Do you multiclass for raw mechanical power or for character reasons?

No.

Fifth edition was not designed with multi-classing in mind. The one page of optional rules was clearly included as an afterthought. Whenever I've seen a multi-class character under discussion, it looks like it's exploiting the rules rather than working with them. As such, I choose to not multi-class, even if the option is available in that particular campaign.

I played a multi-class character during the last incarnation of the D&D Next playtest. The Next character was almost completely for mechanical purposes, since we were testing the system.

I don't actually like the multi-classing system in 5E. It encourages level dipping, which is most often done for mechanical purposes, rather than thematic reasons, just like 3E. I'm a fan of the original multi-classing in AD&D, but there's not a good method to implement it. The closest I could think of would be to make sub-classes to fill the niche, like they did with bladesinging and eldritch knight.

I haven't actually multi-classed yet but when I do, it will be to better fit a concept. I have some ideas where a little magic fits but a lot doesn't, so I plan to mix some Rogue with Bard or Ranger, if I get around to those characters. One thing D&D lacks is sufficient variety of non-magic and low magic options, though in general I'm a fan of 5e.

I'm definitely planning to avoid Warlock dips since I'm playing a Fiend/Tomelock and really want to play a Hexblade/Bladelock one of these days... don't want to use the same options over and over.

If I'm multi-classing it's for character/story reasons.

I've not yet MCd in 5e.
To date the closest I've come is:

A) There was a week or two in our CoS campaign where it looked likely that my warlock & her patron were not going to continue their relationship. The warlocks personality was being corrupted by a fragment of an evil wizards spirit residing in a crystal staff she'd found.
I was actively pondering wether the warlock would seek out a new patron or MC into actual wizard. I was leaning wizard.
Fortunately the DM realized that if that happened it'd pretty much ruin a character that brings a lot of fun to the game as-is & he allowed the other characters to preform an exorcism.
If he hadn't though I'd be playing a fairly unhappy warlock7/wizard1+....

B) I have a now 2nd lv fighter (criminal) that I play occasionally who has the Magic Initiate feat.
Before becoming an adventurer he was on a smash & grab job. One of the things he grabbed was an ancient amulet that burst into flame, burning him severely.
Upon recovering he discovered that he had limited fire based powers, could speak/understand "fire"(IE; Ignan), & occasionally hears a voice in his head (speaking Ignan). He suspects he's got part of a Fire Elemental stuck in him....
I'm debating wether to have him go Eldritch Knight or MC into warlock. Or maybe both eventually.


Now in our PF campaigns?
The last 3 characters I've played have all been MCd.
1) A human Bard/Wizard. He got fed up with the extremely slow pace of study at the very prestigious Elven Academy of Magic & dropped out to seek adventure.
So he started as a Bard to show elf oriented studies & his reduced spell casting thanks to dropping out. Every few lvs of bard I switch & add in another lv of actual wizard. He's improving as a wizard - just slowly & a bit haphazardly. Wich is still leaps & bounds faster than the mostly elven classmates he left behind.....


2) A human Cavelier/Hellknight.
The character has always been a Hellknight. But thanks to that being a prestige class in PF your forced to MC into it from something else. Cavelier as base was what best represents the character.

3) A Tiefling Wizard-14 (divination)/Paladin-1
Very very late in the campaign the Tiefling converted to LG & took up the mantle of Paladin. This is so far from the optimal mechanical choice that somewhere some optimizers heart is seizing up in their chest.
And becoming a paladin going into 15th lv was not at all how even I'd envisioned my crapply statted (other than Int.) wizard advancing.
But this where the story led. So.

I like to think that I only multiclass to make a cool character. I fear that the few times I did it was mostly to add something the party was missing. Something like the party was missing a mage and my thief added a few levels to take up the slack.

I will admit to taking a the starter feat in 4e for the extra skill versatility, but usually even that is open up more character defining things not exactly power

Both. Usually I'll have a character-idea of what class I'd like to go into and typically that's a class that's beneficial.

Let me turn this around:

Fauchard1520 said:

When you're looking at some silly build like a single classed character, do you try to justify the class in-game, or do you prefer to ignore the fiction and concentrate on killing all the things?

Click to expand...

I have never played in a world where the characters are aware that they have classes,what they are, and use them to define themselves and others. Trying to say that class - single or multi - is an in-game construct is patently false.

Now, every character interacts with the narrative, with what's going on. Some of these are free-form, non-mechanical interactions. Some of these are mechanical interactions within the system.

So if my character is brave, what class am I? No information, maaaaaybe we could assume you have a good Wisdom saving throw since that's how the system would support it when/if comes up. If my character can fire a bow well, what class am I? Well, that has some more mechanical expression so we can narrow to one of several classes. Or a combonation of them. Or perhaps them and something else because we haven't gotten a full read on the character. Is that archer woodsman with nature spells a ranger, or maybe a land druid / rogue (scout)? Or maybe a fighter / cleric (nature) with an appropriate background.

Singleclassing and multiclassing are just ways of picking the mechanical expression that best matches how your character interacts with the system part of the narrative. Multiclassing is a great tool when you aren't willing to limit your character vision to a set of pre-defined containers, instead mixing and matchng to better be able to represent in the narrative.

Be willing to play whatever is needed in order to realize the vision you have of your character, and that includes how they interact with the narrative. If you want to play a dashing swashbuckler, make them able to show themselves as both dashing and a swashbuckler - or any other combo. Don't let yourself be pidgeonholed, take the race, background and class(es) that best represent what you are trying to show.

Lucas Blackstone said:

The two are not always exclusive even though many people treat it as such.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. There's a lot of multiclass shaming. My guess would be that it's because in some earlier editions multiclassing could be much more powerful than single classing, so got a bad rap as something done by min-maxers.

aco175 said:

I like to think that I only multiclass to make a cool character. I fear that the few times I did it was mostly to add something the party was missing. Something like the party was missing a mage and my thief added a few levels to take up the slack.

Click to expand...

Yuck. I will never be the guy picking up the others slack. And I'm certainly not going to distort my character concept to do so.
Me? I'm OK with there being a hole in the parties capabilities. We'll just solve some problems differently....
Now if the other players are worried we're missing xy or z? Then one of them should've made such a character. Or should switch/MC/whatever.