Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Build Discussion 5E Multiclassing - Worth it?

5E did a really good job of adding flavor to each class with the different career paths. Each class has some reasonable branch that gives more variety.

Why is multi-classing still a thing? I understand it's possbile to meta-game some unique gimmick or combination, but at that point are you really "roleplaying"?

From a spreadsheet analysis standpoint having a good multi-class is actually difficult. The sheer power lost from not getting the higher levels in a single class is significant.

I've been a DM for 20+ years, and all my PnP players eventually regret multiclassing at around level 14.

Overall, mutli-classing seems to be MIN/MAX for mid-game only. ( Yeah... It is fun to see how CRPGs handle it on a system level )

If 6th edition removed mulit-classing, and focused on refining action econemy and spell meta-data, would you like it more or less than 5E?

Why would you want to restrict what people can do? And if you don't understand what you gain and lose by multiclassing, why would you do it? Sounds like your players didn't have a long term plan.

Long term planing is certainly good, but I don't expect that from my players. I just want them to have a good time.

Honeslty, 5E does a great job of providing variety. I highly recommend not multi-classing.

The option to multi-class, as a game system, seems legacy.

Its a complication that creates issues for most players, providing a small benefit to a very specific type of player.

The amount of time debugging and validiating how it works, in a CRPG, is real production time.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it removed in 6E.

I would, considering it has a long tradition in DnD and they are attempting to make the next edition a "forever edition. You can multiclass for story or metagame reasons and frankly I doubt the multiclass implementation would be all that challenging in a game compared to everything else that you're trying to do. I rarely multiclass in tabletop myself but I'd miss it if it were gone.

I basically ignore multiclassing for the characters I make myself.

Powergamers think otherwise and use bugs, too. Like Berserkers can berserk in heavy armor (might be now fixed with the latest patch, I dont know), so people made Half-Orc Champion3/Berserker9.

In 5e, it seems to me that multiclassing is something they allow simply because "we might as well toss in a line that it's allowed so people don't ask about it so much, and they might as well have the choice", but you're recognizably not *meant* to multiclass, and are almost always better off if you don't.

In BG3 that feels largely reversed. Like multiclassing is not only allowed, and not only encouraged, but *intended* and straight up better than single classing, and you're probably better off doing it than not.

Because it is fun and adds flavor and depths to characters.

I have no idea how it is in tabletop, but in BG3 you use multiclassing to mitigate weaknesses of other classes. Paladin for example is an incredibly frontloaded class with divine smite, lacking spell slots. Add a full caster class and you can smite all day long. Spore druid has lots of amazing concentration spells, but no constution saving throw proficiency, add a bit of fighter or sorcerer and you get a better druid...

Quite on the contrary Multiclassing was clearly intensively thought about and they allow to freely mix spellcasting classes without fundamentally being unbalanced.

Multi-classing should be an option, DnD was always about it. Most canon characters in Forgotten Realms are some kind of multiclass.

That said, I personally only do it in a way that makes sense. For example rogue-fighter makes sense, paladin-warlock doesn’t. And only for RP reasons, not min maxing.

Not exactly stellar examples here. A paladin multiclass can smite a little bit more, but hardly "all day long" and gives up some really nice paladin class features just to squeeze out a few more smites per day. A spore druid multiclass for constitution saving throw proficiency is ridiculous - you might as well use the feat you would have lost from the multiclass on Resilient: CON.

Most multiclasses I've seen people rave about suffer from a lack of consideration to the class features lost by multiclassing. Multiclassing for most people is a method to either knowingly or unknowingly de-optimize their characters, which is fine since BG3 really doesn't require min-maxing. There's an extremely limited number of beneficial multiclasses; the rest are surpassed by the standard classes. Obviously, you should multiclass if you feel like it's fun, but don't be surprised when your multiclass starts to feel like a glass cannon or one-trick pony compared to any of the regular "boring" single class characters.

It really seems like you answered your own question... As a DM of 20 years, like you say, I presume you have considered that people may wish to multi-class for.... you know... Roleplay reasons - outside of any meta, because it is what makes sense for their character and the journey they are going through.

From a power and balance perspective, 5e is, of all D&D systems the one that it is least likely to leave you with a broken or underwhelming character. In most previous editions, inopportune multiclassing could lead to an extremely gimped, weak or even borderline non-functional character that couldn't cut the mustard or hold up their part in a team. This is quite pointedly Not a risk in 5e, because the multi-class system has been carefully designed and implemented to ensure that no matter what class combinations you end up multi-classing to, the overall game system ensures that your character will still be a functional member of the group and able to hold their own and contribute meaningfully. 5e actually does his better than any previous edition... Will it be munchkin optimal, most likely not... but it won't be crippled, and if looking for that munchin min-max is the kind of thing your players Do look for, there are indeed some very potent multi-class combinations that achieve this.

In short, no, it would be an incredibly short-sighted and stupid idea for a new edition to remove multi-classing rules.

Multiclassing of course gives a certain flexibility in how you create your character. Basically it gets a classbased system such as D&D5 closer to the flexibility of a skillbased system.

Just like skillbased systems such as for example Skyrim have made attempts to get closer to classbased systems with the introduction of feats, thus giving a skillbased system more of the properties of a classbased system, i.e. strong differences between characters. Not that TES is a good rulesystem and not that Skyrim is a good rulesystem either, but its better than its predecessors which only gave fixed bonuses for certain skill values.

I like it on mine (though she's Land, not Spore). She gets heavy armor as well, boosting her armor class, no need for dex, so I can use some of those stat points elsewhere, and, being a halfling, getting to a +9 on con saves means most concentration saves now essentially have advantage. So, feat-wise, I basically have War Caster with the reaction swapped out for heavy armor, a higher con save, and the ability to use all martial weapons. And I got to use Resilient for Wisdom, giving me +1 there and better saves against various control spells. And that martial weapons bit does open up some stat stick options, particularly for the ranged weapon slot. And what does it cost me? Well, level 12 doesn't get me any more spells per day. I do lose out on another prepared spell slot, but I already have 8 extra of those due to my subclass. If I felt the need for more, every other druid subclass would be absolutely boned. As far as that goes, it costs me nothing of value there. But there is another cost, and that cost is probably the reason why your PnP players regret the MC choice.

And that is that my druid stuff is delayed by one level, once I hit level 6 and added fighter to the mix. One could say I've also delayed the feat by a level, but that depends on if I'd feel the need to take War Caster at 8 if I hadn't taken that level of Fighter. Still, that delay can feel painful, though, honestly, I'm perfectly content with my Spike Growth and Call Lightnings so far, so whatever. This, though, I think is a lot more impactful in pen and paper, where more real life time passes to get a level, plus the cap isn't there and yattainable, unlike in BG3. The level cap is quite likely something most PnP players will ever reach. Added to that, there's enough xp in this game that you can outlevel the enemy level curve, which is something that wouldn't happen with a live DM at the helm. So I do wind up having the spells appropriate for the encounters in game. If I was playing pen and paper, I wouldn't multi-class.

And that said, there is the question of whether or not I want a second level of fighter. A lot of people would, because Action Surge. That would, however, cost me the 6th level spell access. So I'm not sure which route I'll go there. Thinking I'll probably go 1/11 fighter/druid, though.

As far as flavor goes, I'd say dual wielding melees do want to the MC. Problem with DW is that the off-hand attack uses a minor action. You only get one of those, so you only get to swing 1x per turn with that off-hand, which doesn't exactly feel very dual wieldy. However, the Thief subclass of the rogue gets an extra minor action at level 3, meaning it can use that off-hand twice... except it only gets one attack, so that means nothing. So to get your Drizzt on, you want to combine a class with the bonus attack with 3-4 levels of Thief for the extra minor action. And, yes, this will cost you an extra main hand attack, so the number of total attacks essentially stays the same. But at least you are using both weapons more now. And if you go 8/4, then you don't lose out on a feat either. Of course, there are other trade-offs. You don't get the stronger maneuvers a fighter would get at 10, for example, but on the plus side, you do get some sneak attack damage and the other early rogue benefits. It is still kind of unsatisfying in some way, though, because you're looking at level 8 before your character finally has 2 off-hand attacks to go with 2 main hand attacks.

Also, one other factor to consider: your players most likely can't respec for the low cost of 100g.

Its not that multiclassing is good or bad it is Larian removed the minimum requirements to multiclass. This is what creates balance in 5e... well as balanced as you can get.

And well if you have been DMing for 20 years you should know that "Timmy-the Power Gamer Munchkin" player type. That is pretty much what you see in these forums and on Steam all the time. People spreadsheeting their way to easy wins on mid tier difficulty and then moving on to the next hotness for the achievements or YT/Twitch views.

Multiclassing is still a thing because people associate it with D&D and want it to be a thing. IIRC, there was a fair bit of backlash to 4e for not having "real" D&D style multiclassing.

As for a gameplay reason to not remove multiclassing; characters who are not dedicated spellcasters (Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid and Bard) or Paladin scale very, very poorly past lvl 5. So if you want a martial type character that is reasonably strong next to a well played spellcaster, you have to multiclass. BG3 gets around some of this through the way it handles equipment, but it can only go so far when spellcasters also get awesome equipment.

Well I would agree that they should implement minimum stats for multiclassing.

Thats (PHB pg 163):

Barbarian - Strength 13
Bard - Charisma 13
Cleric - Wisdom 13
Druid - Wisdom 13
Fighter - Strength 13 or Dexterity 13
Monk - Dexterity 13, Wisdom 13
Paladin - Strength 13, Charisma 13
Ranger - Dexterity 13, Wisdom 13
Rogue - Dexterity 13
Sorcerer - Charisma 13
Warlock - Charisma 13
Wizard - Intelligence 13

I wouldnt call it a huge difference though. Its a bit of a difference. You get rid of some of the excesses.