Multiclassing/Dipping Shame

[quinron]

Perhaps we should double check, are we actually arguing?

I don't think we're arguing; more like we're engaging in some dialectical discussion.

My biggest issue with 5e's muticlassing is that it feels sloppily implemented, as I've indicated. Compare this to 3e, where multiclassing is and always was core to the creation and presentation of mechanics. The big tell here, for me, is the disparity between steadily scaling features and frontloaded features - the former includes things like Lay on Hands and Martial Arts that progress linearly, the latter things like Rage, Wild Shape, and Action Surge that, while gaining steady increases over levels, grant the most value when they're first gained. Regardless of class, you'll have gained almost all your core features by level 3; most levels past this will be either ribbons or increases to your existing features, with of course a useful exception or two per class.

It feels like most of the discussion and almost all the defenses of multiclassing are flavor-based, while there's been little discussion of the mechanical successes and failures of the system. For my part, it's obvious that I don't think it works all that well; much as I might try to approach it from the other angle, I have difficulty doing so, and I'd like to hear the counterpoint.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think we're arguing; more like we're engaging in some dialectical discussion.

My biggest issue with 5e's muticlassing is that it feels sloppily implemented, as I've indicated. Compare this to 3e, where multiclassing is and always was core to the creation and presentation of mechanics. The big tell here, for me, is the disparity between steadily scaling features and frontloaded features - the former includes things like Lay on Hands and Martial Arts that progress linearly, the latter things like Rage, Wild Shape, and Action Surge that, while gaining steady increases over levels, grant the most value when they're first gained. Regardless of class, you'll have gained almost all your core features by level 3; most levels past this will be either ribbons or increases to your existing features, with of course a useful exception or two per class.

It feels like most of the discussion and almost all the defenses of multiclassing are flavor-based, while there's been little discussion of the mechanical successes and failures of the system. For my part, it's obvious that I don't think it works all that well; much as I might try to approach it from the other angle, I have difficulty doing so, and I'd like to hear the counterpoint.

Oh. *Start shifting gears* I had been providing a character concept focused, edition agonistic, explanation of the utility of the level by level multiclassing as a developer tool. So it was more a defense of the mechanic rather than a defense of the design of each class. *Finish shifting gears*

I think the comparison between Lay on Hands and Rage has multiple variables, but I don't see any of them as a big tell in theory. Each of those variables is a reasonable thing for some feature to have in a multiclassing enabled system.

1. Features that scale with class level expend some of that class's budget for features at those later levels. The more of the feature that scales, the more it will charge the budget of later levels.
2. Features that scale steadily will charge each level's feature budget. Features that scale sporadically will only charge the budge of the levels they occur at.
3. It does make sense for Structural features to be shifted towards the beginning of a class, and Enhancement features to be shifted towards the end of the class. That helps give the class identity rather than change identity. Think about how 5E Paladin 6 feels, it would be a bit weird if it started at 18th instead.
4. Higher levels should have features appropriate to the higher level. Think of it as the level's budget increases.

Given these principles I think both Lay on Hands and Rage make sense.

However higher level classes don't always follow these principles in 5E. Fighter 13 gives a 2nd use of the Fighter 9 feature. Fighter 17 gives a 2nd use of the Fighter 2 feature and a 3rd use of the Fighter 9 feature. These are features that scale sporadically but should not expend the entire budget of these much later levels. They are no longer level appropriate features on their own.

When I look at Tier 2 features in 5E, they seem quite reasonable for multiclassing. When I look at Tier 1 features I can see why proficiencies are not duplicated and they are generally quite reasonable for multiclassing. The exceptions are notable, but the variance is expected. 3E had similar variance. However when I look at Tier 3-4 it seems like some classes don't get full level's worth of features. Their combat prowess still increases enough to be within reasonable expectations, but Fighter 13/17 are not the only examples.

Now, I know I am harsher than most when it comes to evaluating when a 5E class stops providing me with something I consider level appropriate. Paladin(Ancients) is a very well designed 5E class and I feel shortchanged on 15th+ levels.

[Satinavian]

It feels like most of the discussion and almost all the defenses of multiclassing are flavor-based, while there's been little discussion of the mechanical successes and failures of the system. For my part, it's obvious that I don't think it works all that well; much as I might try to approach it from the other angle, I have difficulty doing so, and I'd like to hear the counterpoint.

This is the general roleplaying section. I don't even know how many people here play 5E specifically. Expecting a detailed analysis of 5Es implementation of multiclassing condsidering 5Es classes and possible combinations might be a bit much.

[Glorthindel]

2) You also ask, what if Barbarian did not have a feature ideal for representing the loss of control? In this hypothetical world where Barbarians did not get a Rage mechanic, I would still want a mechanic that represented that loss of control over the bestial rage. I hope that was obvious. If it was not obvious, please point out the origin of the miscommunication. I would still probably favor multiclassing with Barbarian for the other reasons (tribal warrior). However I would look for some mechanical representation of the aspect I wanted to have mechanical representation.

See, this is where I keep bumping my head against the counter arguement. Where, within the Rage mechanic, is there any loss of control? Sure, its called rage, and historically a raging barbarian did lose control, but that element of it has been excised from the ability, to leave it as just a different sort of combat buff. Maybe you could argue that it is in the fact that it can be 'turned off' early by failing to do damage, or by the fact you cant concentrate while raging, but that's a bit weak. If that is the element you want represented, a Barbarian dip doesn't actually provide that, the onus is on you to provide it through RP, the same as you could just with a straight Wildshaping Druid.

Look, just to clarify, I am not saying people are wrong to want to multiclass. I like the idea of multiclassing, and what it offers, and I am sure i would be doing it myself if I got to play in more games and needed more variety (so far, I have took part in only three campaigns as a player, so I am a long way from bored of the base classess). But what needles me is when people talk about concepts, and then cite specific abilities, which in reality, have little to no bearing on achieving the concept. For example, I get why people like Hex Warrior - ability scores are finite, and its a great feature for stretching those finite ability points further, but ya know, just say that, and let the GM decide whether he is happy with the potential power bump, rather than painting it as a roleplay concern.

[Second Wind]

one character that I cannot do without multiclassing or homebrew in DnD 5e is the warrior who uses Divination magic to learn about his enemies as fighters only get evocation magic.

Without feats or multiclassing and only the Player's Handbook? That's a standard Ranger. Take Hunter's Mark as your in-combat Divination, and pick from a decent list of out-of-combat Divinations. (If nature theming is a no-go, the Eldritch Knight can pick divination spells at 3rd, 8th, 14th, and 20th level. Valor Bard also works if you want big divination spells and are OK with losing some martial prowess.)

Without feats or multiclassing? Bladesinger, or Swords Bard.

Without multiclassing? Any character with Ritual Caster.

[OldTrees1]

See, this is where I keep bumping my head against the counter arguement. Where, within the Rage mechanic, is there any loss of control? Sure, its called rage, and historically a raging barbarian did lose control, but that element of it has been excised from the ability, to leave it as just a different sort of combat buff. Maybe you could argue that it is in the fact that it can be 'turned off' early by failing to do damage, or by the fact you cant concentrate while raging, but that's a bit weak. If that is the element you want represented, a Barbarian dip doesn't actually provide that, the onus is on you to provide it through RP, the same as you could just with a straight Wildshaping Druid.

Look, just to clarify, I am not saying people are wrong to want to multiclass. I like the idea of multiclassing, and what it offers, and I am sure i would be doing it myself if I got to play in more games and needed more variety (so far, I have took part in only three campaigns as a player, so I am a long way from bored of the base classess). But what needles me is when people talk about concepts, and then cite specific abilities, which in reality, have little to no bearing on achieving the concept. For example, I get why people like Hex Warrior - ability scores are finite, and its a great feature for stretching those finite ability points further, but ya know, just say that, and let the GM decide whether he is happy with the potential power bump, rather than painting it as a roleplay concern.

1) Thematically rage has a loss of control. Yes that is important.
2) Mechanically rage disables some mental functions that involve control (spells, concentration) due to a decrease in mental control. This is the extent of the "loss of control" mechanics but it still represents some loss of control. So it works to represent the struggle phase where the mind is occupied trying to prevent releasing the beast within. Now you called that interaction "weak" however it is not "weak" to me. It seems rather ideal for what I am trying to represent for that phase (Did you miss the phases context? It was a couple pages back when I first mentioned the concept).

3) You did remember the part about tribal warrior? Totem Barbarian is there for multiple reasons, not just the Rage.
4) What dip? Do you consider Barbarian 11 / Druid 9 a dip? What about Barbarian 14 / Druid 6? I haven't thought about it enough to know the exact ratio, but you knew this was not a dip.

5) If my example needles you, then that is self inflicted. In reality these features (warrior features, rage, totem features*, wildshape, nature lore) have a lot of bearing on achieving the concept. Yes, I assume there are cases you have seen where the features have little to no bearing on achieving the concept. I can understand how that needles you. However it is wise for me to assume people are not stupid, so I would assume they see the relevance of those abilities even if I did not. That is probably why you asked me to elaborate while presuming I had a good answer.

*The totem features are a bit of a pleasant thematically appropriate bonus rather than a structural feature. They are not required for the concept but the Totem subclass seems the most appropriate for more bestial traits.

[Glorthindel]

I want to preface that I am not trying to call badwrongfun here, and I am merely using your example because you have presented a clear, robust "concept", with parameters of what you want and are trying to achieve, so it easier to challenge and dissect without making huge assumption leaps, to better indicate where my counter arguement is coming from. On a personal note, I would have absolutely no problem with your build at a table i ran - although I edge on the side of "multiclassing brings more trouble than its worth", your example isn't an example of that trouble (more, I am calling into question whether it provides enough "worth" to justify the "trouble" brought by others).

2) Mechanically rage disables some mental functions that involve control (spells, concentration) due to a decrease in mental control.

Notable Wildshape also prevents one of those two mental functions (casting spells, concentration is fine), so I would still maintain that Rage isn't bringing anything extra to the table at the concept level that Wildshape doesn't already bring. Granted, in my opinion, it does this fairly weakly, but since you said that would not be weak to you, we can probably agree to disagree here as our stances are actually supporting each others arguements!

4) What dip? Do you consider Barbarian 11 / Druid 9 a dip? What about Barbarian 14 / Druid 6? I haven't thought about it enough to know the exact ratio, but you knew this was not a dip.

Sorry, as should be obvious from my earlier posts, my main issue with multiclassing is dipping, so that tends to flavour my responses. Obviously, you aren't going for that, but given that Rage is a lv1 ability, it does fall into the category of easily dippable abilities.

In reality these features (warrior features, rage, totem features*, wildshape, nature lore) have a lot of bearing on achieving the concept.

And that's where I disagree, because you are talking in features, not themes. If you take away the hard feature names, and replace with "physical combatant, animal/bestial theme, tribal background, some loss of control, some form of shapechanging ability, nature lore", then that can be represented by a straight Druid, a Totem or Beast path Barbarian, or even a Shifter Fighter with Proficiency in Nature and the Uthgart Tribe Member Background roleplayed with a bad attitude when shifted.

Now, at the end of the day, its your character, so you should play what you want, and its not the place of someone like me to say "no, play this instead"; this is something we all do for fun, so fun should be the name of the game. The reason I am throwing out these counter arguements, is that I feel "missing character concepts" is often considered an automatic checkmate move for why "multiclassing has to exist", and I don't believe it is that automatic checkmate move, because most of the time (I am not foolish enough to say all the time, cos there is bound to be something!), the cited character concept can be easily portrayed within the class system as it is.

[OldTrees1]

And that's where I disagree, because you are talking in features, not themes. If you take away the hard feature names, and replace with "physical combatant, animal/bestial theme, tribal background, some loss of control, some form of shapechanging ability, nature lore", then that can be represented by a straight Druid, a Totem or Beast path Barbarian, or even a Shifter Fighter with Proficiency in Nature and the Uthgart Tribe Member Background roleplayed with a bad attitude when shifted.

At the end of the day, whether a mechanical instantiation of a character concept is a working instantiation depends on the subjective judgement of the player. For example you keep trying to use Druid to model the warrior. Each of your compromises makes the mechanical instantiations a worse and worse fit for the characterization. At some point it crosses a threshold and is no longer a mechanical instantiation of the desired character concept. Obviously that point is subjective and happens sooner for me in this case than it does for you.

When I hear these "alternatives" all it makes me think of is "Where is the miscommunication?"
Straight Druid? Not a warrior, lacks the struggle phase, and has insufficient lack of control elements.
Straight Barbarian with feats to pick up nature lore features? Insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.
Shifter Fighter with feats to pick up nature lore features? Lacks the struggle phase, and has no lack of control elements, insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.

So while these sound like alternatives to you, they don't sound like alternatives to me.

Now, at the end of the day, its your character, so you should play what you want, and its not the place of someone like me to say "no, play this instead"; this is something we all do for fun, so fun should be the name of the game. The reason I am throwing out these counter arguements, is that I feel "missing character concepts" is often considered an automatic checkmate move for why "multiclassing has to exist", and I don't believe it is that automatic checkmate move, because most of the time (I am not foolish enough to say all the time, cos there is bound to be something!), the cited character concept can be easily portrayed within the class system as it is.

1) Just to clarify, who said "multiclassing has to exist"? Who is treating "missing character concepts" as an automatic checkmate? I know my position was much more nuanced. I was describing how multiclassing is a useful developer tool to implicitly support characters that are not explicitly supported, and that increased support will support a larger player base, which game systems generally value. I also described how I run into this situation often enough that the implicit support influences my purchasing power.

2) When you say "most of the time the cited character concept can easily be portrayed within the class system as it is", is that by your judgement of the character concept OR by the player's judgement of the character concept? The example we have been going over still can't be easily portrayed by a single class according to the player's judgement.*

*If I lower my standards for faithful representation of the character concept, then I could portray every character concept as a Dwarf Fighter named Jane Smith. I worry you are doing a lesser version of this and then ignoring the feedback. That could heavily skew your data.

[quinron]

This is the general roleplaying section. I don't even know how many people here play 5E specifically. Expecting a detailed analysis of 5Es implementation of multiclassing condsidering 5Es classes and possible combinations might be a bit much.

Very fair - it took a bit of back-and-forth for me to realize how specific to 5e my complaints are. Though this has revealed to me just how setting-dependent my opinions on the subject are, and the defining factor seems to be that systems where I'm more favorable toward multiclassing are systems that were designed from the beginning with multiclassing in mind.

[vasilidor]

All I have is the 3 core books and what is available for free online. Hunters mark does not actually tell my anything about what I am facing. It allows me to kill the monster quicker, which is neat, but that is it. not where it's lair is, not what it could possibly have for a motivation, not what type of monster it is, any of that. looking back at the fighter, you are mostly correct, but you only get 3 spells, not 4. these are at levels 8, 14 and 20 and only those three. the spells I would probably take would be Dark Vision, See Invisibility and Arcane Eye. yes I am aware Dark Vision is transmutation. the concept barely works at all without multiclassing. The rest of the spells I would take would probably be abjuration spells as it is that or evocation.

In third and 3.5 this concept did not work at all until several splat books were released unless you multi-classed. same with previous editions.

[Morgaln]

At the end of the day, whether a mechanical instantiation of a character concept is a working instantiation depends on the subjective judgement of the player. For example you keep trying to use Druid to model the warrior. Each of your compromises makes the mechanical instantiations a worse and worse fit for the characterization. At some point it crosses a threshold and is no longer a mechanical instantiation of the desired character concept. Obviously that point is subjective and happens sooner for me in this case than it does for you.

When I hear these "alternatives" all it makes me think of is "Where is the miscommunication?"
Straight Druid? Not a warrior, lacks the struggle phase, and has insufficient lack of control elements.
Straight Barbarian with feats to pick up nature lore features? Insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.
Shifter Fighter with feats to pick up nature lore features? Lacks the struggle phase, and has no lack of control elements, insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.

So while these sound like alternatives to you, they don't sound like alternatives to me.

So what if the game starts at level 1? Your whole concept depends on having both druid wildshape and barbarian rage, to model something that is true for the character before the game even starts. Why was the beast without not there at level 1? Am I forced to play someone who keeps losing control more and more as I unlock more uses of rage? What if I want to do the opposite and have someone who gains control instead?
In general, multi-classing just can't map things well that happened before the adventurer's career even starts. The paladin who grew up as an orphan on the street and should therefore have some rogue skills; the warlock who worked as a court jester before making her pact and thus should be part bard; the wizard that was conscripted into the army as a teenager until his spark manifested. These are all character concepts that should be possible at level 1; multiclassing just doesn't allow for it. A player shouldn't be forced to play for several levels before they unlock the skills to represent what their character concept actually is.
Now admittedly, that is not the fault of multi-classing; it's a problem of having a class/level system in the first place and one reason I moved on to other systems long ago. But multi-classing is no more than a thin patch to try and hide that the system is just not equipped well to handle concepts that go beyond the boundaries of the class archetypes.

[OldTrees1]

So what if the game starts at level 1? Your whole concept depends on having both druid wildshape and barbarian rage, to model something that is true for the character before the game even starts. Why was the beast without not there at level 1? Am I forced to play someone who keeps losing control more and more as I unlock more uses of rage? What if I want to do the opposite and have someone who gains control instead?

There are at least 3 great answers to that question about what I would do.
1) I could have the character enter the campaign when the campaign is at a higher level.
2) I could have the character enter the campaign when they were a warrior (Barbarian) before they had this condition. That would be a prequel and just involve ignoring the Rage feature until the character development unlocks that aspect of the character creation. This would probably manifest as Barbarian 2 / Druid 2 /Barbarian +1 (turn on the condition) / level up Barbarian and Druid from there.
3) I could not play that character in that campaign.

Then you switch and ask about what you would do. I don't presume to speak for you. How you might instantiate your character might be dramatically different from how I instantiate my character. Those are great questions to ask yourself when figuring out how to most faithfully instantiate your character concept.

In general, multi-classing just can't map things well that happened before the adventurer's career even starts. The paladin who grew up as an orphan on the street and should therefore have some rogue skills; the warlock who worked as a court jester before making her pact and thus should be part bard; the wizard that was conscripted into the army as a teenager until his spark manifested. These are all character concepts that should be possible at level 1; multiclassing just doesn't allow for it. A player shouldn't be forced to play for several levels before they unlock the skills to represent what their character concept actually is.
Now admittedly, that is not the fault of multi-classing; it's a problem of having a class/level system in the first place and one reason I moved on to other systems long ago. But multi-classing is no more than a thin patch to try and hide that the system is just not equipped well to handle concepts that go beyond the boundaries of the class archetypes.

I am glad you see that is not the fault of multiclassing. I have seen multiclassing work well. It really depends on how far the concept strays from single class support and what multiclass support is available for that concept. So the system is a bit more resilient / broad than you give it credit for, but your root comment is that a class based system will support fewer character concepts than a classless system. That is true and we should all appreciate that there are some classless systems out there for the players that want that.

[Second Wind]

looking back at the fighter, you are mostly correct, but you only get 3 spells, not 4. these are at levels 8, 14 and 20 and only those three.

One of the spells you learn at 3rd level can also come from any school, and can be repicked into any school when you level up. See http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/fighter:eldritch-knight.

You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list.

The Spells Known column of the Eldritch Knight Spellcasting table shows when you learn more wizard spells of 1st level or higher. Each of these spells must be an abjuration or evocation spell of your choice, and must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For instance, when you reach 7th level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level.

The spells you learn at 8th, 14th, and 20th level can come from any school of magic.

Whenever you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the wizard spells you know with another spell of your choice from the wizard spell list. The new spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots, and it must be an abjuration or evocation spell, unless you're replacing the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or 20th level from any school of magic.

[OldTrees1]

One of the spells you learn at 3rd level can also come from any school, and can be repicked into any school when you level up.

unless you're replacing the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or 20th level from any school of magic.

For anyone else confused by this. The 5E PHB had an errata that lets Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters also replace the special spell gained at 3rd. So there is some decent flexibility for odd character concepts here.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This is the general roleplaying section. I don't even know how many people here play 5E specifically. Expecting a detailed analysis of 5Es implementation of multiclassing condsidering 5Es classes and possible combinations might be a bit much.

Especially since the RPG where I was feeling the most ashamed about this was Starfinder...

[OldTrees1]

Especially since the RPG where I was feeling the most ashamed about this was Starfinder...

Did the on topic posts (mostly page 1-2) help address the issue? Either by relieving some of the pressure to multiclass or quelling some of the shame?

[Telwar]

Translating mechanical concepts between systems can be tricky, depending on the level of mechanical options you have available. You definitely need to be flexible, how flexible you can be is a key component.

Like, I could take my 4e elementalist sorcerer (Mikhail al-Khelyej), and convert him into 5e...it just requires basing it mostly off of warlock rather than sorcerer (though with sorcerer first to get the Con proficiency, since one of Mikhail's schticks was that he was tough), and doing something with eldritch blast to make them fire.

On the other hand, my 4e Avenger, Cunnincula Peel, is a lot harder to translate. Avengers had good AC for being unarmored and used massive weapons; Cunnincula ran around in a halter top and miniskirt, with a greataxe taller than she was. Monk seems closest, but kensei doesn't allow for heavy weapons. Paladin had the "roll 2x to hit on a single target" (avengers other schtick) and heavy weapons, but you pretty much have to use heavy armor. Surprisingly, barbarian could work, but seems a little unlike the character. Were I trying to play her again, I'd probably try to homebrew a monk subclass for heavy weapons.

My last 4e character, a halfling rogue/assassin who threw shadow blades around and hit like a truck, would have been literally impossible to build prior to Tasha's. Now he'd be represented by a soulknife, probably single-classed, maybe with a brief monk dip.

On the fourth hand, my angel summoner concept wouldn't fly in 5e, since there's no option to conjure or summon a celestial until 9th level, and prior to Tasha's, you couldn't do that until 13th level. Meanwhile, the 4e invoker could do that at 1st level.

All I have is the 3 core books and what is available for free online. Hunters mark does not actually tell my anything about what I am facing. It allows me to kill the monster quicker, which is neat, but that is it. not where it's lair is, not what it could possibly have for a motivation, not what type of monster it is, any of that. looking back at the fighter, you are mostly correct, but you only get 3 spells, not 4. these are at levels 8, 14 and 20 and only those three. the spells I would probably take would be Dark Vision, See Invisibility and Arcane Eye. yes I am aware Dark Vision is transmutation. the concept barely works at all without multiclassing. The rest of the spells I would take would probably be abjuration spells as it is that or evocation.

In third and 3.5 this concept did not work at all until several splat books were released unless you multi-classed. same with previous editions.

For this concept, I would first ask yourself if you want to cast spells, or if you're okay sitting down and using rituals. If you're okay just with rituals, that's trivial, take Ritual Casting for a class that has your preferred divinations.

If you want to cast spells on the fly as well, you still have options, just the squinting level varies.

I'd start with asking the DM if they were okay with you switching out a spell type from eldritch knight, say abjuration, for divination. I imagine that shouldn't be too big a deal. If they're cool with that, you're done. You still can fit in Shield with one of your "free" spells.

If the DM is non-cooperative, take paladin or ranger and Ritual Casting.

[vasilidor]

I am the DM. 5th edition is new to me, but I have played all editions of D&D and Pathfinder 1&2 and a few other not-D&D games like Shadowrun and world of darkness. did not care for world of darkness. but I still say that there are concepts that just flat out work better if one allows multiclassing.

The rituals are something I now need to read now. DMs guide?

[OldTrees1]

The rituals are something I now need to read now. DMs guide?

PHB. Some spells have the Ritual tag. If you have a feature that lets you ritual cast, then you can cast those spells without using a spell slot at the cost of them taking +10 minutes to cast.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Did the on topic posts (mostly page 1-2) help address the issue? Either by relieving some of the pressure to multiclass or quelling some of the shame?

Sort of. It's subsided with some of the classes like Mechanic, but I'm still frustrated with the caster classes because the way they're constructed really discourages multiclassing, to the point where they HAVE a specific archetype geared towards casters who want to go gish (Spell Sergeant) to discourage dipping, but at the same time it's generally regarded as not as efficient as dipping Soldier and losing access to your ultimate class feature.

On a 5e-related sidenote, it does seem to me like there's a Warlock-to-Paladin pipeline that's gotten more and more popular recently (with a certain character from a certain podcast likely being the catalyst). Like, yeah it's relatively decent given both classes rely on CHA, but they're not dipping for power but just like playing through the drama of a Warlock with a dark pact finding salvation through a deity and then becoming a paladin...just an observation. That kind of multiclassing I LIKE! I really, REALLY like because it's integrated into the character's arc and feels more like transitioning from one class to another rather than taking a detour.

[Morty]

On a 5e-related sidenote, it does seem to me like there's a Warlock-to-Paladin pipeline that's gotten more and more popular recently (with a certain character from a certain podcast likely being the catalyst). Like, yeah it's relatively decent given both classes rely on CHA, but they're not dipping for power but just like playing through the drama of a Warlock with a dark pact finding salvation through a deity and then becoming a paladin...just an observation. That kind of multiclassing I LIKE! I really, REALLY like because it's integrated into the character's arc and feels more like transitioning from one class to another rather than taking a detour.

Which exposes the core issue with multiclassing. It's a very rare case where the mechanics of it actually align with a character's themes this way. Most of the time if you combine classes based on your personal vision, you'll end up weaker than if you'd just stuck to a single class. Multiclassing requires planning ahead and combining certain classes with certain other classes to be effective.

[OldTrees1]

Sort of. It's subsided with some of the classes like Mechanic, but I'm still frustrated with the caster classes because the way they're constructed really discourages multiclassing, to the point where they HAVE a specific archetype geared towards casters who want to go gish (Spell Sergeant) to discourage dipping, but at the same time it's generally regarded as not as efficient as dipping Soldier and losing access to your ultimate class feature.

Okay. Since you especially dislike this Soldier dip and losing the capstone feels out of character, it would be really nice if the pressure to dip Solider can be decreased / removed.

I need to learn more about the particular options. However I think our best bet is the ideal of "good enough". Is Spell Sargent good enough for the character concept?

The Soldier dip gives armor proficiency, weapon proficiency, and a small mechanical bonus (best initially appears to be turning your weapon into a +0 magic weapon).

Spell Sergent gives armor proficiency or weapon proficiency.

How is weapon damage calculated in Starfinder? How much less damage does a Spell Sargent (that chose Heavy Armor) do than a Soldier 1 / Spell Sargent X? In 3E D&D we might compare 1d6+12 vs 1d8+1d12 and not see a big difference. In 5E D&D we might compare 1d6+5 vs 1d8+5 and see a bigger but ignorable difference.

On a 5e-related sidenote, it does seem to me like there's a Warlock-to-Paladin pipeline that's gotten more and more popular recently (with a certain character from a certain podcast likely being the catalyst). Like, yeah it's relatively decent given both classes rely on CHA, but they're not dipping for power but just like playing through the drama of a Warlock with a dark pact finding salvation through a deity and then becoming a paladin...just an observation. That kind of multiclassing I LIKE! I really, REALLY like because it's integrated into the character's arc and feels more like transitioning from one class to another rather than taking a detour.

Nice. It sounds like you are quite comfortable following your character concepts if the concepts. Your issues seem to happen when some dip is presented as mandatory (hyperbole) despite being out of character for your character (For example: even if your character never reaches their capstone, they want it as a future goal).

[RandomPeasant]

Which exposes the core issue with multiclassing. It's a very rare case where the mechanics of it actually align with a character's themes this way. Most of the time if you combine classes based on your personal vision, you'll end up weaker than if you'd just stuck to a single class. Multiclassing requires planning ahead and combining certain classes with certain other classes to be effective.

That's not really some unique flaw of multi-classing. It's just really hard to write a system where combining different concepts is balanced with following a single concept. Shadowrun is a classless system, and your hybrid Mage/Street Sam is not going to be as effective as a dedicated Mage or Street Sam would be.

[Xervous]

Jumping off the mention of capstones (as commonly implemented and referenced) I think they’re commonly a failed design feature. For how little most people will get to use it even in games that run to max level, it’s either the superpower for the cinematic fight with the final boss or it’s a T shirt. It’s nigh worthless as an incentive to stay single classed because it simply can’t justify all the incremental steps along the way on its own.

The further you move the benefit back from absolute last level the more alluring it can potentially grow. Consider 9th level spells being accessible at L17, and each spell level justifying the incremental investments.

Or in other words, if you want people to consider staying single classed, put in reasons for them to continue advancing. 5e dropped the ball here on more than a few classes. And of course 3.5e wasn’t aware it was a ball to begin with.

[RandomPeasant]

Or in other words, if you want people to consider staying single classed, put in reasons for them to continue advancing. 5e dropped the ball here on more than a few classes. And of course 3.5e wasn’t aware it was a ball to begin with.

3e has very strong reasons to stay in many classes: spellcasting (and equivalents, like psionics or binding). 3e allows you to PrC out with some freedom, but frankly people should take PrCs, or some equivalent.

[Satinavian]

Which exposes the core issue with multiclassing. It's a very rare case where the mechanics of it actually align with a character's themes this way. Most of the time if you combine classes based on your personal vision, you'll end up weaker than if you'd just stuck to a single class. Multiclassing requires planning ahead and combining certain classes with certain other classes to be effective.

Yes, it is worse than classless systems at providing characters based on ones personal vision/inspiration.

But that should is a reason to ditch classes, not a reason to ditch multiclassing and keep classes.

[Vahnavoi]

Meh. I'm not convinced classless systems are inherently better at giving players the options they want. The customization you have is never the customization the customer wants. If you draw a Venn diagram where the right circle represent characters possible in a system, and the left circle represents characters your players want to play, it's almost a given that whether the system is D&D or GURPS, the overlapping portion at the middle is tiny in compared to size of the circles.

[RandomPeasant]

Honestly, I think the existence of a multi-classing system creates a temptation to combine things in a way that people might not otherwise try to. If you have a collection of "Artificer" abilities in your classless system, and a separate collection of "Berserker" abilities in that same classless system, people will generally pick Artificer abilities or Berserker abilities. They may combine combine their Artificer abilities with Alchemist or Gadgeteer abilities, but "Artificer/Berserker" is not a concept people naturally want to play. But if you say "here is an Artificer class, here is a Berserker class, combine classes as you see fit", people will be much more tempted to make Artificer/Berserker work.

[Max_Killjoy]

Meh. I'm not convinced classless systems are inherently better at giving players the options they want. The customization you have is never the customization the customer wants. If you draw a Venn diagram where the right circle represent characters possible in a system, and the left circle represents characters your players want to play, it's almost a given that whether the system is D&D or GURPS, the overlapping portion at the middle is tiny in compared to size of the circles.

Having used HERO 4th and 5th editions extensively, I disagree about the extent of non-overlap. The only time I've not been able to build a character is when the build is just too expensive for the points available, which is an indication that the character is probably too powerful for what's being run, not that the character isn't possible to build.

[Vahnavoi]

I can't comment on HERO specifically since I don't have that game system, but I doubt its awesomeness generalizes across classless systems.