D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[Maxperson]

Mind explaining that one? Because I'm not seeing a reason that doesn't also eliminate feats (which admittedly are optional) and leveling (which is, relatively speaking, not optional) from the vast majority of games.

Leveling is just improving your the skill you already have. Feats are far, FAR more limited in scope than an entire class. You could learn one fairly quickly or pick it up through game play. Some people, though, look at classes like professions. It takes months to years to learn most professions in the real world.

This assumes that classes are so different from each other that nothing of what an adventurer has developed and learned in the acquisition of the abilities of one is applicable to any other.

If there is no wizardry in your fighter's background, and no wizard PC or NPC readily available to learn from, you aren't going to pick it up traipsing through the wilderness fighting orcs and ogres. At least from the realism point of view.

If you play the game so that it only takes days worth of encounters to grow as significantly as one does when one levels in general, you may be dealing exceptional individuals capable of doing things that real world people can only dream of.

Not for me. I tolerate quick leveling because it's a game, but quick leveling already stretches my ability to look the other way almost to the breaking points. Learning a class by osmosis in a matter of days breaks it completely. I also tolerate learning classes quickly because it's fun for the players, but they have to show me how their PC is actually learning the class. It doesn't just get to pop into the PC's head.

 

[Mercule]

So the example from my daughter of "Able to heal, agile like Spiderman, and can talk to animals" is RP?

For me, yes. Absolutely. It puts the character first, then asks how to make it happen. That's totally RP.

Let's say you start as a fighter and switch to rogue because you joined the thieves' guild. Is that RP? Maybe. It could also be a false association between game mechanics and narrative. There may be a high degree of correlation between, say, joining an arcane college and taking levels of wizard. But, correlation is not equivalency.

For purposes of this poll, though, checking the "RP" box for the former is self-evident (at least I don't see any way to not get there). The latter might be questionable, but it's a large grain question: concept first or power first? It doesn't matter whether that concept is there from the start or evolves during play.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

For me, it's usually for either of the listed reasons, but not really a predominance of one over the other. Sometimes, I find a cool combo and theorycraft up a bunch of different builds based around it, my thread about Greenflame Blade being an example of this behavior. On the other hand, sometimes the MC is there to reconcile a concept that came first, like the Dr Strange build I made for my first 5e character.

Surprisingly, AL's rebuild rule is useful for variant humans in making RP sense of why a Fighter 1 suddenly gets magic abilities after gaining 300 xp. My armored eldritch spammer started as Fighter 1 with Magic Initiate (Warlock) for EB, Frostbite, and Hex. Once I hit 2nd level, I started my Warlock levels and switched my human feat to Mobile, so I could switch to heavy armor without the speed penalty. My RP reason was that he started out without a full pact made with his patron. The first character level was a tryout to be deemed worthy. Once he passed the test, his pact was made complete, and he was gifted with superhuman speed to move unimpeded by the heft of more protective armor. After spending some time with his Book of Shadows, he found a ritual to unlock the hidden blue draconic magic within his lineage. That's when I made the jump to taking Sorcerer levels for the rest of his career. Z. H. Darkstar has used all of these abilities and his reputation as a merciless knight of profane magic to rise through the ranks of both the Cloaks and the Zhentarim.

Another example of when concept led to multiclassing was my half-drow homage to Blade for OotA play. Trying to find a build that fully encapsulated his superhuman abilities and hard-hitting martial arts led to a Rogue Thief 14/Open Hand Monk 6 MC plan that uses Dawnbringer as his primary weapon for Sneak Attack. This build lets him be martially competent, while retaining the high agility options to get around the battlefield. Having Dawnbringer ups his weapon damage die to 1d10 without sacrificing Sneak Attack, plus gives him tankiness against creatures with sunlight sensitivity. Should material for Tier 4 play ever coalesce into the AL, Blade is still on-track to get 5 ASIs.

While it's wholly up to the DM to decide what optional rules are wanted in the campaign, I think that a degree of flexibility works best when players can't make the exact character they want out of a single class. Trying to find a balance between the expectations of both parties typically leads to a better play experience for everyone involved.

 

[JackOfAllTirades]

FWIW:

There's one very specific reason to multiclass which 5E has eliminated: it's no longer necessary to multiclass to meet the requirements to take a prestige class. Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster used to be prestige classes, impossible to play without multiclassing. Now they're standard archetypes.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Greg K]

Uh, no? Yes? Yes? Maybe? I'm the DM. If I don't like wizards or shortswords, I'm allowed to remove them from my campaign world and game. Just like a player is allowed to say "Oh, I love shortsword wielding wizards...I'm gonna find another game, sorry". No harm, no foul. Different strokes for different folk

Agreed. As with food (given the analogy which I decided not to quote), when it comes to campaigns, I am going to put in the ingredients that I like and leave out things that I do not to create something that I enjoy.
If I run 5e, there will be no Dragonborn or Drow. Tieflings will be NPC only. In terms of classes, there will be no Totem Barbarians (possibly, no Barbarians at all), no Circle of the Moon Druids, no Elemental or Shadow Monks, no Avenger Paladins, and no Sorcerers (until there are archetypes that I like), and Great Old One Warlocks ( Infernal Warlocks will be limited to NPC only). They do not fit the fantasy feel that I like.
Players whom are not interested, don't have to join the campaign and that is fine. There are other campaigns being run by others which may more to their liking or they can go start their own campaign.

The same for excluding multi-classing. Personally, MC is something that should take a long time to become first level, in my opinion. If the player is willing to have their PC sit out for months or years (depending upon the class) that is fine. However, in most instances, the character will return behind the other characters or the campaign will end before the time is up.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find it truly sad that so many DMs define a rigid comfort zone and not only never go outside it, but consider it a matter of pride not to do so.

Saying, "I like X more" is perfectly fine. Saying stuff like "I never ever in a million billion years would use Y, no matter what, ever, and if you like those things you're just SOL in my game" is just...well, like I said. I find it sad. If all fantasy-universe-creators adhered so rigidly to a single doctrine, it would be a dead genre.

Plus, if we're really going for that food analogy, don't forget that this is "I'm going to fix exactly the same extremely common dish with minimal spices every week." I mean, sure, free food (though again, the DM at best cooks up only half the stuff, seeing as how you're still using the characters and, frequently, monsters provided by the game-makers), I'm just not sure how people can eat the same thing, every night, forever, and be not just happy but proud of it--even, in the worst cases, mocking those who don't have such rigidly-defined, sharply-delimited comfort zones.

 

[BMaC]

My first character ever was an AD&D gnome thief/illusionist. I had to multiclass to get that character. In fifth edition there is the arcane trickster. Boom, job done. In my group's next campaign I am contemplating playing a elf that I want to be like Elrond from LotR: sword in hand and spell casting. Multi-class fighter/wizard? Of course not--eldritch knight (or bladesinger? Now there's a debate). The character classes in 5th are quite robust.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My first character ever was an AD&D gnome thief/illusionist. I had to multiclass to get that character. In fifth edition there is the arcane trickster. Boom, job done. In my group's next campaign I am contemplating playing a elf that I want to be like Elrond from LotR: sword in hand and spell casting. Multi-class fighter/wizard? Of course not--eldritch knight (or bladesinger? Now there's a debate). The character classes in 5th are quite robust.

Oh, I don't think anybody's denying that multiclassing is substantially less necessary in 5e than in previous editions. (Honestly, it really wasn't much necessary in 4e either, just for different reasons.)

But there are still things you can't do without it. No such thing as a Mystic Theurge in 5e, unless you multiclass (though the harmony of multiclass spell slots makes it less necessary to have a real PrC for it). Can't be an old-style Bard with shapeshifting unless you multiclass. Or one of my favorite niche concepts, the Knight of the Weave (essentially a "Wizard Paladin").

The Arcane domain might help with the first, I dunno. The "classic" Bard is a bit beyond the scope of a subclass though. Knight of the Weave...hard to say, a subclass might be enough, not sure. And of course there's the "eternal seeker of knowledge" character I laid out upthread, which multiclasses twice (two one-level dips) but with well-justified logic behind each thing, both which class was chosen and why it didn't last longer than a single level's worth of investment.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

A couple of points from my perspective.

(1) Not allowing 5e MC'ing isn't the equivalent of "eating the same food all the time" if it's "burgers". I'd buy an analogy of "eating the same food all the time" if it was "western cuisine". Someone who has a free-for-all, anything goes type of campaign reminds me of a movie where a bad guy is trying to entice a bunch of kids to do what he/she wants. There is a HUGE table, filled with...everything....hamburgers, pizza, duck, turkey, soups and stews, hagas, pasta, cupcakes, sugar-coated plums, ham, steak, potatoes, etc, etc, etc. To me, that's the feeling I get when a DM (say, Pathfinder or 3.x in particular) said "Play whatever you want from any book". I had no idea what to do. There was no theme. There wasn't even a hint of cohesion. It felt...pointless, I guess.

(2) Just because I don't allow MC'ing in 5e doesn't mean I'm opposed to it (Multiclassing). I have no problem with the idea at all. My problem stems from my personal hang-up about a PC never actually "being" his classes. He's one of them, and only one, and maybe only one he isn't even actually trained as yet. A Fighter who gains 300xp and then wakes up in the morning and exclaims "Hey! I can cast wizard spells now, just so you all know" doesn't make a lick of sense. It totally kills any sense of the campaign being a logical, reasonable fantasy world. Effectively, that Fighter didn't learn ANYTHING, except the ways of magic, which he didn't actually DO ANYTHING RELATED to magic. Zero sense. Because of this, the whole 3.x style of MC'ing, IMHO, is just dumb. And, just as unfortunate, players seem to take on this mentality as well. If a DM, such as myself, was to inflict grievous rule-wounds to how one would go about becoming MC to a player who was "used to" the 3.x/PF/5e style of MC'ing (re: just "take a level dip in [class]")... many kittens would be had! The player would be screaming about how "unfair" I am, or how "pointless" it is to MC, or how the game will suddenly "suck" and be "stacked against the players". As I said...they'd loose their kittens. Easier to just say "No" and then hear a bit of complaints, then get on with the game, rather than hear a never-ending stream from players about "how cool" their characters would be if they could just multiclass as Bard/Warlock/Sorcerer and maybe take a level dip into Fighter just to get all the armor and weapons...and hear that every time they leveled up.

(3) Its my game, my campaign world, my rules. It's as simple as that. Yes, I do listen to my players, and yes I do acquiesce to their requests sometimes. But it's my responsibility to maintain a cohesive, believable, and fun campaign. It's like dealing with teenie-boppers at a long-weekend camp out. You can't just "let them do whatever they want" because chances are you'd be going to court or jail when you got back. You have to allow them to explore (for self confidence and independence), learn, take risks (so they can learn consequences), AND have fun. But if you just let 'em have whatever they want, whenever they want... it will not work out in the long run. Just like letting your players dictate what is/isn't allowed in the campaign "just because they like something". IMHO, the CAMPAIGN comes before short-term player happiness. I'm probably going to get yelled at for that, so go ahead. All I know is that I've had several multi-year (over a decade, in one case) campaigns with this crazy hobby called "Role-Playing", with pretty much the same player base (in different configurations). And if I can still be such a "self-centered hard-ass DM", and still keep players engaged and coming back for more for years and years (and decades!) on end...well, I must be doing something right!

^_^

Paul L. Ming