weapon as typically being a 'key spell' btw.)

I've seen players load up with concentration spells, and they usually regret it and change up their spells.


Agree on that. Magic Weapon is most likely to be prepared as a contingency spell, to be cast in the case it's needed. And it should only be for a small window of the game that an offensive damage physical dealer doesn't have a magic weapon, and is somewhat commonly fighting enemies immune to resistant to non-magical damage.

Of course, if you're playing a game with no or very rare magic items, you need to plan your characters accordingly. But that's the exception, not the rule.
Huh, looks like we weren't really disagreeing on much at all :smallredface:

[Waazraath]

Didn't go through all three pages, but:

- it doesn't, imo. Martial classes are often front loaded, and aren't botherd by the need to get the next level spell like casters are. Yes, you need to go to level 5 for extra attack, often, but as was already mentioned, that goes for most classes, also casters.

- and even that level 5, I'm not convinced. Example: str based fighter / ranger multiclass, using a great weapon (lets say a maul). Pick fighter 1, after that ranger 5, after that fighter +2 (for battle master maneuvers), after that there are more good options. At level 5, you have only one attack, BUT:
- you do 3d6 damage, with hunter's mark, and have the relevant fighting style for extra great weapon damage
- have another fighting style for +1AC
- with Horde breaker, often still have 2 attacks!
- have an extra skill
I don't think this is significantly worse than fighter 5 or ranger 5.
Other example: Rogue (swashbuckler 3) paladin (1) dragon sorcerer (1) does more damage than a normal swashbuckler rogue (minus 1d6 sneak attack, but +1d8 booming blade damage), has an extra AC compared with rogue because of draconic background and can either use a shield or the shield spell (with one hand empty - later take war caster) to offset the loss of uncanny dodge. And have a few extra's with lay on hand, a few 1st level spells and the combo booming blade / swashbuckler 'no attacks of opportunities' feature.

[Tanarii]

Huh, looks like we weren't really disagreeing on much at all :smallredface:
Yeah. It's easy to see someone arguing against an extreme (characters shouldn't need to always buff-bot), and counter with the other extreme (characters shouldn't need to never buff). And then arguing past each other for pages because you're actually arguing two diffent things. Happens all the time in forum threads. In this case, it was my fault, so I'm glad I noticed I'd done that. :smallamused:

[beargryllz]

Multiclassing doesn't punish martials. If anything, it's mandatory for most builds.to reach their full potential

It generally punishes casters, not martials. More often an optimal build is straight wizard or straight druid. Some exceptions like sorlock or sorcadin exist, but there are more martial multiclass builds, I think

[Xetheral]

I'm on board with the idea of giving martials something to replace a redunant Extra Attack feature, if only to avoid the dead level. But that only comes up occasionally with rare concepts that go that far in multiple classes.

Unlike Malifice, I think multiclassing before level 5 is fine. Sure, you might be weaker than the other party members by a measure like DPR, but that isn't important to every player. I spend most of my time DMing, but all of the PCs I've played were multiclass, including the ones that started at or below level 5. For example, my shiv-wielding Barbarian 2/Rogue 1 Tavern Brawler couldn't keep up on DPR (even at level 3), but it was still a blast to play, with excellent tanking and battlefield control. My Warlock 3/Sorcerer 2 wasn't combat focused, but at that particular table kept up just fine on DPR with Eldritch Blast (even lacking Agonizing Blast) and the occasional Hex (spell slots were mostly saved for non-combat use). I didn't regret either multiclass.

At my table I've seen characters such as Barbarian 2/Druid 2/Rogue 1, Fighter 3/Rogue 2, and Paladin 2/Druid 3, all of which were fantastic and were not outshined by the single-classed characters.

Admittedly, Malifice and I play very different games, so it's quite possible that there is a discrepancy at level 5 at his table that doesn't come up at mine due to our different playstyles.

[MeeposFire]

I'm on board with the idea of giving martials something to replace a redunant Extra Attack feature, if only to avoid the dead level. But that only comes up occasionally with rare concepts that go that far in multiple classes.

Unlike Malifice, I think multiclassing before level 5 is fine. Sure, you might be weaker than the other party members by a measure like DPR, but that isn't important to every player. I spend most of my time DMing, but all of the PCs I've played were multiclass, including the ones that started at or below level 5. For example, my shiv-wielding Barbarian 2/Rogue 1 Tavern Brawler couldn't keep up on DPR (even at level 3), but it was still a blast to play, with excellent tanking and battlefield control. My Warlock 3/Sorcerer 2 wasn't combat focused, but at that particular table kept up just fine on DPR with Eldritch Blast (even lacking Agonizing Blast) and the occasional Hex (spell slots were mostly saved for non-combat use). I didn't regret either multiclass.

At my table I've seen characters such as Barbarian 2/Druid 2/Rogue 1, Fighter 3/Rogue 2, and Paladin 2/Druid 3, all of which were fantastic and were not outshined by the single-classed characters.

Admittedly, Malifice and I play very different games, so it's quite possible that there is a discrepancy at level 5 at his table that doesn't come up at mine due to our different playstyles.

Maybe not Malifice is saying that there is a noticeable difference between the effectiveness of a 5th level single class and a multiclass but even if that is true it does not mean that you cannot have fun and enjoy the character anyway.

[Malifice]

Maybe not Malifice is saying that there is a noticeable difference between the effectiveness of a 5th level single class and a multiclass but even if that is true it does not mean that you cannot have fun and enjoy the character anyway.

Precisely this.

Most classes get noticably (exponentially even) better at doing their 'thing' at 5th level. 5th level also fundamentally changes the way a lot of classes handle. Ive given the example of 3rd level spells and extra atack, but things like stunning fist on a monk is a gamechanger, as is greater inspiration on a bard.

Im not going to begrudge the guy having fun with his Barbarian 2/ Fighter 3 at the table, or whatever other MC he's playing. Good on him (and its stilla viable class).

Its just I do often see that guy looking over rather enviously at the 5th level single classed guys from time to time.

In particular I see it from Sorlocks. I've had to allow one player to retcon the Sorcerer levels out because he he was really regretting the multclass (next to a single classe Wizard).

[2D8HP]

.I see it time and time again. PCs that MC before 5th level regretting the **** out of it for several levels (and dozens of sessions) thereafter..
..
Yes single-class PC's can be big fun (my first 5e PC was a Champion.Fighter), but I love my Fighter1/Rogue (Swashbuckler)4, and; I wouldn't trade for a Fighter5 or Rogue5.

I freely admit that others have more "in-the-weeds" rules knowledge (I know little about spell-casting rules fot example), but I know what's fun for me.

An extra attack would be sweet, as would Uncanny Dodge and a 3d6 Sneak Attack, but what does one gain be giving them up?

My favorite 1st level class to play is Rogue (I like Sneak Attack, and I just really love Expertise), but unless the party is too full of martials, with no Rogues, I usually take Barbarian (sometimes) or Fighter (mostly) first.

Barbarian gets me more hit points, more weapons proficiency, Rage, and Unarmored Defense which gives, if my PC had good DEX and CON, a damn fine AC.

Fighter gets me more HP than a Rogue, more weapons proficiency, and all armor proficiency, plus Second Wind (not too shabby), and a sweet Fighting Style (I just love +2 to hit for bows, or a +1 AC).

Good stuff, however you mix it.


...Martial Classes are linear like you say and the article follows. The most interesting martial classes are ones that have additional abilities, namely skills, buffs, and outright supernatural abilities....
Interesting?

Skills?

Yes skills are sweet.

Buffs?

Yeah, I don't know what those are.

Supernatural abilities?

Against most of my character concepts.

What's interesting to play?

Well, why thank you for asking!

What's interesting for me to play is someone who can wield a bow (always), and a warhammer, or a sword, and can sneak and perceive so that when Mr.Thinks-he's-all-that-high-and-mighty-McMagic-User kicks your puppy and eyes your lover, you sneak up behind them while they're incanting and gesturing and then BAM! Knock 'em on the backside of the head and then shout "Power to the people!, down with the Spell Casting oppressors!", and then kick 'em repeatedly.

That's some serious character-driven-role-playing!

For me anyway.

[thereaper]

remember, level 15 doesn't mean you only face CR 15 creatures. in fact, CR 15 creatures should be fairly rare. you should be facing mostly groups of lower CR creatures, with only the occasional high-CR opponent (which should probably still usually be paired up with a few weaker enemies).

additionally, to a large extent, AC stops progressing (while attack bonus continues), and once you start talking about CR 15 creatures, you're definitely at a point where stuff like legendary resistance comes into play fairly often. and i gotta say, legendary resistance is plenty painful enough to compete with HP growth.

Given that martials don't do too well at AoE, that adds to my point.

If legendary resistances hurt as much as hp growth, then it wouldn't be possible in general for PCs to remain an even threat against monsters of their level.

[Elric VIII]

How does the level 10/11 power spike compare to the level 5 one? I know Sorcadin is strong at Pal 6/Sor 5, but what about something like Warlock 5/Sorcerer 5 or Fighter 5/Cleric 5 compared to a 10 level single class?

edit: better yet, how does the fighter/Cleric compare to a level 10 Paladin? same spell casting and extra attack, but you trade out auras and smite for more diverse low level features.

For me, the 5th level spike seems to be the largest overall increase in power, but I'm not sure about the relative increase when you factor in enemy scaling.

[LeonBH]

How does the level 10/11 power spike compare to the level 5 one? I know Sorcadin is strong at Pal 6/Sor 5, but what about something like Warlock 5/Sorcerer 5 or Fighter 5/Cleric 5 compared to a 10 level single class?

edit: better yet, how does the fighter/Cleric compare to a level 10 Paladin? same spell casting and extra attack, but you trade out auras and smite for more diverse low level features.

For me, the 5th level spike seems to be the largest overall increase in power, but I'm not sure about the relative increase when you factor in enemy scaling.

Paladin 10 is lackluster. It has the same spell slots as a Cleric 5, same attacks as a Fighter 5, same number of ASIs as a Fighter 5/Cleric 5, and not that different in terms of HP on average.

But anyone with Animate Objects experiences a large power jump at the level they get it, so Sorc 9, Wiz 9, Bard 10 are places where the power spikes very significantly. And for those classes, they experience sizable jumps in power every 2 levels after that due to acquiring higher level spells (assuming they're not opposed to an Animate Dead + Disintegrate + Finger of Death "strategy"). I'd say these jumps are larger than the ones they experience at level 5.

[Tanarii]

How does the level 10/11 power spike compare to the level 5 one? I know Sorcadin is strong at Pal 6/Sor 5, but what about something like Warlock 5/Sorcerer 5 or Fighter 5/Cleric 5 compared to a 10 level single class?In theory:
4->5 is a 100% increase in power, or the same as 1->2 or 2->3, and about double 3->4. It's FAR less than the 5->6 jump, which falls into the more typical 15-20% range for Tier 2.
10-->11 is a 17% increase in power across the adventuring day, or a 28%-33% increase in power vs a given encounter. That's roughly on par with 9->10, but about twice the 11->12.

From personal experience, I can tell you that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Encounter Difficulty and Adventuring Day tables are roughly accurate, for a single class only and no feat campaign.

[SharkForce]

Given that martials don't do too well at AoE, that adds to my point.

If legendary resistances hurt as much as hp growth, then it wouldn't be possible in general for PCs to remain an even threat against monsters of their level.

legendary resistance screws over save or sucks massively. spending 3 rounds *if* every saving throw is failed hurts like crazy. even if you have multiple people working together to force the legendary saves out, you're looking at spending multiple actions at the start of the fight that are probably going to have zero impact. legendary saves hurt massively to casters, because what you're doing isn't cumulative with someone else generally speaking.

and AoE doesn't need to somehow become king just because you're not fighting a CR 15 enemy. a pair of CR 8s have the same encounter difficulty. that isn't exactly going to get you a ton of value for your fireball spell, especially if they don't stand close together (for example, if one is using ranged attacks while the other is melee). there are a large variety of encounters with 2-6 enemies in them that are equally challenging. multiple weaker creatures doesn't need to mean 50 kobolds (although on occasion, it probably should mean a large number of mooks, probably supported by some sort of leader).

[Elric VIII]

In theory:
4->5 is a 100% increase in power, or the same as 1->2 or 2->3, and about double 3->4. It's FAR less than the 5->6 jump, which falls into the more typical 15-20% range for Tier 2.
10-->11 is a 17% increase in power across the adventuring day, or a 28%-33% increase in power vs a given encounter. That's roughly on par with 9->10, but about twice the 11->12.

From personal experience, I can tell you that the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Encounter Difficulty and Adventuring Day tables are roughly accurate, for a single class only and no feat campaign.

Good to know. That also matches with my experience. I'm playing OotA with a Hexblade 5/Divine Soul 3 right now and I'm not missing 4th level spells much. Level 11 might be a bit rough with me missing out on a a 3rd 5th level warlock slot, but I think quicken is one of the most amazing things for a gish.

[MeeposFire]

Good to know. That also matches with my experience. I'm playing OotA with a Hexblade 5/Divine Soul 3 right now and I'm not missing 4th level spells much. Level 11 might be a bit rough with me missing out on a a 3rd 5th level warlock slot, but I think quicken is one of the most amazing things for a gish.

One thing to note is that some people wil tell you that certain spell levels jump out more than others. Generally 4th and 2nd level spells tend to not jump out that much but 3rd and 5th level spells really do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing to note is that some people wil tell you that certain spell levels jump out more than others. Generally 4th and 2nd level spells tend to not jump out that much but 3rd and 5th level spells really do.

I tend to see 4 tiers of leveled spells--

1st tier (levels 1 and 2)
2nd tier (3-5)
3rd tier (6-8)
4th tier (9)

These conveniently map onto the 4 tiers of game play. There's a large step change in capability across tiers, but the changes within a tier are much smaller. Level 1 spells are the workhorses, level 2 are the more specialized tier 1 spells. Level 3 are the big guns, levels 4 and 5 are the more specialized spells (with 5 being bigger than 4 by quite a bit, but a bunch less than 6). Etc.

This is reminiscent of 4e's design, where you only got new significant abilities every few levels--some levels were only utility abilities, others were encounters, some were dailies.

[thereaper]

legendary resistance screws over save or sucks massively. spending 3 rounds *if* every saving throw is failed hurts like crazy. even if you have multiple people working together to force the legendary saves out, you're looking at spending multiple actions at the start of the fight that are probably going to have zero impact. legendary saves hurt massively to casters, because what you're doing isn't cumulative with someone else generally speaking.

and AoE doesn't need to somehow become king just because you're not fighting a CR 15 enemy. a pair of CR 8s have the same encounter difficulty. that isn't exactly going to get you a ton of value for your fireball spell, especially if they don't stand close together (for example, if one is using ranged attacks while the other is melee). there are a large variety of encounters with 2-6 enemies in them that are equally challenging. multiple weaker creatures doesn't need to mean 50 kobolds (although on occasion, it probably should mean a large number of mooks, probably supported by some sort of leader).

Are you claiming that martials are better against high level monsters than spellcasters?

If not, then the point stands.

CR 8 may not be fireball bait, but they're still worse on martials than a CR 15.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Are you claiming that martials are better against high level monsters than spellcasters?

If not, then the point stands.

CR 8 may not be fireball bait, but they're still worse on martials than a CR 15.

In my experience, martials can hold their own just fine against high level monsters. The stand-out star of my team is a monk--because of her they managed to stunlock a beholder (plus some other monsters) and beat it to death without it being able to use a single eye-ray. The rogue is the primary damage dealer--the monk provides offensive control, the druid and warlock counter magical threats/handle aoe, and the fighter (NPC) is a meat-shield.

[sithlordnergal]

I see it time and time again. PCs that MC before 5th level regretting the **** out of it for several levels (and dozens of sessions) thereafter.

The only time I've ever done it and been OK with it was Fighter1/ Warlock X (blade pact). Even then, 5th level hurt bad.

Who on earth are you playing with? O-o I constantly put off 3rd level spells with multiclassing and I have yet to regret it. My Fighter/Wizard may not have gotten the 3rd level spells till level six, but I was laughing at the DM's pathetic attempts to deal one point of damage to me while I wore plate, a shield, my defense fighting style, and the shield spell.

My Bard build I am doing will be putting off two levels of spells since I am taking a level of Fighter and Sorcerer for the ac, better blasting cantrips, and shield.

I have yet to run into a situation where the 3rd level spells are so powerful that they can't be put off for a level or two

[SharkForce]

Are you claiming that martials are better against high level monsters than spellcasters?

If not, then the point stands.

CR 8 may not be fireball bait, but they're still worse on martials than a CR 15.

better against high level monsters is up for debate. effective, and still perfectly capable of performing their role? no problem. give them any magical weapon, and they've got the tools to deal with probably 90% of the monsters in the game. if that weapon is ranged, probably more.

i do think martials could use a bit more in other areas at high levels, but everyone i know or have spoken to that has played a martial at high levels (provided they enjoy martial characters in the first place) has felt satisfied, so it can't be that bad.

i'm curious how you think a pair of CR 8s somehow make a martial worse, though. that's less HP to chew through before an enemy is defeated and the remainder of the encounter gets easier.

[Coidzor]

These are the kinds of people who most likely simply forgot to include that you can't lose HP when leveling up when the rules text was being compiled.

So that old saw about not attributing to malice what you can attribute to carelessness would apply.

[thereaper]

better against high level monsters is up for debate. effective, and still perfectly capable of performing their role? no problem. give them any magical weapon, and they've got the tools to deal with probably 90% of the monsters in the game. if that weapon is ranged, probably more.

i do think martials could use a bit more in other areas at high levels, but everyone i know or have spoken to that has played a martial at high levels (provided they enjoy martial characters in the first place) has felt satisfied, so it can't be that bad.

i'm curious how you think a pair of CR 8s somehow make a martial worse, though. that's less HP to chew through before an enemy is defeated and the remainder of the encounter gets easier.

Lower hp enemies benefits the lower dpr characters, though, because the high dpr characters' advantage isn't as necessary, while the benefits that low dpr characters have remain unchanged.

I never claimed that martial characters were useless; only that it was suboptimal for them to not MC to a caster after a certain point. You may disagree with that conclusion if you like.

[Malifice]

How does the level 10/11 power spike compare to the level 5 one? I know Sorcadin is strong at Pal 6/Sor 5, but what about something like Warlock 5/Sorcerer 5 or Fighter 5/Cleric 5 compared to a 10 level single class?

edit: better yet, how does the fighter/Cleric compare to a level 10 Paladin? same spell casting and extra attack, but you trade out auras and smite for more diverse low level features.

For me, the 5th level spike seems to be the largest overall increase in power, but I'm not sure about the relative increase when you factor in enemy scaling.

Many of the 11th level boosts are pretty potent. Fighters gain extra attack (2), Paladins gain improved divine smite (+1d8 damage to every attack from now on), Rogues get Reliable talent (never fail a skill check again!) and so forth.

Of course, casters gain access to 6th level spells. Warlocks also gain 3 slots/ short rest with pact magic, up from 2/ short rest.

These abilities are nothing to sneeze at. They represent a significant boost in power.

[Malifice]

legendary resistance screws over save or sucks massively.

Thats what Monks and Battlemasters are for.

Stunning strike is such a debilitating effect, that on a failed save, a monster is guaranteed to blow a legendry resistance against it on a failed save. Monks can punch stuff 4 times per turn, potentially triggering 4 saves against [being stunned till the end of the Monks next turn].

A Stunned legendary monster loses all legendary actions, plus a whole turn, while it gets wailed on by the rest of the party for a whole round (at advantage).

OHM are awesome as well, because they force additional saves each time they hit with a flurry.

Battlemasters can also tack on some nasty status effects with sup dice, that a Legendary monster might very well decide its worth blowing a legendary resistance to stop. And they can also force several such saves in a single turn.

[SharkForce]

Lower hp enemies benefits the lower dpr characters, though, because the high dpr characters' advantage isn't as necessary, while the benefits that low dpr characters have remain unchanged.

I never claimed that martial characters were useless; only that it was suboptimal for them to not MC to a caster after a certain point. You may disagree with that conclusion if you like.

....


yeah, no. lower HP enemies dying more quickly to higher DPR is still better than dying more slowly to lower DPR. the benefits of high DRP don't mysteriously vanish, unless we're talking about enemies being so easy to kill that the low DPR characters kill just as many enemies as the high DPR ones.