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

[Fauchard1520]

What it says in the title.

When you're looking at some silly build like the Sorc 5/Warlock 5/Fighter 2, do you try to justify the multiclass in-game, or do you prefer to ignore the fiction and concentrate on eldritch blasting all the things?

Relevant comic.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[nswanson27]

I guess a little of both. Whether you MC or stay single class, neither prevents you from ignoring the fiction.

 

[Oofta]

I primarily do it for character reasons, but how many levels has been influenced by capability.

But it's a fuzzy mix. If I view my character as a rogue that likes to go toe-to-toe with opponents and multi-class into fighter to make that happen, what's the real motivation?

In any case I don't pay much attention to character optimization outside of general effectiveness and never really map out my character much more than a general idea of what feat/ASI I'm going to take next.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I tend to multiclass for story.. but specific decisions about which class/subclass that fit the theme and story will be for mechanical gain.

 

[Caliban]

Yes.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

I haven't actually MCd a 5e character yet, but in 3.X and PF I would say that the mechanical drive for MCing is generally ALSO the in character drive.

Like, my 3.x Rogue MC into Sorcerer. Because he was heading for Arcane Trickster. His whole thing was "Why should I learn to pick locks when I can cast Knock 20 times a day instead?" (Hyperbole)

My PFS character who's a Slayer with 2 levels of Skald, because his whole build, and his character, is El Kabong! (Silly Character, but that's beside the point).

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

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

 

[jgsugden]

I won't assemble a multi-class character that is not efficient, even if it tells a cool story. There is enough combat in the game that I don't want a character that is so inefficient in combat that they're not important to that side of the game, but I also won't put together a multi-class that doesn't tell a good story overall just because it is powerful. So both.

 

[Sleepy Walker]

I always try to make a character that is whole from many angles. The story and the mechanics mesh as much as possible. Sometimes I start from the mechanical aspect and fill in the story afterwards. Sometimes I start from the story side and fill in the mechanics afterwards. Sometimes I alternate and sometimes I get a broad idea (general classes) and fill in other aspects as I flesh out the character more.

So I always try to justify the class in-game. At the table I play, the RP is where the fun consistently is, since having a few cool tricks gets old after about half a year (though monk tricks last longer due to sheer variety). When I look back I remember the fun character interactions, not necessarily the 10th time I got off hunter's mark + 4 d6 attacks + 30 static damage. I must admit that I normally draw the line at 2 classes in a character, since I am not a fan of dips and prefer getting the advantages most classes have within the first 8 levels or so.

(not hard to do lots of damage, so is not that memorable. Harder to get those random interesting interactions, so memorable and worth pursuing regardless of character mechanics).