D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[BMaC]

Seems unnecessary given that feats, backgrounds, and subclasses all offer great depth to single-class characters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I haven't tended to multiclass since the advent of 3E, simply because all standard classes have enough stuff in them that I haven't felt like mixing-and-matching abilities has been necessary. Granted, I also have not been a player enough times to have run through the entire gamut of classes available in any specific edition (instead having DMd more often than not.) Had I played so much that I had run through and played every class (and their multiple builds) I might at some point have felt like multiclassing was the last horizon open to me to try something really different... but thus far that hasn't happened to me.

At the same time, I also acknowledge that at the particular tables I game at, mechanics are *such* a distant second to the actual characterization and improvisation/roleplaying that even if I only had like the Basic classes to use over and over, it would never really be an issue because each of my characters would be substantially different due to the RP aspects and character design. For other tables, wherein the mechanics are put at a premium... having different game mechanics available to you as the primary method of character differentiation it makes all the sense in the world why multiclassing would be important, because that opens up 12 character types (classes) to several dozen.

 

[mellored]

Most multi-class makes you weaker and more flexible, not stronger. It takes optimization just to put multi-class on par with a single class.

"Multi-class to to maximize" doesn't really work. It's "single class to maximize".


Unless you want to maximize skills. Then a half-elf rogue/warlock/knowledge cleric/bard is the way to go.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Not a fan of multi-classing. Every time I’ve tried it, I’ve ended up regretting the end results.

So far, the multi-classing I’ve seen in 5e was because the players weren’t happy with the first class they chose, but didn’t want to start over.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Most multi-class makes you weaker and more flexible, not stronger. It takes optimization just to put multi-class on par with a single class.

"Multi-class to to maximize" doesn't really work. It's "single class to maximize".


Unless you want to maximize skills. Then a half-elf rogue/warlock/knowledge cleric/bard is the way to go.

Agreed. The three-class MC character I've been playing I did so to realize a specific concept. He's broadly flexible, but not at all "powerful". At least, definitely not more so than any of the single-class characters at the table. He's way behind on ASI/feats and is a bit outshined in combat, for example. But when it comes to general utility, he's a lot of fun to play.

 

[SkidAce]

I would say for RP, although I took a level of barbarian for a mechanical reason. The example...

I am playing a four elements monk. I took a level of barbarian so I can go all Serenity/River Tam a couple of times a day.

So, not being the most mechanically effective (although I am cool with it, my STR and DEX are the same so...) its seems that choosing RP in the poll was the best choice.

----

And most of the time, multiclassing in my campaigns happens for similar reasons.

 

[Ahrimon]

Other. I multi-class to achieve a shtick or theme for my character.

 

[epithet]

I don't multiclass, and in campaigns I run multiclassing is the only optional rule I absolutely refuse. I'll consider any other option, DMG or homebrew, my players are interested in, but not multiclassing, at least not at the beginning of a campaign.

That said, if a player came to me with a role-playing reason for his character to switch classes, I would consider that. I would first check to see whether the RP could be served with a feat, or even re-creating the character with a different archetype, but I would consider multiclassing in that situation as a last resort if there weren't another way to implement the character's narrative.

I don't have a problem with min/maxing within a class, but when min/max shenanigans include multiclassing you wind up with a crappy result. The whole "dip into class x" to pick up an ability annoys me a great deal, and it seems like the people who do that kind of crap never bother to consider how it makes any sense for a city rogue to suddenly become a barbarian for a couple of levels. D&D is escapist fantasy for me, the modern equivalent of sitting around the fire in the cave telling stories that help us to forget that there are sabre-toothed cats in the darkness who think we smell delicious. When you force me out of the narrative to focus entirely on class mechanics, I remember the predators (because frankly, that crap feels a lot like preparing my income tax return every year.)

So, I chose "I generally don't multiclass," because "Oh, hell no" wasn't on the list.

 

[hejtmane]

I have one Multi class that is a wizard/Fighter two levels of fighter and he wears plate armor and carries a shield. No weapon he cast spells only but must spells are short range in combat spells. Just a theme I have a battle wizard concept. The only things he gives up is ability score at 19 and signature spell at 20 nothing that makes him so less that what where you thinking. The signature spell is nice but now he has plate/shield and a few other versatility but he definitely gave up something end game

 

[hejtmane]

I don't multiclass, and in campaigns I run multiclassing is the only optional rule I absolutely refuse. I'll consider any other option, DMG or homebrew, my players are interested in, but not multiclassing, at least not at the beginning of a campaign.

That said, if a player came to me with a role-playing reason for his character to switch classes, I would consider that. I would first check to see whether the RP could be served with a feat, or even re-creating the character with a different archetype, but I would consider multiclassing in that situation as a last resort if there weren't another way to implement the character's narrative.

I don't have a problem with min/maxing within a class, but when min/max shenanigans include multiclassing you wind up with a crappy result. The whole "dip into class x" to pick up an ability annoys me a great deal, and it seems like the people who do that kind of crap never bother to consider how it makes any sense for a city rogue to suddenly become a barbarian for a couple of levels. D&D is escapist fantasy for me, the modern equivalent of sitting around the fire in the cave telling stories that help us to forget that there are sabre-toothed cats in the darkness who think we smell delicious. When you force me out of the narrative to focus entirely on class mechanics, I remember the predators (because frankly, that crap feels a lot like preparing my income tax return every year.)

So, I chose "I generally don't multiclass," because "Oh, hell no" wasn't on the list.

Other than a few instances multi class generally can harm builds in 5E if you do not really look at them because you have to give up something and delay key class components. There are a few exceptions but a level dip in 5e cost you down the line which is why I like multi classing in 5E. That is your decisions as a gm I understand that.