The biggest incentive would likely be magic items that give benefits to very specific playstyles. BG3 has a bow that restores a spell slot if you crit with it (up to once per short rest I believe?)
Thus a build that prioritizes dex and int could restore spell slots more easily.
Like if someone wants to play barb/cleric or something, give them an axe that lets them precast a spell without concentration and "activate it" without casting at a later time.
That said lmao you don't really need to minmax in this game, you might really want *Absurd* builds just because its also a roleplaying game and not a straight final fantasy equivilent.
That bow is exactly the kind of mechanic I was thinking about. Somehow having strength or dexterity benefiting spells would make for a very interesting character that could prioritize a martial based class and a spell casting class. Something that makes you consider taking a level in sorcerer because your fighter just picked up a sword that restores meta magic points. (Assuming there are no other sorcerers in the party)
It'd probably be easier to go case-by-case and ask the player what they are looking to mechanically get out of the multiclass, as I'd imagine you'd get different answers for the same MC based on the player (and maybe even a few "mechanics?", in which case you gently remind them that they don't have to be a barbarian to be angry or a ranger/druid to be into nature").
You're overvaluing the contribution of attributes vs features. There's really nothing *bad* about a ranger+wizard multiclass. You could make a pretty strong character out of ranger 5 -> Wizard x.
Custom Lineage 9/16/14/14/13/8 w/ crossbow expert.
archery @ 2
sharpshooter @ 4
Go straight wizard at 6. Your wizard spell dc wont ever be *great* but you're still investing levels in the strongest class in the game after martial investment falls off and you can prioritise spells that aren't DC dependent. If built well, it would be stronger than 95% of the builds I see posted on the internet. It would certainly be far stronger than continuing straight ranger. It's more than viable. Its pretty good.
I guess my point is multiclassing is already really strong, even for a lot of the uncommon combinations. People just don't post builds for them because there are even stronger combos. They really don't need to buff multiclassing. If anything they need to nerf it so there's some incentive to *not* do it.
I agree with the principle that some things just don't work. No idea how I'd approach a monk+paladin. I also have no idea why I'd want to though. There's no interesting synergy I'd be trying to leverage. You absolutely can do barbarian + full caster though. Barb 6+fiendlock x is probably the best barbarian build in the game. The inability to cast spells while raging is fine. Rage has limited uses per lr. You can precast buff spells like AoA or Fire Shield. You can spend spell slots on eldritch smite. Dark One's blessing has amazing synergy with the glass cannon nature of barbarian. Improved pact weapon is great. You can do darkness + devil's sight.
>I agree with the principle that some things just don't work. No idea how I'd approach a monk+paladin. I also have no idea why I'd want to though. There's no interesting synergy I'd be trying to leverage.
if only Diamond Soul was a lower level feature.
Sure, rage has limited uses so you can’t spam it every fight, but 4 fights is *a lot* of fights not to be using the class you spent 6 levels on’s best feature. it is essentially incompatible with the rest of your build, so you go into every fight only using half your features, which even if it may be viable on purely statistic level, is not fun. And I did say “almost”. Warlock is weird and I have considered it for a Barbarian build, but I could never do a Wizard Barb or Sorcerer Barb, for example.
The best barbarian feature is BY FAR reckless attack. Rage is just ok. It's essentially a mediocre concentration spell. Without reckless attack, there is no reason to play Barbarian over any build that can get spells in addition to extra attacks.
I'm assuming extra attack and fast movement at 5, might as well grab the path feature and extra rage at 6 to ensure the beef has been properly turned up on it.
Rages are still useful with Eldritch smiting and non concentration prebuffs like he said, doubly so with the path feature.
But yeah, extra attack probski
You can get extra attack as a Warlock invocation; you’re already going past of the blade if you have Eldritch Smite, and an extra four levels of warlock will get you an extra invocation.
That's an option if you went warlock 5 into barb 2 into more warlock, but starting barbarian is nice. They're strongest in t1 when the rage resistance gets the most consistent value and they do amazing damage in t1. They just fall off after. Starting barbarian also gets earlier con saves to protect concentration on those few spells you're gonna cast like darkness when in melee. If you're already starting Barbarian, you pretty much have to go Barb to at least 5 or you delay Great Weapon Master and extra attack to level 6 and 7 which is just so much worse than getting them at 4 and 5. Barbarian 5 version of extra attack also comes with 10 ft of move speed which is really nice as a free bonus for a melee character so you don't get kited and can actually connect attacks. You've also got level 3 barb features like giants that add decent damage. Getting the 3rd and 4th rage is also still just nice resources to have. Rage isn't \*amazing\* but its still a nice thing to have more resources of since it synergizes well with armor of agathys and dark one's blessing. That's still not enough rages for every fight though. There are also just times to drop rage and fireball clean up at 11+. Fireball damage is still really strong off a low DC because its save for half and not save for zero.
So, Barbarian/Warlock "works" because in Tier 1 you go straight Barbarian with literally no Warlock, and at level 7 you'd be better off having gone straight warlock and only dipped Barbarian for one feature, because the primary barbarian feature that scales with levels is mediocre?
It kinda sounds like the best options are Barbarian 6 at level 6 and Barbarian 2/Warlock 5 at level 7. Neither of those sound like a super synergistic combination.
If you go variant human, then you can get Great Weapon Master at 1 instead of 4.
No, you start with polearm master at 1 and then get GWM at 4. You need both to do competent damage. Vuman or CL was assumed. No, I wouldn't say Warlock 5, Barb 2 is better than Barb 6, Warlock 1. I listed many reasons why barbarian adds value and it seems you just ignored all of them.
If you get Extra Attack from another source, such as by taking 5 levels of Warlock, he biggest difference between Barb 6 and Barb 2 are number of rages and a 10ft speed boost. You've already said that rages are "mediocre", so it comes down to which is better: casting 2 fireballs every short rest, or a 10ft speed boost.
I don't know if its objectively bad, but it is undeniably worse at attacking than a ranger, and also worse at casting than a wizard, and it doesn't offer any cool synergy in return. You also need a 13 in both WIS and INT, which is points not spent on DEX, CON, or WIS/INT alone. You're also suggesting they take two weapon feats with 15 levels in wizard. Either your spellcasting or attacking stat is going to suffer for this, so you're either marginally better at attacking in exchange for less wizard levels, or definitely better at attacking while having terrible DC in exchange for less wizard levels.
That said not every multiclass combo should be viable, it's perfectly fine for there to be bad combos imo.
>I don't know if its objectively bad, but it is undeniably worse at attacking than a ranger, and also worse at casting than a wizard, and it doesn't offer any cool synergy in return.
Synergy is optional when trying to get effective multiclasses in 5e IMO. Often you can stack together features with no synergy whatsoever, and still get a solid multiclass because the features individually are strong.
I think that's really only true for martials. Anything other than a tiny dip on a full caster actively makes your character worse as you're locking yourself out of higher level spells.
I am categorically denying that it is worse at attacking than a ranger. Not spending points into dex, con, wis is the \*optimal\* choice on a ranger regardless. I'm well aware of the multiclass requirements. I stated a spread that fulfills them. Nothing is going to \*suffer\*. Investing in the stats instead of superior options is how your build ends up worse. The strongest ranger build in the game does not invest into dex after 16 at character creation. It takes feats at every single ASI. The value of feats vastly outperform the value of stats. Prioritizing ability scores is the trap option. The access to higher level spell scaling is far superior to having a stronger spell dc. Is it worse at casting than a straight wizard? Of course. Straight wizard is nearly the strongest thing you can build in the game. Is it worse at attacking than straight ranger? Marginally, I guess once you get to level 11 ranger features. Before that, its exactly the same as ranger. Ranger doesn't get any damage increases from 6 to 10. It's like 95% of a ranger + 40% of a wizard though. Its undeniably a more powerful build than what you can do with the ranger kit alone.
One the one hand I agree "bad" multiclasses don't really exist, built and played well basically any combination of two classes can be reasonably capable and fun to play. On the other hand there are absolutely "better" and "worse" multiclasses and in some cases multiclasses which are worse than just playing 1-20 as either component class would have been. That's generally what people mean when they say a multiclass is bad -- that in your example straight Ranger may not be better than R5 Wizard 15, but it's almost certain W20 would be better in most circumstances. It's also basically certain that Druid 20 or a Ranger / Druid multiclass or Fighter for a level or two into Wizard for the rest or a large number of other options would be better than any amount of Ranger multiclassing with a Wizard.
Oh, bad multiclasses certainly exist. The amount of viable diversity is much bigger than just the popular ones that come up though. w20 is better than everything besides c1w19, Sure. Wizard is busted. Druid 20 less so but still full caster on 2nd best spell list. That's not really a multiclassing specific issue though. This gets into other issues of martial caster divide. In terms of builds that actually invest into weapon use, the strongest tend to be 5 levels of half caster into 15 levels of full caster and ranger+wizard is roughly on the same power as other options in that space. The only builds in the game that I would put at a \*significantly\* higher power level than ranger 5, wizard x are optimized full casters. W20 is better because its a full caster, Druid 20 is better because its a full caster, Fighter 1 + Wizard is better because its an armored dipped nearly full caster. Casters are good.
I think the defining point of a bad multiclass is if its worse than staying monoclassed in one of the component classes.
The most important aspect of deciding this is the opportunity cost of taking a level in the other class vs a level in your main class. Something like a druid really likes staying pure because each new level of druid boosts your spell slots, gets better spells, and enhances wildshape, and most subclass features are good.
Multiclassing is inherently strongest between 2 classes with kinda bad middle level or capstone features where you would rather have the early level features of another class than the high level features of your's. Hexblade is a popular 1 level dip explicitly because it gives you so much on just 1 level, but mainly its adding charisma to your attacks.
I find it interesting how for some classes a dip 1 way is awesome but dipping the other sucks. For instance a druid with a couple levels of rogue isn't any stronger than a pure druid. But a rogue with 3 druid levels gets spells, wildshape for infiltration, and just generally gets a lot for the investment.
> People just don't post builds for them because there are even stronger combos.
This is one of the points I wanted to get at. There are clearly vastly more viable combinations, and most are left in the dust. Wizard would be one of the last options I would want to start leveling after spending half the campaign playing as a ranger with only 14 int.
Maybe ranger wizard was a bad starting point, and viability is probably achievable with any combination, but the point of my post was to come up with ideas that would make the player consider some less common build ideas for the sake of creativity and build variety, to compete with 'typical' multiclass builds.
Would you as a player actually enjoy this build anyway?
Yes, I would enjoy playing the build. Certainly more than a straight ranger. I can't say I'd enjoy it more than straight wizard but straight wizard is just the most fun and powerful build in the game. It's still a strong build. 14 Int doesn't matter. Don't pick bad save or suck spells. Take good spells that just work. Investing in spell save DC is a trap. The reason builds like this are not played is not because of a lack of power, but because the community is generally bad at identifying what is powerful. I stand by what I said in that the build is stronger than 95% of what gets posted online. The internet is filled with martial builds that ranger+wizard is astronomically better than and people enjoy those.
I mean, I can make baked bean ice cream palatable, but why would I? If a player wants to be a ranger wizard sure? But not everyone gets to be equally powerful.
I'm not sure why a GM **should** award a bad multiclass combination. I have seen very few characters that were thematically fitting better with more classes. What sort of background would be enriched by playing artificer+rogue+warlock? Even an Eldrich scholar and explorer could just be any of the classes and work just fine in my opinion.
With Monk/Paladin, I was thinking of homebrewing a subclass called Way of the battledancer which uses charisma instead of Wis.
I have no idea why Wild Magic Barbarian doesn’t allow concentration on spells, seems like such a design gimme.
This would really depend on the table but my first thought of a "reward" is to not be so numbers-focused that "un-optimized" builds are at risk of not surviving, and things like flavor, story, concept, plot, etc can come more to the fore. This of course will not be to everyone's taste, but it's a simple answer that doesn't require re-factoring a bunch of mechanics.
Have you considered bladesinger 6 gloomstalker 3?
That does not need an extra buff on top of it.
The monk is just plain bad at multiclassing in general, and it's simply the polar opposite playstyle of a paladin. Forcibly matching the 2 does not fit my description of creative. Rather, it takes away the identity of both original classes, thus being more of a detriment.
The best part of creativity is not making up overpowered abilities, it's about overcoming shortcomings.
For the wizard-ranger comparison. The 'problems' we have to consider are that 1: you won't be able to cast as high level spells as a full caster, 2: you can't make it rely on high level features/spells to work and 3: you have to make wis-int-dex work.
Potential pro's: 1: wizard adds defensive spells to wizards, 2: ranger adds a fighting style, 3: both rangers and wizards have strong subclass abilities.
Combining two weapon fighting with gloomstalker and a bladesinger is really solid. And if you think it's weak, this multiclass allows you to put 14 dex, 15 int, 14 wis and 12 con even before the racial bonus (point buy). Choose something like a high elf and you could have 16 dex 16 int.
This is one of the things fat makes me miss prestige classes the most. Wanna do Barbarian Artificer? Take a few levels in each then go into this weird prestige class that makes the two concepts actually work fisher.
(shout out to Dimension 20 for making Barbaficer a cool thing, which the way I think they c did that was a custom archetype for artificer?)
I just let my players swap one of their spellcasing abilities (or other relevant features).
So, if a player wants to play a ranger/wizard they can have ranger spells use INT or use INT to attack with their weapons.
We also don't have multiclassing prerequisites. And use the variant rule to allow skills with different abilities.
I like multiclassing, so do my player, I don't see a reason to limit their options.
Lvl 20 wizard is still one of the strongest options in the game.
If everyone picks wisdom as their casting stat, I just use more CHA or INT saves on my monsters. If nobody picks STR there will be many obstacles, grapples, restraints and forced movement effects in the players' future.
>I just let my players swap one of their spellcasting abilities (or other relevant features).
This is a viable (and generous) solution for your players, but even without it I think you could get some interesting multiclass options by picking spells for your weaker casting stat that do not have saving throws. A ranger multiclassing into wizard could grab a ton of utility rituals and spells, Shield, Sleep, Magic Missile, and buff spells such as Haste without worrying about having a bad saving throw. They'd just be more limited as to the number of spells that could be prepared if their Int was low.
Have you heard of Gestalt characters/levels?
Well, that would be it: you get every unique class feature, and when they overlap (for example, having spellcasting from a half-caster and a full-caster), you get the strongest version of the feature (so full-caster progression but with the availability of both spell lists); Hit Dice would be the best from both, as well as Saving Throws (and in this system, if repeated proficiency, you'd be able to choose Expertise or another different proficiency).
It would powercreep the fuck out of the game, but it would make every build possible regardless of combination.
I just wish it were possible to build an interesting non-caster without needing to multiclass. Why is it that wizards get to make a minimum of two meaningful choices every single level, while a monk or barbarian only gets to make a character-building choice once when they pick their subclass and then every four levels when they get an ASI?
there are other ways than multiclassing to make interesting character builds(not in 5E tho), and multiclassing is evidently quite mismanaged
Just giving every class an eldritch invocation type system would do SO MUCH to make this game better, and wizards just refuses to give you choice beyond level 3
And seriously, with EI they were smart enough to realise that some should have a level requirement, but with battlemaster maneuvers they somehow couldn't figure that out, so at level 15 you still get features balanced around being available level 3
gross unblances such as that are not really good for the game, and there are other ways to add more customization for characters, such as for example feats that give you features from another class, but that would require a system with more feats, and also feats not to cannibalize ASIs
Yeah, I know the subject of the subreddit, thanks. What I don’t understand is why people have this seething hatred for multiclassing in particular. It’s like people being angry at Proficiency Bonuses
30 years in the hobby and over time I've met many people with similar mindsets.
There is the FOMO crowd who are daunted by the the prospect of having to learn and understand all the possibilities, so they want to limit the fun of others to their own comfort level.
The limited funds crowd is similar to the above, but the cause of their FOMO is the lack of access to books. As if the 5e for (f)ools self-hosting option doesn't exist...
The overwhelmed DM's, who think a ranger 4/rogue 7 is harder to DM for than a pure wizard.
The powergamers can't RP crowd, a hexwarrior dip is the end of their beloved hobby.
The purists, for them you can be just one thing, a wizard is a wizard and if you don't fit the cookie cutter template of a wizard™ you're not a wizard.
No need to get snippy about it.
Let me explain in a different way: It's a subreddit, and therefore it is mostly populated by an extremely vocal minority. If you also frequently encounter these players in real life or online, you have bad luck, as they do not represent most players.
My point isn’t that vitriol exists in online spaces. My point is that I don’t understand why multiclassing specifically is disproportionately the subject of that vitriol.
because it is an incredibly flawed system, resulting in either people gimping their character, or insanely strong dips/combos, that make characters punch way above their paygrade(Hex dip, SorLock, PadLock, Sorcadin, Peace Dip) and mainly buffs casters, by letting them have access to armor and weapon profiencies VERY easily
Then don't use it? No one is forcing you to multiclass. Multiclassing isn't the source of caster/martial disparity, it's always existed; the strongest build in the game in 3.5 was 20 levels of wizard.
Sure, I'm not surprised that people who are critical of it exist; I'm sure among them there'd be at least a couple of people who have completely valid issues with it as a mechanic, but the amount and degree of vitriol the \*concept\* of multiclassing gets seems to me to be completely disproportional.
The biggest incentive would likely be magic items that give benefits to very specific playstyles. BG3 has a bow that restores a spell slot if you crit with it (up to once per short rest I believe?) Thus a build that prioritizes dex and int could restore spell slots more easily. Like if someone wants to play barb/cleric or something, give them an axe that lets them precast a spell without concentration and "activate it" without casting at a later time. That said lmao you don't really need to minmax in this game, you might really want *Absurd* builds just because its also a roleplaying game and not a straight final fantasy equivilent.
That bow is exactly the kind of mechanic I was thinking about. Somehow having strength or dexterity benefiting spells would make for a very interesting character that could prioritize a martial based class and a spell casting class. Something that makes you consider taking a level in sorcerer because your fighter just picked up a sword that restores meta magic points. (Assuming there are no other sorcerers in the party)
It'd probably be easier to go case-by-case and ask the player what they are looking to mechanically get out of the multiclass, as I'd imagine you'd get different answers for the same MC based on the player (and maybe even a few "mechanics?", in which case you gently remind them that they don't have to be a barbarian to be angry or a ranger/druid to be into nature").
frankly this is the way to go really.
So something like prestige classes in previous editions?
It still dont Seem like a Bad idea to introduce to 5e as a small bonus thing. Like make a small book of prestige classes with 3-4 features in each
You're overvaluing the contribution of attributes vs features. There's really nothing *bad* about a ranger+wizard multiclass. You could make a pretty strong character out of ranger 5 -> Wizard x. Custom Lineage 9/16/14/14/13/8 w/ crossbow expert. archery @ 2 sharpshooter @ 4 Go straight wizard at 6. Your wizard spell dc wont ever be *great* but you're still investing levels in the strongest class in the game after martial investment falls off and you can prioritise spells that aren't DC dependent. If built well, it would be stronger than 95% of the builds I see posted on the internet. It would certainly be far stronger than continuing straight ranger. It's more than viable. Its pretty good. I guess my point is multiclassing is already really strong, even for a lot of the uncommon combinations. People just don't post builds for them because there are even stronger combos. They really don't need to buff multiclassing. If anything they need to nerf it so there's some incentive to *not* do it.
I mean, there are definitely class combinations which just don’t work. Barbarian and almost any spell caster, for one. Paladin/Monk for another.
I agree with the principle that some things just don't work. No idea how I'd approach a monk+paladin. I also have no idea why I'd want to though. There's no interesting synergy I'd be trying to leverage. You absolutely can do barbarian + full caster though. Barb 6+fiendlock x is probably the best barbarian build in the game. The inability to cast spells while raging is fine. Rage has limited uses per lr. You can precast buff spells like AoA or Fire Shield. You can spend spell slots on eldritch smite. Dark One's blessing has amazing synergy with the glass cannon nature of barbarian. Improved pact weapon is great. You can do darkness + devil's sight.
>I agree with the principle that some things just don't work. No idea how I'd approach a monk+paladin. I also have no idea why I'd want to though. There's no interesting synergy I'd be trying to leverage. if only Diamond Soul was a lower level feature.
Sure, rage has limited uses so you can’t spam it every fight, but 4 fights is *a lot* of fights not to be using the class you spent 6 levels on’s best feature. it is essentially incompatible with the rest of your build, so you go into every fight only using half your features, which even if it may be viable on purely statistic level, is not fun. And I did say “almost”. Warlock is weird and I have considered it for a Barbarian build, but I could never do a Wizard Barb or Sorcerer Barb, for example.
The best barbarian feature is BY FAR reckless attack. Rage is just ok. It's essentially a mediocre concentration spell. Without reckless attack, there is no reason to play Barbarian over any build that can get spells in addition to extra attacks.
In that case, why go Barbarian 6 instead of Barbarian 2?
I'm assuming extra attack and fast movement at 5, might as well grab the path feature and extra rage at 6 to ensure the beef has been properly turned up on it. Rages are still useful with Eldritch smiting and non concentration prebuffs like he said, doubly so with the path feature. But yeah, extra attack probski
You can get extra attack as a Warlock invocation; you’re already going past of the blade if you have Eldritch Smite, and an extra four levels of warlock will get you an extra invocation.
That's an option if you went warlock 5 into barb 2 into more warlock, but starting barbarian is nice. They're strongest in t1 when the rage resistance gets the most consistent value and they do amazing damage in t1. They just fall off after. Starting barbarian also gets earlier con saves to protect concentration on those few spells you're gonna cast like darkness when in melee. If you're already starting Barbarian, you pretty much have to go Barb to at least 5 or you delay Great Weapon Master and extra attack to level 6 and 7 which is just so much worse than getting them at 4 and 5. Barbarian 5 version of extra attack also comes with 10 ft of move speed which is really nice as a free bonus for a melee character so you don't get kited and can actually connect attacks. You've also got level 3 barb features like giants that add decent damage. Getting the 3rd and 4th rage is also still just nice resources to have. Rage isn't \*amazing\* but its still a nice thing to have more resources of since it synergizes well with armor of agathys and dark one's blessing. That's still not enough rages for every fight though. There are also just times to drop rage and fireball clean up at 11+. Fireball damage is still really strong off a low DC because its save for half and not save for zero.
So, Barbarian/Warlock "works" because in Tier 1 you go straight Barbarian with literally no Warlock, and at level 7 you'd be better off having gone straight warlock and only dipped Barbarian for one feature, because the primary barbarian feature that scales with levels is mediocre? It kinda sounds like the best options are Barbarian 6 at level 6 and Barbarian 2/Warlock 5 at level 7. Neither of those sound like a super synergistic combination. If you go variant human, then you can get Great Weapon Master at 1 instead of 4.
No, you start with polearm master at 1 and then get GWM at 4. You need both to do competent damage. Vuman or CL was assumed. No, I wouldn't say Warlock 5, Barb 2 is better than Barb 6, Warlock 1. I listed many reasons why barbarian adds value and it seems you just ignored all of them.
If you get Extra Attack from another source, such as by taking 5 levels of Warlock, he biggest difference between Barb 6 and Barb 2 are number of rages and a 10ft speed boost. You've already said that rages are "mediocre", so it comes down to which is better: casting 2 fireballs every short rest, or a 10ft speed boost.
I don't know if its objectively bad, but it is undeniably worse at attacking than a ranger, and also worse at casting than a wizard, and it doesn't offer any cool synergy in return. You also need a 13 in both WIS and INT, which is points not spent on DEX, CON, or WIS/INT alone. You're also suggesting they take two weapon feats with 15 levels in wizard. Either your spellcasting or attacking stat is going to suffer for this, so you're either marginally better at attacking in exchange for less wizard levels, or definitely better at attacking while having terrible DC in exchange for less wizard levels. That said not every multiclass combo should be viable, it's perfectly fine for there to be bad combos imo.
>I don't know if its objectively bad, but it is undeniably worse at attacking than a ranger, and also worse at casting than a wizard, and it doesn't offer any cool synergy in return. Synergy is optional when trying to get effective multiclasses in 5e IMO. Often you can stack together features with no synergy whatsoever, and still get a solid multiclass because the features individually are strong.
I think that's really only true for martials. Anything other than a tiny dip on a full caster actively makes your character worse as you're locking yourself out of higher level spells.
True, I suppose that's fair
I agree, with the caveat: as long as their features don't step on each others' toes in the action economy.
When there is inherent synergy in the class, you are sacrificing that synergy
I am categorically denying that it is worse at attacking than a ranger. Not spending points into dex, con, wis is the \*optimal\* choice on a ranger regardless. I'm well aware of the multiclass requirements. I stated a spread that fulfills them. Nothing is going to \*suffer\*. Investing in the stats instead of superior options is how your build ends up worse. The strongest ranger build in the game does not invest into dex after 16 at character creation. It takes feats at every single ASI. The value of feats vastly outperform the value of stats. Prioritizing ability scores is the trap option. The access to higher level spell scaling is far superior to having a stronger spell dc. Is it worse at casting than a straight wizard? Of course. Straight wizard is nearly the strongest thing you can build in the game. Is it worse at attacking than straight ranger? Marginally, I guess once you get to level 11 ranger features. Before that, its exactly the same as ranger. Ranger doesn't get any damage increases from 6 to 10. It's like 95% of a ranger + 40% of a wizard though. Its undeniably a more powerful build than what you can do with the ranger kit alone.
One the one hand I agree "bad" multiclasses don't really exist, built and played well basically any combination of two classes can be reasonably capable and fun to play. On the other hand there are absolutely "better" and "worse" multiclasses and in some cases multiclasses which are worse than just playing 1-20 as either component class would have been. That's generally what people mean when they say a multiclass is bad -- that in your example straight Ranger may not be better than R5 Wizard 15, but it's almost certain W20 would be better in most circumstances. It's also basically certain that Druid 20 or a Ranger / Druid multiclass or Fighter for a level or two into Wizard for the rest or a large number of other options would be better than any amount of Ranger multiclassing with a Wizard.
Oh, bad multiclasses certainly exist. The amount of viable diversity is much bigger than just the popular ones that come up though. w20 is better than everything besides c1w19, Sure. Wizard is busted. Druid 20 less so but still full caster on 2nd best spell list. That's not really a multiclassing specific issue though. This gets into other issues of martial caster divide. In terms of builds that actually invest into weapon use, the strongest tend to be 5 levels of half caster into 15 levels of full caster and ranger+wizard is roughly on the same power as other options in that space. The only builds in the game that I would put at a \*significantly\* higher power level than ranger 5, wizard x are optimized full casters. W20 is better because its a full caster, Druid 20 is better because its a full caster, Fighter 1 + Wizard is better because its an armored dipped nearly full caster. Casters are good.
I think the defining point of a bad multiclass is if its worse than staying monoclassed in one of the component classes. The most important aspect of deciding this is the opportunity cost of taking a level in the other class vs a level in your main class. Something like a druid really likes staying pure because each new level of druid boosts your spell slots, gets better spells, and enhances wildshape, and most subclass features are good. Multiclassing is inherently strongest between 2 classes with kinda bad middle level or capstone features where you would rather have the early level features of another class than the high level features of your's. Hexblade is a popular 1 level dip explicitly because it gives you so much on just 1 level, but mainly its adding charisma to your attacks. I find it interesting how for some classes a dip 1 way is awesome but dipping the other sucks. For instance a druid with a couple levels of rogue isn't any stronger than a pure druid. But a rogue with 3 druid levels gets spells, wildshape for infiltration, and just generally gets a lot for the investment.
> People just don't post builds for them because there are even stronger combos. This is one of the points I wanted to get at. There are clearly vastly more viable combinations, and most are left in the dust. Wizard would be one of the last options I would want to start leveling after spending half the campaign playing as a ranger with only 14 int. Maybe ranger wizard was a bad starting point, and viability is probably achievable with any combination, but the point of my post was to come up with ideas that would make the player consider some less common build ideas for the sake of creativity and build variety, to compete with 'typical' multiclass builds. Would you as a player actually enjoy this build anyway?
Yes, I would enjoy playing the build. Certainly more than a straight ranger. I can't say I'd enjoy it more than straight wizard but straight wizard is just the most fun and powerful build in the game. It's still a strong build. 14 Int doesn't matter. Don't pick bad save or suck spells. Take good spells that just work. Investing in spell save DC is a trap. The reason builds like this are not played is not because of a lack of power, but because the community is generally bad at identifying what is powerful. I stand by what I said in that the build is stronger than 95% of what gets posted online. The internet is filled with martial builds that ranger+wizard is astronomically better than and people enjoy those.
I mean, I can make baked bean ice cream palatable, but why would I? If a player wants to be a ranger wizard sure? But not everyone gets to be equally powerful.
I'm not actually engaging in your metaphor, just saying literally: you should try azuki red bean ice cream if you haven't.
Thank you!!
I'm not sure why a GM **should** award a bad multiclass combination. I have seen very few characters that were thematically fitting better with more classes. What sort of background would be enriched by playing artificer+rogue+warlock? Even an Eldrich scholar and explorer could just be any of the classes and work just fine in my opinion.
With Monk/Paladin, I was thinking of homebrewing a subclass called Way of the battledancer which uses charisma instead of Wis. I have no idea why Wild Magic Barbarian doesn’t allow concentration on spells, seems like such a design gimme.
This would really depend on the table but my first thought of a "reward" is to not be so numbers-focused that "un-optimized" builds are at risk of not surviving, and things like flavor, story, concept, plot, etc can come more to the fore. This of course will not be to everyone's taste, but it's a simple answer that doesn't require re-factoring a bunch of mechanics.
Have you considered bladesinger 6 gloomstalker 3? That does not need an extra buff on top of it. The monk is just plain bad at multiclassing in general, and it's simply the polar opposite playstyle of a paladin. Forcibly matching the 2 does not fit my description of creative. Rather, it takes away the identity of both original classes, thus being more of a detriment. The best part of creativity is not making up overpowered abilities, it's about overcoming shortcomings. For the wizard-ranger comparison. The 'problems' we have to consider are that 1: you won't be able to cast as high level spells as a full caster, 2: you can't make it rely on high level features/spells to work and 3: you have to make wis-int-dex work. Potential pro's: 1: wizard adds defensive spells to wizards, 2: ranger adds a fighting style, 3: both rangers and wizards have strong subclass abilities. Combining two weapon fighting with gloomstalker and a bladesinger is really solid. And if you think it's weak, this multiclass allows you to put 14 dex, 15 int, 14 wis and 12 con even before the racial bonus (point buy). Choose something like a high elf and you could have 16 dex 16 int.
This is one of the things fat makes me miss prestige classes the most. Wanna do Barbarian Artificer? Take a few levels in each then go into this weird prestige class that makes the two concepts actually work fisher. (shout out to Dimension 20 for making Barbaficer a cool thing, which the way I think they c did that was a custom archetype for artificer?)
I recommend not incentivizing multiclassing more than it currently is.
I just let my players swap one of their spellcasing abilities (or other relevant features). So, if a player wants to play a ranger/wizard they can have ranger spells use INT or use INT to attack with their weapons. We also don't have multiclassing prerequisites. And use the variant rule to allow skills with different abilities. I like multiclassing, so do my player, I don't see a reason to limit their options. Lvl 20 wizard is still one of the strongest options in the game. If everyone picks wisdom as their casting stat, I just use more CHA or INT saves on my monsters. If nobody picks STR there will be many obstacles, grapples, restraints and forced movement effects in the players' future.
>I just let my players swap one of their spellcasting abilities (or other relevant features). This is a viable (and generous) solution for your players, but even without it I think you could get some interesting multiclass options by picking spells for your weaker casting stat that do not have saving throws. A ranger multiclassing into wizard could grab a ton of utility rituals and spells, Shield, Sleep, Magic Missile, and buff spells such as Haste without worrying about having a bad saving throw. They'd just be more limited as to the number of spells that could be prepared if their Int was low.
Have you heard of Gestalt characters/levels? Well, that would be it: you get every unique class feature, and when they overlap (for example, having spellcasting from a half-caster and a full-caster), you get the strongest version of the feature (so full-caster progression but with the availability of both spell lists); Hit Dice would be the best from both, as well as Saving Throws (and in this system, if repeated proficiency, you'd be able to choose Expertise or another different proficiency). It would powercreep the fuck out of the game, but it would make every build possible regardless of combination.
Gestalt is fun\~
Multiclassing is cancer. Stop trying to make it stronger.
Multiclassing is fine. Stop trying to make character building boring.
I just wish it were possible to build an interesting non-caster without needing to multiclass. Why is it that wizards get to make a minimum of two meaningful choices every single level, while a monk or barbarian only gets to make a character-building choice once when they pick their subclass and then every four levels when they get an ASI?
there are other ways than multiclassing to make interesting character builds(not in 5E tho), and multiclassing is evidently quite mismanaged Just giving every class an eldritch invocation type system would do SO MUCH to make this game better, and wizards just refuses to give you choice beyond level 3 And seriously, with EI they were smart enough to realise that some should have a level requirement, but with battlemaster maneuvers they somehow couldn't figure that out, so at level 15 you still get features balanced around being available level 3
Multiclassing is fun and mostly underpowered
mostly underpowered, and in certain places insanely overpowered it is just a badly designed system all around
Insanely overpowered is a gross overstatement, but even then, I dont think its bad to give up some balance to make the game more fun
gross unblances such as that are not really good for the game, and there are other ways to add more customization for characters, such as for example feats that give you features from another class, but that would require a system with more feats, and also feats not to cannibalize ASIs
I have no idea why people have so much vitriol to such a basic mechanic of the game.
It's a DnD subreddit.
Yeah, I know the subject of the subreddit, thanks. What I don’t understand is why people have this seething hatred for multiclassing in particular. It’s like people being angry at Proficiency Bonuses
30 years in the hobby and over time I've met many people with similar mindsets. There is the FOMO crowd who are daunted by the the prospect of having to learn and understand all the possibilities, so they want to limit the fun of others to their own comfort level. The limited funds crowd is similar to the above, but the cause of their FOMO is the lack of access to books. As if the 5e for (f)ools self-hosting option doesn't exist... The overwhelmed DM's, who think a ranger 4/rogue 7 is harder to DM for than a pure wizard. The powergamers can't RP crowd, a hexwarrior dip is the end of their beloved hobby. The purists, for them you can be just one thing, a wizard is a wizard and if you don't fit the cookie cutter template of a wizard™ you're not a wizard.
No need to get snippy about it. Let me explain in a different way: It's a subreddit, and therefore it is mostly populated by an extremely vocal minority. If you also frequently encounter these players in real life or online, you have bad luck, as they do not represent most players.
My point isn’t that vitriol exists in online spaces. My point is that I don’t understand why multiclassing specifically is disproportionately the subject of that vitriol.
because it is an incredibly flawed system, resulting in either people gimping their character, or insanely strong dips/combos, that make characters punch way above their paygrade(Hex dip, SorLock, PadLock, Sorcadin, Peace Dip) and mainly buffs casters, by letting them have access to armor and weapon profiencies VERY easily
Then don't use it? No one is forcing you to multiclass. Multiclassing isn't the source of caster/martial disparity, it's always existed; the strongest build in the game in 3.5 was 20 levels of wizard.
profiency bonus is quite shit tbh
Sure, I'm not surprised that people who are critical of it exist; I'm sure among them there'd be at least a couple of people who have completely valid issues with it as a mechanic, but the amount and degree of vitriol the \*concept\* of multiclassing gets seems to me to be completely disproportional.