D&D 5E Addicted to multiclassing

[Stormonu]

My 1st 5E character was a Paladin/Warlock.

After that, and with other player experiences, I pretty much banned multiclassing.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I usually multiclass my characters, as the main classes really don't suit how I picture my characters. In the last three years I've had:

• Barbarian / Fighter (needed the two weapon fighting style)
• Ranger / Druid (wanted some more air themed spells due to being an air genasi)
• Pure Barbarian
• Fighter / Cleric (was originally an eldritch knight but found the subclass about as much fun as having teeth removed. DM let me respec my stats and class completely. Picked battlemaster fighter / forge cleric to suit the fire theme for my genasi).
• Pure Bloodhunter (current character)
• Fighter / Sorcerer (initially planned to go 50/50 in order to try to make a swordmage. However with the way the story went, I ended up mostly sorcerer).
• Pure artificer (current character, however as they're lvl 1 currently, multiclassing isn't possible for them).

However even the pure classes often have tweaks with permission from the DM. For example my draconic sorcerer got true polymorph, allowing them to turn into their dragon bloodline for the final battle. My artificer has been allowed to start with thunderous smite, as it suits an earth genasi.

It's a shame that the multiclass system is pretty awful though. For most people it's a complete trap with a few overpowered 'meta' builds. It fails to fit into tiers of play at all, and also doesn't fit with the intended feat/asi progression system. For 5.5e I'd like to see multiclassing get redone.

 

[Stormonu]

@Frozen_Heart - I really think the Barbarian would benefit from getting a fighting style instead of Reckless (actually having Reckless be a style). And a racial or general feat to add Air-based spells would be better in my opinion than dipping into a(nother) class would be a better way to handle broadening spells.

And that's the real crux of my dislike for multiclassing - I think it could all be better handled with feats that grant you the one class ability you are looking for, or a well-built subclass. In the case of the Fighter/Wizard (Sorcerer), making a core class that works from the get-go for that concept (along with some decent subclasses to cover the multitudes of approaches) - Eldritch Knight for the fighter just doesn't cut it.

 

[Shiroiken]

While I haven't played that many characters in 5E, as I DM half the time, I have not multi-classed yet. I've had an idea or two for a multi-classed character, but nothing fleshed out. This is proabably because I hate 3E style multi-classing, preferring a gestalt type from AD&D.

 

[Mind of tempest]

@Frozen_Heart - I really think the Barbarian would benefit from getting a fighting style instead of Reckless (actually having Reckless be a style). And a racial or general feat to add Air-based spells would be better in my opinion than dipping into a(nother) class would be a better way to handle broadening spells.

And that's the real crux of my dislike for multiclassing - I think it could all be better handled with feats that grant you the one class ability you are looking for, or a well-built subclass. In the case of the Fighter/Wizard (Sorcerer), making a core class that works from the get-go for that concept (along with some decent subclasses to cover the multitudes of approaches) - Eldritch Knight for the fighter just doesn't cut it.

the arcane gish has a problem with thematic, not mechanics we could make one tomorrow.

but your more modular idea sounds nice.

I rarely get to play but I have never had an idea that needs multiclass to play.

 

[TwoSix]

I used to regularly multiclass, but since I’ve started using more home brew, I generally don’t.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Multiclassing is one of the few decision points it feels like you really get to make in 5E character building after level 3, so I tend to multiclass every time I play it.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

@Frozen_Heart - I really think the Barbarian would benefit from getting a fighting style instead of Reckless (actually having Reckless be a style). And a racial or general feat to add Air-based spells would be better in my opinion than dipping into a(nother) class would be a better way to handle broadening spells.

And that's the real crux of my dislike for multiclassing - I think it could all be better handled with feats that grant you the one class ability you are looking for, or a well-built subclass. In the case of the Fighter/Wizard (Sorcerer), making a core class that works from the get-go for that concept (along with some decent subclasses to cover the multitudes of approaches) - Eldritch Knight for the fighter just doesn't cut it.

I actually agree. I think that multiclassing could be done better with a series of feat trees. However 5e not having feat trees, combined with having feats and ASI's compete for space means that this doesn't work so well.

And yeah an actual dedicated arcane gish class would be much better than having to multiclass, or having to deal with subclasses where 90% of the features which defined the arcane gish got cut out due to power budget.

 

[Yaarel]

The only time I multiclassed is for a 1e-ish campaign. Even then only once. My characters are a Druid, an Illusionist, and a Magic-User/Fighter. The first two are still alive at high levels, and the third is now an NPC werewolf.

For 5e, I allow the option of multiclassing, but rarely see it.

Because I like spellcasters, the idea of losing out on the highest level slots, dissuades me.

 

[Yaarel]

It's a shame that the multiclass system is pretty awful though. For most people it's a complete trap with a few overpowered 'meta' builds. It fails to fit into tiers of play at all, and also doesn't fit with the intended feat/asi progression system. For 5.5e I'd like to see multiclassing get redone.

If the classes themselves organized their features into discrete units of feats and half-feats, it would be easier to use a feat to borrow a feature from an other class.