DMs only: Do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?

[Misterwhisper]

Yes, except for warlocks.

It is far too after a dip for power class.

If you want in, find a patron and ask.

If you want out you have to have fulfilled your bargain.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Yes, except for warlocks.

It is far too after a dip for power class.

If you want in, find a patron and ask.

If you want out you have to have fulfilled your bargain.

I've always found it thematic when players dip Warlock for power. As I see it, that's sort of the point of the whole class. It's making a pact with a powerful entity for a substantial short-term gain in power. So long as my players understand that they're going to have to do more than just lip service in order to receive and maintain said powers (note: this also applies to Clerics when I DM), this seems to me like Warlock functioning as intended.

[Misterwhisper]

I've always found it thematic when players dip Warlock for power. As I see it, that's sort of the point of the whole class. It's making a pact with a powerful entity for a substantial short-term gain in power. So long as my players understand that they're going to have to do more than just lip service in order to receive and maintain said powers (note: this also applies to Clerics when I DM), this seems to me like Warlock functioning as intended.

Everyone just taking 2 levels and leaving is not working as intended.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

To me, classes are bundles of mechanics, tools to realize an abstract character concept. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about flavor, it just means I don’t care about adhering to the flavor the game provides.

I’m not saying people are wrong to assign narrative weight to the mechanical decisions players make, but as a DM I don’t agree with exercising absolute control over what those narrative implications are. I don’t think of classes as immutable concepts whose flavor is sacred and inalterable; players should be allowed to toy with them to make characters they want to play.

Ah, gotcha! In that sense, I agree!

I pretty much ignore any of the original fluff, and only use the mechanics the option provides to generate new fluff.

The Hexblade no longer is about a sentient Shadowfel-Sword-thing, but it's now about curses and draining souls!

The Redemption Paladin is now a martyr, one who convinces others not to fight and receives pain on behalf of their allies.

The Long Death Monk is a psionic that drains the psychic energy of those that die around him.

Stuff like that.

[Corran]

Everyone just taking 2 levels and leaving is not working as intended.

Definitely. But then again, when you see what they did with hexblade makes me wonder if they just gave up on solving the problem about warlock dips.

[EggKookoo]

To me, classes are bundles of mechanics, tools to realize an abstract character concept.

To me, classes represent choices. To be a fighter is to not be a wizard. Choices that impose limits and provide tools are interesting to me.

I find Superman boring as superheroes go. Not because he's extremely powerful, but because (at least in his classic Silver Age sense) he can do anything. Literally. If the writer thought of an ability, it would get "Super-" tacked onto it and given to Superman.

I prefer D&D characters to work more like the Flash. Flash basically has one power -- speed. Everything he does is an extrapolation of his ability to move at super speed. He's not tough or strong. He can't really fly. While Flash can hold his own, he works best as a member of a team, where he'd fight alongside someone super strong, maybe someone else super smart. Perhaps a third person with some esoteric ability like shapechanging. These characters, maybe powerful in their own right, work even better as a team because their abilities compliment each other.* This is a good thing. It makes the team important. And D&D is a team-based game.

* Yes, Superman is also often a member of the team, but usually the writers had to get him out of the picture as soon as possible, since he could do everything his teammates could do as well. Narrative and logical gymnastics were employed to make the others feel useful.

[PhoenixPhyre]

These characters, maybe powerful in their own right, work even better as a team because their abilities compliment each other.* This is a good thing. It makes the team important. And D&D is a team-based game.

This part is key. In fact, it's part of the D&D 5e Style Guide--there's a sidebar about what makes D&D special. It specifically calls out teamwork. That it's about people working together to do things they can't do alone. I've come to the idea that the basic unit of D&D is not the character. It's the party. Characters are like subatomic particles. Without the neutrons, the protons don't stick together. And without the electrons, the nucleus can't really interact well to form compounds. Everyone has their part to play, and there's no part for loners or "do everything myself" men.

[Misterwhisper]

Definitely. But then again, when you see what they did with hexblade makes me wonder if they just gave up on solving the problem about warlock dips.

Actually that is because they refuse to go back and fix things they messed up that would take a reprint.

I am more and more thinking that the D&D section of Hasbro is only like Miker, Jeremy and 3 other people.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've come to the idea that the basic unit of D&D is not the character. It's the party. Characters are like subatomic particles. Without the neutrons, the protons don't stick together. And without the electrons, the nucleus can't really interact well to form compounds. Everyone has their part to play, and there's no part for loners or "do everything myself" men.

That's the idea.

Unfortunately, 25 years worth of video game culture has changed a lot of people's entering assumptions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's the idea.

Unfortunately, 25 years worth of video game culture has changed a lot of people's entering assumptions.

Then it's high time we disabuse people of that false notion, rather than feeding and enabling it. I'm willing to do my part as both a DM (encouraging teamwork) and as a player (not trying to do it all myself and enabling the party to work together).

[Trustypeaches]

To me, classes represent choices. To be a fighter is to not be a wizard. Choices that impose limits and provide tools are interesting to me.

I find Superman boring as superheroes go. Not because he's extremely powerful, but because (at least in his classic Silver Age sense) he can do anything. Literally. If the writer thought of an ability, it would get "Super-" tacked onto it and given to Superman.

I prefer D&D characters to work more like the Flash. Flash basically has one power -- speed. Everything he does is an extrapolation of his ability to move at super speed. He's not tough or strong. He can't really fly. While Flash can hold his own, he works best as a member of a team, where he'd fight alongside someone super strong, maybe someone else super smart. Perhaps a third person with some esoteric ability like shapechanging. These characters, maybe powerful in their own right, work even better as a team because their abilities compliment each other.* This is a good thing. It makes the team important. And D&D is a team-based game.

* Yes, Superman is also often a member of the team, but usually the writers had to get him out of the picture as soon as possible, since he could do everything his teammates could do as well. Narrative and logical gymnastics were employed to make the others feel useful.

I disagree with this whole metaphor to be honest.

Using superman in your analogy implies Multiclassing are good at everything; that they outclass specialized characters. But multiclassed characters are not strictly better than single-class characters. There is always a sacrifice in core progression. A choice to be made.

Secondly, multiclassing characters does not inherently mean you're stepping on the toes of another character. You can plenty of party diversity with a group of multiclassed characters. Players that are concerned about preserving party roles and niches can exercise the same discretion when multiclassing as they would when creating new characters.

[MeimuHakurei]

I disagree with this whole metaphor to be honest.

Using superman in your analogy implies Multiclassing are good at everything; that they outclass specialized characters. But multiclassed characters are not strictly better than single-class characters. There is always a sacrifice in core progression. A choice to be made.

Secondly, multiclassing characters does not inherently mean you're stepping on the toes of another character. You can plenty of party diversity with a group of multiclassed characters. Players that are concerned about preserving party roles and niches can exercise the same discretion when multiclassing as they would when creating new characters.

Also, the Justice League heroes were initially designed to be competent as standalone heroes, including Batman, Green Lantern and even the notably more niche Aquaman. Proves that you can make good teams out of people who can stand on their own, which the whole "party role/spotlight sharing" mentality absolutely prohibits.

[EggKookoo]

Using superman in your analogy implies Multiclassing are good at everything; that they outclass specialized characters. But multiclassed characters are not strictly better than single-class characters. There is always a sacrifice in core progression. A choice to be made.

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.

Secondly, multiclassing characters does not inherently mean you're stepping on the toes of another character. You can plenty of party diversity with a group of multiclassed characters. Players that are concerned about preserving party roles and niches can exercise the same discretion when multiclassing as they would when creating new characters.

This can be true, yes. If you're joining a party with a rogue and a wizard, no one's niche is threatened if you make a fighter/cleric. At the same time, a war cleric or paladin would easily fit with the same concept. The only objection you could really have would be based on the mechanics.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Everyone just taking 2 levels and leaving is not working as intended.

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing thematically wrong with a 2-level dip in Warlock for power, and there's actually a lot right about it. And again, this is only if you actually have consequences and are held accountable by your patron to support their schemes. But if you're doing that, then I think you'll find a lot of people who'd otherwise dip Warlock'll be more reluctant to do so.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.

Mechanics have flavor too, and it is impossible to change them, without changing them. You might attempt to refluff a Paladin's Aura of Warding as a Counterspell. But your refluff will have major holes in it because the mechanics tell a story themselves. They tell of the difference between a passive an a reactive. They tell the difference between mitigation and negation. They tell the difference between always available vs limited resources. Yes, you can do a lot with refluffing. But Eldritch Knight only exists because someone realized some concepts take multiclassing. If Eldritch Knight was not initially possible without multiclassing, what other concepts exists that still cannot be done without multiclassing?

-Magical Bodyguard-
Single Classed: Eldritch Knight or Paladin or War Wizard or Abjurer or Diviner
Multiclassed: Paladin / Abjurer or Paladin / Diviner
In this case the single classed characters are stronger, but the multiclassed ones fit the character concept better in ways refluffing does not handle.

PS: If you find yourself going "But you can do it single classed if you squint. Sure it will just be a shoddy representation, but it is technically possible." then I think you see the point.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices

I have to disagree with that as well. Mechanics are an integral part of how a character is flavored. I can make a Fighter, and reflavor him as a Paladin or Cleric, but without the mechanics to back it up the flavor falls flat. And certain mechanics are tied far too closely to their class. For example, I have a Paladin of the Ancients/Wild Magic Sorcerer. Fluff wise, he gained his Wild Magic after having an encounter with a ton of wild magic within a pyramid. The magic ended up corrupting his Aura that defended him against Magic, and manifested as Wild Magic Sorcerer powers.

Now, you can fluff that as a Paladin, but without access to the Wild Magic Table then you don't really have any Wild Magic. And sure, a DM could grant you certain class features from different subclasses, but that can get messy really fast.

[EggKookoo]

-Magical Bodyguard-
Single Classed: Eldritch Knight or Paladin or War Wizard or Abjurer or Diviner
Multiclassed: Paladin / Abjurer or Paladin / Diviner
In this case the single classed characters are stronger, but the multiclassed ones fit the character concept better in ways refluffing does not handle.

I'm not sure why the MC versions would fit the concept better. I mean, is a magical bodyguard something specific that makes Pal/Abj work better than EK?

At their most basic, all D&D creatures are collections of values like ability scores (and their descendant saves and checks), HP, AC, and so on. All features just affect those "pure" values. This is how the DMG presents customizing encounter balance, and it makes a lot of sense. Magic missile could easily be a form of "divine smite" that deals 1d4+1 in three blasts of supernatural energy. Or an eldritch effect where you launch out three screaming, wailing spirits that "curse" their target for 1d4+1 each. The mechanics are presented with a flavor, but you're no more bound to that than you are bound to playing in a strict FR setting or bound to giving elves pointed ears (assuming your the DM in this case).

I don't think one can say mechanics carry their own flavor while at the same time viewing classes as just bundles of mechanics.

[MeimuHakurei]

Here's a few concepts 5e hasn't been able to replicate, except maybe with excessive multiclassing:

-Tough guy grappler who crushes skulls between thighs like sparrow's egg. Do this with Monk? Sorry, you'll be hideously fragile if you want to focus on Strength and your Ki abilities are largely anti-synergistic with grapples. Barbarian? Enjoy throwing punches that deal effectively no damage once you're past Tier 1. Rogue? They can't do the tough guy thing well, but with Sneak Attack and access to Expertise, they can actually wrestle better than either of the other classes.

-Clever trickster who confounds enemies with various devices, social manipulations and tricky manuevers. Rogues? Arcane Trickster doesn't have much in the way of misdirecting combat manuevers, hidden items with diverse effects and so on - also, most of the Rogue's kit is focused on stabbing people with high damage. Wizard? Actually cares about Intelligence a lot, but you're no good at feinting, distracting or beguiling others unless you throw your limited spells at the problem (which is something I usually put up with because D&D has no other mechanics for unusual abilities). Bard? You still have all the supporter/musician baggage to go with it.

-Something I actually play: A strange magician who can absorb/drain magic from others and steal the power of spells for her own use. The only thing that scratches the concept in the slightest way is an Abjuration Wizard, who cares more about being tanky than absorbing and stealing spells. Plus, she's more charismatic than intelligent, so there's that.

In general I'd welcome it if D&D optimized the amount of concepts achievable without exploding the page count. 12 classes that can be combined in pairs for instance enables 66 combinations already - which is far less difficult to read through and write than 66 individual classes.

[EggKookoo]

Here's a few concepts 5e hasn't been able to replicate, except maybe with excessive multiclassing:

-Tough guy grappler who crushes skulls between thighs like sparrow's egg. Do this with Monk? Sorry, you'll be hideously fragile if you want to focus on Strength and your Ki abilities are largely anti-synergistic with grapples. Barbarian? Enjoy throwing punches that deal effectively no damage once you're past Tier 1. Rogue? They can't do the tough guy thing well, but with Sneak Attack and access to Expertise, they can actually wrestle better than either of the other classes.

Monk. Maybe Open Fist just to keep things simple. Don't worry about Str, just focus on Dex and Con. I mean if you're going MC you'll need high ability scores anyway, right? A high-Con monk shouldn't be fragile. And he doesn't strictly need a high Str to come off as a "tough guy." Just describe him as well-muscled and play him with what feels like the appropriate attitude. Maybe deck him out with piercing and tats? Maybe give him the Soldier background to get proficiency in Intimidation.

Of course you won't literally be crushing skulls like eggs but no class lets you do that. But just flavor your Unarmed Strike (using your nice high Dex) as Thigh Crush. Sure, we know you're using your Dex when it comes to rolling, but does that matter? You could even have RP fun with that. "Yeah, I crush them with my thighs but believe it or not it's not really about leg strength. It's about positioning. See, you have to get the cranium just so..."

-Clever trickster who confounds enemies with various devices, social manipulations and tricky manuevers. Rogues? Arcane Trickster doesn't have much in the way of misdirecting combat manuevers, hidden items with diverse effects and so on - also, most of the Rogue's kit is focused on stabbing people with high damage. Wizard? Actually cares about Intelligence a lot, but you're no good at feinting, distracting or beguiling others unless you throw your limited spells at the problem (which is something I usually put up with because D&D has no other mechanics for unusual abilities). Bard? You still have all the supporter/musician baggage to go with it.

I'm not sure why some flavor of bard (Lore?) wouldn't work here. You don't have to sing, just describe that stuff as verbal misdirection. And flavor your spells as "devices" or "gizmos" that maybe you rapidly assemble or unfold/unpack/activate. As long as the mechanics jive with spellcasting it should all work out. Maybe an Entertainer background?

-Something I actually play: A strange magician who can absorb/drain magic from others and steal the power of spells for her own use. The only thing that scratches the concept in the slightest way is an Abjuration Wizard, who cares more about being tanky than absorbing and stealing spells. Plus, she's more charismatic than intelligent, so there's that.

This one's interesting. How do you define "absorb/drain magic from others" in a mechanical sense?

In general I'd welcome it if D&D optimized the amount of concepts achievable without exploding the page count. 12 classes that can be combined in pairs for instance enables 66 combinations already - which is far less difficult to read through and write than 66 individual classes.

Yeah, I'm not saying you can create any concept you could imagine with D&D classes. I just mean I don't think multiclassing gives you any concept that you can't get from a single class and some creative fluffing. My preference would have been for fewer core classes and lots more subclasses hanging off those (turning some existing classes into subclasses, I guess?).

[EggKookoo]

-Tough guy grappler who crushes skulls between thighs like sparrow's egg. Do this with Monk? Sorry, you'll be hideously fragile if you want to focus on Strength and your Ki abilities are largely anti-synergistic with grapples. Barbarian? Enjoy throwing punches that deal effectively no damage once you're past Tier 1. Rogue? They can't do the tough guy thing well, but with Sneak Attack and access to Expertise, they can actually wrestle better than either of the other classes.

Revisiting this, it looks like what you're asking for is someone good at unarmed fighting who is also Str-based so they're good with grappling. Going the MC route, you could be a monk/fighter or monk/barb. You would need minimum Dex and Wis of 13, and a minimum Str of 13 if you're going barb. Or you could just go with a monk with a Dex and Str of at least 13 and use variant human to get the Grappler feat. You can fluff Unarmored Defense as "toughness" and if you can get your Wis high enough (you'd need it to be at least 13 to MC anyway) you have a respectable starting AC of at least 12. Leg crushes count as unarmed attacks so you get to apply them multiple times to your grappled target.

If you then want to be sneaky (given your rogue reference) just go with Way of the Shadow at 3rd level. Or you could have Way of the Open Thigh (with Open Thigh Technique and Quivering Thighs... I might have to play this myself...).

[Anthiondel]

Revisiting this, it looks like what you're asking for is someone good at unarmed fighting who is also Str-based so they're good with grappling. Going the MC route, you could be a monk/fighter or monk/barb. You would need minimum Dex and Wis of 13, and a minimum Str of 13 if you're going barb. Or you could just go with a monk with a Dex and Str of at least 13 and use variant human to get the Grappler feat. You can fluff Unarmored Defense as "toughness" and if you can get your Wis high enough (you'd need it to be at least 13 to MC anyway) you have a respectable starting AC of at least 12. Leg crushes count as unarmed attacks so you get to apply them multiple times to your grappled target.

If you then want to be sneaky (given your rogue reference) just go with Way of the Shadow at 3rd level. Or you could have Way of the Open Thigh (with Open Thigh Technique and Quivering Thighs... I might have to play this myself...).

To each their own, but I wouldn't want to not do what I find fun, and more often than not, it involves multiclassing

[EggKookoo]

To each their own, but I wouldn't want to not do what I find fun, and more often than not, it involves multiclassing

Of course, and you should. I'm just speaking to the (IMO often misguided) idea that one needs to multiclass to realize a concept.

[OldTrees1]

Of course, and you should. I'm just speaking to the (IMO often misguided) idea that one needs to multiclass to realize a concept.

I was just replying to the idea that multiclassing is never used to better represent character concepts. Nobody ever needs to do anything.

Perhaps we are not disagreeing anymore?

I'm not sure why the MC versions would fit the concept better. I mean, is a magical bodyguard something specific that makes Pal/Abj work better than EK?

Imagine someone trying to defend their charge. That is what they are trained for. They have some magical and some martial training in order to better suit that role.
Pal/Abj makes the choice to sacrifice offensive potential in exchange for being better at defending their charge.
EK makes the choice to be better at offense at the expense of being able to defend their charge.
The excessive offense and deficient defensive capabilities of the EK would not have been a faithful adaptation of the character concept into the mechanics of 5E. As a result the Pal/Abj multiclass better mechanically represents the character concept the person was looking for. This is not to say you couldn't do a single classed character, it is saying that multiclassing can sometimes create a better representation of a character concept than single classing can with the limited number of classes that can be printed.

At their most basic, all D&D creatures are collections of values like ability scores (and their descendant saves and checks), HP, AC, and so on. All features just affect those "pure" values. This is how the DMG presents customizing encounter balance, and it makes a lot of sense. Magic missile could easily be a form of "divine smite" that deals 1d4+1 in three blasts of supernatural energy. Or an eldritch effect where you launch out three screaming, wailing spirits that "curse" their target for 1d4+1 each. The mechanics are presented with a flavor, but you're no more bound to that than you are bound to playing in a strict FR setting or bound to giving elves pointed ears (assuming your the DM in this case).

I agree that some flavor can be refluffed. In your example you refluffed Magic Missile from 1d4+1 magical force damage to 1d4+1 supernatural force damage. However you did not even attempt refluff the "automatic hit" part of Magic Missile because you knew that it cannot refluffed to not being automatic without also changing the mechanic. No matter how much refluffing you do to Magic Missile, it will always have the "unerring attack" flavor.

I don't think one can say mechanics carry their own flavor while at the same time viewing classes as just bundles of mechanics.

It is because flavor comes in two parts with a blurry line inbetween*. There is the mechanics with all of their consequences. And then there is the description on top of the mechanics. You can see this most clearly if you try to refluff Fireball as an icy wind without changing the mechanics. Your icy wind will burn with fire damage. So instead you homebrew a cold damage version of Fireball so that the flavor of the mechanics and the flavor of the description matched. You have now done 2 things of note. 1) You saw the spells as bundles of mechanics that could be recombined. 2) You recombined those mechanics and gave it a new description. That is exactly how I see multiclassing used to create new classes. You have a description in mind (the character concept), you see the existing bundles of mechanics (classes), and your recombined those existing mechanics to suit the description (multiclass to suit the character concept).

This is kind of like your preference for there being more subclasses and fewer classes. Definitely check out Pathfinder as a case study. They did a lot of experimentation with using subclasses & alternate class features as an alternative to multiclassing.

*Druid Armor prohibition is Mechanics IMHO but some say it is Fluff / Description. There are plenty of cases like this over the years that ride that border.

Monk. Maybe Open Fist just to keep things simple. Don't worry about Str, just focus on Dex and Con. I mean if you're going MC you'll need high ability scores anyway, right? A high-Con monk shouldn't be fragile. And he doesn't strictly need a high Str to come off as a "tough guy." Just describe him as well-muscled and play him with what feels like the appropriate attitude. Maybe deck him out with piercing and tats? Maybe give him the Soldier background to get proficiency in Intimidation.

Of course you won't literally be crushing skulls like eggs but no class lets you do that. But just flavor your Unarmed Strike (using your nice high Dex) as Thigh Crush. Sure, we know you're using your Dex when it comes to rolling, but does that matter? You could even have RP fun with that. "Yeah, I crush them with my thighs but believe it or not it's not really about leg strength. It's about positioning. See, you have to get the cranium just so..."

Revisiting this, it looks like what you're asking for is someone good at unarmed fighting who is also Str-based so they're good with grappling. Going the MC route, you could be a monk/fighter or monk/barb. You would need minimum Dex and Wis of 13, and a minimum Str of 13 if you're going barb. Or you could just go with a monk with a Dex and Str of at least 13 and use variant human to get the Grappler feat. You can fluff Unarmored Defense as "toughness" and if you can get your Wis high enough (you'd need it to be at least 13 to MC anyway) you have a respectable starting AC of at least 12. Leg crushes count as unarmed attacks so you get to apply them multiple times to your grappled target.

If you then want to be sneaky (given your rogue reference) just go with Way of the Shadow at 3rd level. Or you could have Way of the Open Thigh (with Open Thigh Technique and Quivering Thighs... I might have to play this myself...).

I am glad you revisited that example. The initial solution did not look adequate to represent the character concept. Personally, in the latter case, the Monk/Barbarian seems a represent the character concept better than the straight Monk. The description of Rage can be refluffed but the mechanics of rage lend to the crushing skulls flavor the character concept was looking for.

[EggKookoo]

I was just replying to the idea that multiclassing is never used to better represent character concepts. Nobody ever needs to do anything.

Perhaps we are not disagreeing anymore?

I doubt we disagree much. I suspect we're mostly refining our positions.

Imagine someone trying to defend their charge. That is what they are trained for. They have some magical and some martial training in order to better suit that role.
Pal/Abj makes the choice to sacrifice offensive potential in exchange for being better at defending their charge.
EK makes the choice to be better at offense at the expense of being able to defend their charge.
The excessive offense and deficient defensive capabilities of the EK would not have been a faithful adaptation of the character concept into the mechanics of 5E. As a result the Pal/Abj multiclass better mechanically represents the character concept the person was looking for. This is not to say you couldn't do a single classed character, it is saying that multiclassing can sometimes create a better representation of a character concept than single classing can with the limited number of classes that can be printed.

Sure, but that gets back to my point that you'd be going the Pal/Abj route for mechanical reasons. Conceptually, an EK who focuses on abjuration spells, and takes the Healer feat or Magic Initiate and picks some cleric healing or defense spells, works just as well for a "supernatural defender."

I agree that some flavor can be refluffed. In your example you refluffed Magic Missile from 1d4+1 magical force damage to 1d4+1 supernatural force damage. However you did not even attempt refluff the "automatic hit" part of Magic Missile because you knew that it cannot refluffed to not being automatic without also changing the mechanic. No matter how much refluffing you do to Magic Missile, it will always have the "unerring attack" flavor.

Right, but I don't think it retaining its unerring attack is a strike against it when refluffed to some other theme. There's no real thematic reason the vanilla magic missile auto-hits. It just does out of tradition and a desire on the part of the devs to give it a signature feel.

It is because flavor comes in two parts with a blurry line inbetween*. There is the mechanics with all of their consequences. And then there is the description on top of the mechanics. You can see this most clearly if you try to refluff Fireball as an icy wind without changing the mechanics. Your icy wind will burn with fire damage. So instead you homebrew a cold damage version of Fireball so that the flavor of the mechanics and the flavor of the description matched. You have now done 2 things of note. 1) You saw the spells as bundles of mechanics that could be recombined. 2) You recombined those mechanics and gave it a new description. That is exactly how I see multiclassing used to create new classes. You have a description in mind (the character concept), you see the existing bundles of mechanics (classes), and your recombined those existing mechanics to suit the description (multiclass to suit the character concept).

Luckily for me, there are a number of alternate spells in sources like Xanathar, so I could just do a swap. Which I agree is recombining mechanics at a different level.

My aversion to multiclassing is more along the lines of ROI. It's one thing to say "fireball is now iceball and does cold damage instead of fire damage." That's a simple thing that has (mostly) predictable outcomes. Saying you want to make, say, a fighter/wizard rather than an EK is, to me, putting in a lot more effort than is necessary.

In any event, just to restate what I'm getting at and to avoid miscommunicating, I'm skeptical of the need to use multiclassing to realize a concept. I think efforts in that direction are really driven by a desire for specific mechanics, and those mechanics are then used to define a "concept" in a rather concrete way. Maybe I'm just using a particular definition for "concept" but to me it should be fairly general and be able to fit into a number of different manifestations.

This is kind of like your preference for there being more subclasses and fewer classes. Definitely check out Pathfinder as a case study. They did a lot of experimentation with using subclasses & alternate class features as an alternative to multiclassing.

Speaking of ROI...

[Trustypeaches]

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.

If you're joining a party with a rogue and a wizard, no one's niche is threatened if you make a fighter/cleric. At the same time, a war cleric or paladin would easily fit with the same concept. The only objection you could really have would be based on the mechanics.

And are mechanical objections not valid?

What if the player doesn't want to play a cleric or a paladin? Are they not entitled to realize their character concept in the way that would be the most enjoyable for them to play?

People can have mechanical preferences that go beyond optimization; mechanics inform how you interact with the game and are an important element of realizing a character concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

Then it's high time we disabuse people of that false notion, rather than feeding and enabling it. I'm willing to do my part as both a DM (encouraging teamwork) and as a player (not trying to do it all myself and enabling the party to work together).

One table at a time. It's what I do ...

[MaxWilson]

I find Superman boring as superheroes go. Not because he's extremely powerful, but because (at least in his classic Silver Age sense) he can do anything. Literally. If the writer thought of an ability, it would get "Super-" tacked onto it and given to Superman.

But in practice, he doesn't do anything except use super-strength, because actually using all of his abilities (especially super-speed) would wreck the dramatic tension. :-/

(Also, he's apparently rubbish against magic. No Super-Wizardry for you, Superman! That's for your knockoff, Captain Marvel a.k.a. Shazam!)

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.

For that matter, there aren't even many classes that can't be achieved by reflavoring a handful of core classes. There's certainly nothing stopping you from scrapping everything but the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Wizard. Bards are either learned Rogues or talkative Wizards, depending on what your concept is. Clerics are religious Wizards. Paladins are virtuous Fighters. (If you're into multiclassing, you could let a Paladin be a Fighter/Wizard, either with 5E-style mix-and-match multiclassing or AD&D-style true multiclassing.)

[Man_Over_Game]

But in practice, he doesn't do anything except use super-strength, because actually using all of his abilities (especially super-speed) would wreck the dramatic tension. :-/

(Also, he's apparently rubbish against magic. No Super-Wizardry for you, Superman! That's for your knockoff, Captain Marvel a.k.a. Shazam!)



For that matter, there aren't even many classes that can't be achieved by reflavoring a handful of core classes. There's certainly nothing stopping you from scrapping everything but the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Wizard. Bards are either learned Rogues or talkative Wizards, depending on what your concept is. Clerics are religious Wizards. Paladins are virtuous Fighters. (If you're into multiclassing, you could let a Paladin be a Fighter/Wizard, either with 5E-style mix-and-match multiclassing or AD&D-style true multiclassing.)

Or just break it down into 4 "spheres":

Force vs. Finesse
Light vs. Dark.

So something like this:

Forceful : Fighter
Finesse : Rogue
Light: Priest
Dark: Sorcerer

Forceful + Light: Paladin
Forceful + Dark: Barbarian

Finesse + Light: Monk
Finesse + Dark: Bard

[EggKookoo]

And are mechanical objections not valid?

What if the player doesn't want to play a cleric or a paladin? Are they not entitled to realize their character concept in the way that would be the most enjoyable for them to play?

Ok, please understand that I'm not trying to tell you that you can't multiclass. I'm explaining why I'm not a fan of it. Sure, it's coming across as a kind of objective criticism of multiclassing as a concept and how the arguments of its advocates don't work for me, but that's just because I'm a jerk and I also feel like my own reasoning is sensible.

I'm not going to show up at your table and judge you for being a dirty multiclasser. I'll just do it across the internet...

People can have mechanical preferences that go beyond optimization; mechanics inform how you interact with the game and are an important element of realizing a character concept.

Totally agree. In my various homebrews I steal my favorite mechanics all the time (I love dice-based features like Bardic Inspiration). In fact if you wanted to play a given concept with a radically reflavored existing class -- like a tough-guy warrior type using, say, a bard -- because you love the gameplay, great!

For that matter, there aren't even many classes that can't be achieved by reflavoring a handful of core classes. There's certainly nothing stopping you from scrapping everything but the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Wizard. Bards are either learned Rogues or talkative Wizards, depending on what your concept is. Clerics are religious Wizards. Paladins are virtuous Fighters. (If you're into multiclassing, you could let a Paladin be a Fighter/Wizard, either with 5E-style mix-and-match multiclassing or AD&D-style true multiclassing.)

A.K.A. AD&D Second Edition. Well, to a degree, anyway. Four (what we now think of as) classes, with many (what we now think of as) subclasses.

[OldTrees1]

I doubt we disagree much. I suspect we're mostly refining our positions.

Sounds right. I re ordered a bit for tone.

My aversion to multiclassing is more along the lines of ROI. It's one thing to say "fireball is now iceball and does cold damage instead of fire damage." That's a simple thing that has (mostly) predictable outcomes. Saying you want to make, say, a fighter/wizard rather than an EK is, to me, putting in a lot more effort than is necessary.

I understand your aversion even if I don't share it. I am very glad 5E made more single class support for concepts that used to be multiclass. It allows players with your preference to still play things like Bards or Eldritch Knights. Your aversion is perfectly rational and reasonable.

Speaking of ROI:

EK exists as a subclass now because enough people multiclassed Fighter / Wizard. WotC made a very wise choice of making it easier to create each edition. In 3rd edition EK was printed in the core books as a prestige class to minimize the multiclassing to just the first 5 levels of the character concept. Now it is a subclass so you can do it straight out of the Fighter class.

I LOVE the 5E Arcane Trickster. I have a Dungeon Guide character concept (skilled professional that uses a mixture of magic & mundane tools to allow customers to tour dungeons in relative safety). It was a nightmare to try to create in 3rd edition (partially because the AT prestige class was not helpful). I enjoyed the character concept enough to find it worth it, but I am surely an outlier in that regard. 5E just has a subclass. Both versions still have way too much sneak attack for the concept, but I am still very very happy WotC did that.

In any event, just to restate what I'm getting at and to avoid miscommunicating, I'm skeptical of the need to use multiclassing to realize a concept. I think efforts in that direction are really driven by a desire for specific mechanics, and those mechanics are then used to define a "concept" in a rather concrete way. Maybe I'm just using a particular definition for "concept" but to me it should be fairly general and be able to fit into a number of different manifestations.

I would agree that with the 5E classes they do have a good job of allowing single classed instantiations of character concepts that previously required multiclassing. I do believe your definition of concept is underselling the emergent flavor mechanics can have.

I have been arguing that multiclassing can support more concepts than the number of printed classes. This is primarily because I have seen concepts like EK that used to not be base classes until a lot of base classes were printed. Now it is possible that there are no synergistic emergent flavors that result in a character concept that can't be done in a partial form as a single class. In the example below, while I have said Pal/Abj fits the concept better, I agree that EK does a partial fit. But there are some concepts that might be hard to pull off in a single class:

An Imp and its pet Bear. (Druid / Warlock)

Sure, but that gets back to my point that you'd be going the Pal/Abj route for mechanical reasons. Conceptually, an EK who focuses on abjuration spells, and takes the Healer feat or Magic Initiate and picks some cleric healing or defense spells, works just as well for a "supernatural defender."

The EK that focuses on those things still has a lot of unneeded offensive boosts and has much less defensive capabilities. The Pal/Abj has Auras (Protection & Warding are a big deal), Protection Fighting Style, Clerical Healing, Defensive Spells, and Countermagic. The EK has half of that at most and also attacks 4 times in a round.

So now to observe the emergent flavor:
The EK blesses their charge. Then stands next to their charge, imposes disadvantage on 1 attack per round, and then casts Healing Word to stabilize their charge. After combat they use the Healer's Kit to heal the charge via the Healer feat. Their charge spends most of the combat a death's door while the Fighter is hacking the enemies to pieces.

The Pal/Abj shields their charge with Aid + Inspiring Leader. They cast Aura of Vitality. Then stands next to the charge, they have 3 good reactions they can take as needed (Protection, Ward, Counterspell). Furthermore merely by being nearby their charge, the Pal/Abj negates 25% of saves and further 50% of spell damage. The Pal/Abj can protect the charge against Fireballs. Every turn the Pal/Abj is able to heal some of the residual damage. The fight takes longer but the charge remains away from death's door because their Bodyguard can actually guard their body rather than primarily stabilizing it after the fact.

So looking at that emergent flavor we see EK is a one man army that was put on escort duty and the Pal/Abj is a bodyguard.

Right, but I don't think it retaining its unerring attack is a strike against it when refluffed to some other theme. There's no real thematic reason the vanilla magic missile auto-hits. It just does out of tradition and a desire on the part of the devs to give it a signature feel.

You don't have to change everything when you refluff something. However every refluff of magic missile with either change the mechanics OR will retain the signature feel or "flavor" of magic missile's unerring attack flavor.

Luckily for me, there are a number of alternate spells in sources like Xanathar, so I could just do a swap. Which I agree is recombining mechanics at a different level.

With no good way to print a custom spell system (WotC has failed several times before), I am extremely glad WotC does print more spells (like in Xanathars).