D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[Caffe Nightcap]

If I MC it is for RP and character concept reasons...but most importantly, and above all, FUN! 5e Keeps multiclassing on a decent plane of sensibility. You can't just MC for making overpowered builds that abuse game mechanics, and if anything, you will slightly behind the power curve of single class characters.

...and for those DMs who keep talking about how it makes no sense for a fighter to wake up and know wizardry or similar situations...you do realize that, being the DM, you are the one who should be helping to create opportunities for a characters story and concept to come to fruition, should it be feasible for the story line. Not all story lines allow for certain things to happen...but to axe the entire idea of multiclassing because you can't be bothered to interact with a players potential character growth and story is a bit...dull.

 

[Kithas]

I can't imagine not multiclassing, it just feels so wrong, restricting and boring. I love mechanics, I love rules, I love trying and making new combinations, I will probably never make a character that isnt multiclassed.

For those in the camp that multiclassing doesn't make sense for rp reasons;
I have to assume that you are being intentionally obtuse. It has been explained so well here and on the official forums so many times and with sooo many examples. No it shouldnt look like my wizard who's never picked up a sword deciding to be a fighter out of nowhere and being good at combat just 'cause. Multiclassing done right describes what a character is already doing.
To add yet another example to the growing list;
one of my triple multiclassed characters; Ruhiel Nailo
High elf barbarian-ranger-rogue
The Nailo family is a crime syndicate that employs the use of Assassins called Fangs. The Fangs are trained to channel their rage to escape attempts gone wrong, they train them to be able to track their targets no matter where they go. He started as a Barbarian because he wasnt a very good assassin, multiclassing into rogue to show his honing his skills therein, and his skills in tracking and combat in hunter Ranger.

It isn't and shouldnt be a spontaneous growth of abilities, but a more accurate description of a character. Just and Assassin rogue really wouldnt capture the dr jeckel elf assassin I wanted to tell.

 

[Zardnaar]

Usually to fix something annoying about 5E like gishes sucking or the saving throw thing (usually for con saves). There are a few MC builds more powerful than single classes builds.

 

[CapnZapp]

For my players, it's a combination.

I have two players. Both wanted to play a Ranger. One exploring the two-weapon fighting style, the other to be a "wilderness archer".

But in the end, both started out as Fighters.

The Ranger class does melee poorly, with or without two weapons, since its most powerful feature, Hunter's Mark, requires you to play a damage-avoiding character, and being in melee ain't that.

For the other character - the Archer - the importance of the Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter feats was the deciding factor: fighters get these faster.

In the end, the TWF player abandoned the idea to multiclass into Ranger and chose to stay in the Fighter class instead (choosing the Eldritch Knight subclass).

The Archer player is still viewing his character as a Ranger, but plans to MC into that class after six levels of Fighter, and probably only for a few levels - high level Rangers have decidedly unimpressive features.

So in my case, multiclassing is a way to roleplay without having to take the suck that comes with certain classes (*cough* rangers and sorcerers *cough*)

I'm sure they'll multiclass for pure minmaxing builds later on thou

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I can't imagine not multiclassing, it just feels so wrong, restricting and boring. I love mechanics, I love rules, I love trying and making new combinations, I will probably never make a character that isnt multiclassed.

For those in the camp that multiclassing doesn't make sense for rp reasons;
I have to assume that you are being intentionally obtuse. It has been explained so well here and on the official forums so many times and with sooo many examples. No it shouldnt look like my wizard who's never picked up a sword deciding to be a fighter out of nowhere and being good at combat just 'cause. Multiclassing done right describes what a character is already doing.
To add yet another example to the growing list;
one of my triple multiclassed characters; Ruhiel Nailo
High elf barbarian-ranger-rogue
The Nailo family is a crime syndicate that employs the use of Assassins called Fangs. The Fangs are trained to channel their rage to escape attempts gone wrong, they train them to be able to track their targets no matter where they go. He started as a Barbarian because he wasnt a very good assassin, multiclassing into rogue to show his honing his skills therein, and his skills in tracking and combat in hunter Ranger.

It isn't and shouldnt be a spontaneous growth of abilities, but a more accurate description of a character. Just and Assassin rogue really wouldnt capture the dr jeckel elf assassin I wanted to tell.

Very cool stuff. I, too, have a triple-class character I've been enjoying the heck out of playing:

Le'thael
Acolyte assassin/shadow monk/feypact bladelock
Cliff Notes Version: He is a member of an elite, semi-secret sect within the high elven fae church: the Order of the Unseen. A small coven of holy assassins, fueled and empowered by their devotion to the unseelie archfey, the Queen of Air and Darkness, they serve the church by performing its less savory, yet necessary, tasks.

So, as you can see, he and his order are not just killers. They are supernaturally gifted agents. By sprinkling shadow monk and warlock into the mix, they take on a very stylish and thematic feel. They become living weapons infused with the very stuff of shadows. By combining the classes, it becomes something unique to their sect.

EDIT: Something else that happens when you build something like this... Now, even within the framework of the proposed order, you can have different members who excel in different ways. Some members of the order may strongly connect to the archfey, taking more levels in warlock. Others, more practical/martial killers and stick to more assassin levels. Some may gravitate to the inner self-empowerment developed though the intense training and take lots of monk levels. Others still may grow to take a balance of the three. Now you have an order of individuals all serving in different ways. Not, for example, like you would have an order of paladins all with the same list of class features because they are all just paladins. Or a thieves guild who are all just cookie-cutter thieves.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

No problem at all. Whether it matches someone else's taste is neither here nor there; it makes total sense.

The same for excluding multi-classing.

No it doesn't, and I'll explain the difference.

You have, for campaign reasons, excluded all of those classes/paths. You have, by default, included all of the other classes/paths! You have included, for example, rogue/assassins and open hand monks. You have included all of the abilities gained by each class. You have included Sneak Attack, Expertise, Unarmoured Defence and Martial Arts.

How can you object to a character that has those abilities, since you already include them? This doesn't make sense. My Rog 1/Mnk 1 doesn't have any abilities that you haven't already allowed. There is no ability you cannot handle, all of the PCs are 2nd level, there is no extra work you have to do because the player has already done the work in both crunch and fluff terms.

There is no rational objection. Irrational objections are indefencible.

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.

Here, you are setting up an unreasonable scenario and then pointing out how unreasonable it is. The idea that the PC has only ever trained or even thought about one class before his 1st level abilities manifest, when 'suddenly' other abilities spring out of 'nowhere' is just as sensible/stupid as the way the system works for single class PCs.

For single class PCs, if you envision years of training from being, say, 8 years old while those abilities only finally manifest when the PC finally clicks over into adulthood, then it's just as easy to say that the PC has been studying the abilities of two classes since he was 8, and the abilities of the second class manifest one day (or 300xp) after the abilities of the first.

Also, for single class PCs, they manifest new abilities, out of the blue, every time they level up! Sometimes in the middle of a dungeon/wilderness, sometimes more than once per week, all without 'the player willing to have their PC sit out the game for months or years'. Whether or not you think that this makes sense for single class PCs, it makes exactly the same amount of sense for multi class PCs.

When I created my Rog/Mnk, my background for her included training from a young age to gain a selection of abilities, in exactly the same way that any other PC, single or multi classed, trained for years to get their abilities. Not all of those abilities manifest at the same time; we don't suddenly turn from commoners to 20th level PCs on our 16th birthday. Our previous training contains the seeds of all our levels, gradually realised as we gain experience. This is no different for multi class or single class PCs.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

I addressed your other points in my previous post, but this point...bothers me.

I'm 50 years old, I've been role-playing D&D in all its variants (and loads of other systems) since I was 14. I've played and DMed. In real life I've managed teams of people, trained people, studied the law relating to my profession and managed shifts in my casino.

I know how to create characters, both fluff and crunch.

I certainly do not appreciate any DM treating me as if I were an irresponsible adolescent.

I don't need my hand holding throughout the character creation process. I do not need to be warned about the 'dangers' of multiclassing as if it were a gateway drug. I find it disrespectful that any DM would just assume that any attempt at multiclassing must end in tears and tantrums, or that the only possible reasons I could have for multiclassing is to somehow 'cheat' or 'powergame' or whatever euphemistic pejorative comes to mind.

Like any adult I will make my own choices and take the consequences. In this case the negative consequences include the facts that I won't get my second attack until 6th, will get my first two ASIs at 5th and 10th, and I don't get Unarmoured Defence or Martial Arts until I earn 300xp.

I think I'll be okay, dad.

 

[Athinar]

Halfling Rogue and Human Cleric

I decide what to MC into by looking at the starting class, I have a Halfling Rogue (Assassin/Fighter/Wizard) and Human Cleric (Single Class)

I thought the Assassin weak when it comes to the Act of Assassination (more like a flesh wound than the instant kill it was in earlier versions), so I had the character take 2 levels (1st level now) in Fighter for the Surge (Use the Surge when Assassinating the Main Target to get more damage) and I like the Mage Armor vis the Leather Armor, less weight, so 1 level in Wizard plus the spell "Comprehend Languages" (ritual) is now the Old Read Languages from the 1e and 2e versions of the Thief

Human V Cleric does not need a MC

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I addressed your other points in my previous post, but this point...bothers me.

I'm 50 years old, I've been role-playing D&D in all its variants (and loads of other systems) since I was 14. I've played and DMed. In real life I've managed teams of people, trained people, studied the law relating to my profession and managed shifts in my casino.

I just turned 46 and I've been playing since I was 10...so It looks like we have the same amount of gaming experience. In real life I'm managed teams of people, trained people, studied programming, digital design and 3d animation, and I've even worked as a night auditor for a major hotel here where I live. I'm not seeing how any of this is relevant...? I guess the only thing we can both agree on here is that we are quickly heading into the whole "Old dog, new tricks" thing...you believe your stuff, I believe mine, and they seem to be different enough that the best we can probably hope to come to is "Fair enough. I'll keep on playing my way, and you keep on playing your way". I'm happy with that.

I know how to create characters, both fluff and crunch.

I certainly do not appreciate any DM treating me as if I were an irresponsible adolescent.

And neither would I. However, that was not my intent, if that is what you got out of it. My players range in age from 13 to 45, with most in their late 30's. They, as far as I know, have never felt "treated as an irresponsible adolescent". That's not to say they haven't disagreed with me on occasion, nor is it to say we have never come to a point where something in a game or campaign pretty much "ended it" (maybe two or three times over the last 20+ years or so...30+ for some of the players)...and we start a new campaign or change systems for a bit.

I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my comments. My intent was to indicate that a lot of players (typically younger...not hard to find when you're as old an crotchety as we are! ) use being disallowed something in a game as some sort of direct attack against 'their fun'. It's like they find that some particular item, spell, race, class, rule, etc isn't in use or is interpreted differently and they suddenly think the DM has it in for them. I have had "try out" players who didn't make the cut because of this. One young woman (late 20's I think) joined. Made a character (for Dark Dungeons; which she knew we were playing), and then tried to min/max the hell out her Fighter. She played one session then told another player to tell me she wasn't coming back. She said that she "didn't like the system". When I pressed the player for more info, it turned out that her friend (the try out player) couldn't "use Feats like 3e and be able to do two or three times as much damage as her DD Fighter was dishing out"). I guess this guest-player pretty much decided that the system, and I (because I had to keep saying 'no' to her asking for 3e stuff to be "imported" into our campaign just for her), was boring and 'made no sense'. That was a fairly minor example of the type of thing I've encountered in my experience. She obviously wanted something different from the game and was incapable of honestly giving a different style of play a serious try. She had decided from the get go what she wanted...and, being denied that, felt the system and my DM'ing was "bad".

I don't need my hand holding throughout the character creation process. I do not need to be warned about the 'dangers' of multiclassing as if it were a gateway drug. I find it disrespectful that any DM would just assume that any attempt at multiclassing must end in tears and tantrums, or that the only possible reasons I could have for multiclassing is to somehow 'cheat' or 'powergame' or whatever euphemistic pejorative comes to mind.

No, you don't need hand holding. You do, however, need to be informed of what rules are or aren't being used (and the general play style of the DM and group). If you belly up to my table and start making your character, with plans of adding a couple levels of Fighter, Sorcerer and maybe Warlock to your Cleric, and then find out I don't allow MC'ing...you'd be a bit annoyed. Maybe not that I don't allow MC'ing, but that I didn't "tell you"...even though the rules for Multiclassing are OPTIONAL. If you then decided to just stick with a human Valor Bard and then find out I don't use the Variant Human OPTION, nor do I use Feats (again, OPTIONAL), you may get even more annoyed that I didn't tell you. So you decide, "Screw it. I'll make a dwarven Fighter"...and then find out that I use a different house-rule about how fast one heals...well, more annoyance.

I think you'd be able to handle it better than a lot of other players I've seen. I don't think it'd even get that far. I'm sure you'd ask right off the bat if X, Y or Z were being used, and if there was a house-rules print out or something (I know I do/would).

The "reasoning" behind wanting to MC is irrelevant to me. I just don't like how the MC rules work. I don't think they make sense, from a continuation of campaign side of things in particular. I don't like a lot of things about it...so, IMC, I don't use them.

Like any adult I will make my own choices and take the consequences. In this case the negative consequences include the facts that I won't get my second attack until 6th, will get my first two ASIs at 5th and 10th, and I don't get Unarmoured Defence or Martial Arts until I earn 300xp.

I think I'll be okay, dad.

That's good to hear, son. But IMC a player never has to worry about those consequences...because I don't like or use MC'ing. And it's honestly not so much about the player living with the consequences as the DM (me) having to live with them (and everyone else at the table who doesn't use MC'ing). If you make a reasonable character with pluses and minuses, good stuff and bad, all wrapped up in a juicy, flavourful RP blanket...there is the potential for three players to min/max the system with almost all pluses and no minuses, focused solely on creating some sort of uber-combo that makes his 3/4 Rogue/Warlock significantly stronger than a single classed Rogue 7 or Warlock 7, with almost *no* RP goodness. Suddenly everyone else at the table is looking at their 7th level character and thinking Wow. I suck compared to the Rogue/Warlock...and he's only got level 3 and 4 stuff...

Anyway, sorry if you felt personally insulted or talked down to. Not my intent. I don't like MC'ing as a rule in the game because of how it works game-mechanics wise, so it's not allowed in my game. Enjoy all the MC'ing you want in yours.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Arial Black]

The "reasoning" behind wanting to MC is irrelevant to me. I just don't like how the MC rules work. I don't think they make sense, from a continuation of campaign side of things in particular. I don't like a lot of things about it...so, IMC, I don't use them.

The 'reasoning' is the issue.

I have no expectation of being in your campaign, simply because I live half a world away. I'm not envisioning feeling any frustration with what you'll allow in your game. I'm coming at this from the other side: that you have no rational basis for your stance.

You don't have to worry about the hard work of putting the PC together crunch-wise, you don't have to come up with a back story; the player does those things.

The 'illogic' of how PCs gain new abilities out of the blue simply by gaining XPs and without any training is identical for single AND multi class PCs.

The concept that you have had to train for a decade or so before your 1st level abilities manifest works just as well for a multi class PC who is designed as a multi class character from the outset.

There are no abilities that the MC PC has that you haven't already approved. If you approve the abilities of a Rog 2 and approved the abilities of a Mnk 2, then you have already approved all of the abilities possessed by a Rog 1/Mnk 1. The names of classes don't really define what PCs are; what defines them is what they can do. You've already approved of everything a Rog 1/Mnk 1 can do.

All that's left is an irrational dislike. Disliking MCing is okay, but telling everyone else that they cannot MC based on your irrational feelings about MCing is wrong. You should be self-aware enough that you recognise your own irrationality on this particular issue, and not let it colour your decisions.

That's good to hear, son. But IMC a player never has to worry about those consequences...because I don't like or use MC'ing. And it's honestly not so much about the player living with the consequences as the DM (me) having to live with them (and everyone else at the table who doesn't use MC'ing). If you make a reasonable character with pluses and minuses, good stuff and bad, all wrapped up in a juicy, flavourful RP blanket...there is the potential for three players to min/max the system with almost all pluses and no minuses, focused solely on creating some sort of uber-combo that makes his 3/4 Rogue/Warlock significantly stronger than a single classed Rogue 7 or Warlock 7, with almost *no* RP goodness. Suddenly everyone else at the table is looking at their 7th level character and thinking Wow. I suck compared to the Rogue/Warlock...and he's only got level 3 and 4 stuff...

Ah...a potentially rational reason, wrapped up in your unintentional insult.

The idea that an unknown MC combo may 'break the game' is really an irrational fear if you don't know what it is. You fear the unknown. Blind ignorance is not the answer, knowledge is.

The reality of MCing is that you gain a greater variety of abilities by sacrificing power. For example, I have a Pal 2/War 3. This combo can do some cool stuff, no doubt, but when you compare that stuff to the stuff that the Bar 5 can do, you realise that he has no second attack. When you compare him to the Wiz 5 you realise that he has no 3rd level spells. What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. He is cool though.

What you've done by banning MCing is decide that MC PCs are too powerful, without checking to see if a particular combination actually is too powerful, while at the same time happy to have high level wizards!!!!

The unintentional insult is this:-

focused solely on creating some sort of uber-combo that makes his 3/4 Rogue/Warlock significantly stronger than a single classed Rogue 7 or Warlock 7, with almost *no* RP goodness

You're assuming the lowest of motives. You assume that anyone who wants to MC is 'focussed solely' on creating an 'uber-combo', with 'almost no RP goodness'. You assume that anyone who wants to MC is a dirty, min-maxing powergamer who doesn't deserve to sit at the same table as 'proper' role-players like you!

First, you disregard those who feel a MC PC fits their concept even if it is mechanically inferior.

Second, the idea that an optimised character and a 'proper RP' character are mutually exclusive concepts. This is the old Stormwind Fallacy rearing its ugly head once again.

Yes, game balance is something to be monitored, but the idea that single class PCs must be balanced while MC PCs must be uber is false. You're pre-judging every single MC PC as too powerful, before you've even seen it, because of your own, irrational dislike.