D&D 5E To MC or not MC? That is the question!

[cmad1977]

I've found that with groups that actually play every level, rather than start at a higher level, multiclassing drops a lot.

I suspect it's because there is always something good coming up in the next level that you don't want to delay/be behind the other players. For example, getting an ASI is pretty impactful. And what fighter wants to stay at one attack per round when the others now get 2 at level 5? So they put off multiclassing.

But start at level X? Much easier to do a multiclassed build since you don't have to actually experience those delays

I was always tempted to multi class my barbarian but those sweet sweet abilities just kept popping up.

 

[Olrox17]

Or an even better way - allow it to be played as is until the session is over and then talk about it and reach a compromise after.

Keep in mind that, in my experience, these kind of problems never arise during the game, but rather during character creation, before the game even takes place.
Still, I'd rather have the rule in place, clearly laid out in advance for everyone. It might have to do with the fact that we had to deal with some munchkin-y behavior in the past, and this rule worked nicely as a solution to that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Keep in mind that, in my experience, these kind of problems never arise during the game, but rather during character creation, before the game even takes place.
Still, I'd rather have the rule in place, clearly laid out in advance for everyone. It might have to do with the fact that we had to deal with some munchkin-y behavior in the past, and this rule worked nicely as a solution to that.

My suggestion was a clear rule in place to fix it after the session it became apparent it was a problem in.

 

[Olrox17]

My suggestion was a clear rule in place to fix it after the session it became apparent it was a problem in.

Ok, so the disagreement here is that I'd rather have the ability to modify something problematic on the fly and discuss about it after the game, and you'd rather keep it RAW during a session and only make changes in between games.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok, so the disagreement here is that I'd rather have the ability to modify something problematic on the fly and discuss about it after the game, and you'd rather keep it RAW during a session and only make changes in between games.

yep

 

[Olrox17]

yep

Eh, fair enough.

 

[Xetheral]

I hate a-la-cart multiclassing ("I'll take a little fighter here... a little rogue there... mm... a little more fighter, I guess... and maybe a little bard on the side"). I hate it especially because it tempts people away from their character concept for the sake of optimization. They start out as a pure-class Warlock, but then they see that they'd get a nice little DPR upgrade if they took a few levels of Sorcerer, and suddenly they're considering compromising their character's principles just for a little more DPR. Awful, awful, awful.

Multiclassing worked so much better in AD&D. If you were a Fighter/Mage, you were a Fighter/Mage for life, starting at level 1. I wish they'd go back to that system.

I could understand that some pure-class Warlocks might be fanatically devoted to their patron, and thus anything other than continuing to learn how to be the perfect student would violate their principles. But many other Warlock concepts aren't devoted to their patron in the slightest: their pact may be the result of opportunism, a past indiscretion, or even have been inherited (or otherwise acquired unwillingly). How would it compromise any of these characters' principles to work on honing their sorcerous power?

From my standpoint, al a carte multiclassing simply enables one to mechanically represent a wider range of character concepts than are possible with single-classing (or 2e-style multiclassing). Here are some examples that don't work as well without al a carte multiclassing:

• The Midlife Crisis (e.g. the repentant faustian Warlock, the emergent Sorcerer, the crisis-of-faith Cleric)
• The Specialist (e.g. dipping fighter to make a particularly martial War Domain Cleric, dipping rogue to make a wrestling-focused Barbarian, dipping Wizard to make a spell-focused Eldritch Knight) Note: taking a dip to emphasize abilities a character already has doesn't require an IC change in focus--the character is just temporarily training particularly hard on a subset of their existing skills. They don't stop being a "pure" (e.g.) Cleric/Barbarian/EK concept-wise.
• The Character-Defining Mechanic (e.g. skirmishers of any class need the Rogue's Cunning Action, alchemist Wizards needs the Thief's Fast Hands, some shaman Druids may need the Totem Barbarian's Totem Spirit, anyone with a key heirloom magic item may need the Warlock's Blade Pact or Tome Pact)

For reference, almost all of the characters I play are multiclass, in every edition (hybrid in 4th). I usually DM, however, and at my tables more than half of the PCs multiclass. I actively promote multiclassing, however, so this is not an unbiased sample. (I find promoting multiclassing leads to more multi-dimensional characters that are less defined by their race/class combo.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I could understand that some pure-class Warlocks might be fanatically devoted to their patron, and thus anything other than continuing to learn how to be the perfect student would violate their principles. But many other Warlock concepts aren't devoted to their patron in the slightest: their pact may be the result of opportunism, a past indiscretion, or even have been inherited (or otherwise acquired unwillingly). How would it compromise any of these characters' principles to work on honing their sorcerous power?

From my standpoint, al a carte multiclassing simply enables one to mechanically represent a wider range of character concepts than are possible with single-classing (or 2e-style multiclassing). Here are some examples that don't work as well without al a carte multiclassing:

• The Midlife Crisis (e.g. the repentant faustian Warlock, the emergent Sorcerer, the crisis-of-faith Cleric)
• The Specialist (e.g. dipping fighter to make a particularly martial War Domain Cleric, dipping rogue to make a wrestling-focused Barbarian, dipping Wizard to make a spell-focused Eldritch Knight) Note: taking a dip to emphasize abilities a character already has doesn't require an IC change in focus--the character is just temporarily training particularly hard on a subset of their existing skills. They don't stop being a "pure" (e.g.) Cleric/Barbarian/EK concept-wise.
• The Character-Defining Mechanic (e.g. skirmishers of any class need the Rogue's Cunning Action, alchemist Wizards needs the Thief's Fast Hands, some shaman Druids may need the Totem Barbarian's Totem Spirit, anyone with a key heirloom magic item may need the Warlock's Blade Pact or Tome Pact)

For reference, almost all of the characters I play are multiclass, in every edition (hybrid in 4th). I usually DM, however, and at my tables more than half of the PCs multiclass. I actively promote multiclassing, however, so this is not an unbiased sample. (I find promoting multiclassing leads to more multi-dimensional characters that are less defined by their race/class combo.)

All class concepts are possible with single classing. We just need more classes

 

[Xetheral]

All class concepts are possible with single classing. We just need more classes

Excellent point. I envision a multi-volume tome of a PHB where you find the class that models the concept you're looking for by looking through a dedicated, multi-dimensional index. "Ok, classes that represent faustian Warlocks who turn to Paladin to seek redemption early in their career are in volume XVIII, chapters 4-20 and 31-33. The ones who focus on alchemy and get the ability to use items as a bonus action will have green-gold-red color markers on the lower edge of the page, in the second flag position. But I'll avoid the ones with the Greek character Tau in the third flag position on the top of the page--those classes eventually relapse back to their fiendish ways and that doesn't fit my concept."

 

[FrogReaver]

Excellent point. I envision a multi-volume tome of a PHB where you find the class that models the concept you're looking for by looking through a dedicated, multi-dimensional index. "Ok, classes that represent faustian Warlocks who turn to Paladin to seek redemption early in their career are in volume XVIII, chapters 4-20 and 31-33. The ones who focus on alchemy and get the ability to use items as a bonus action will have green-gold-red color markers on the lower edge of the page, in the second flag position. But I'll avoid the ones with the Greek character Tau in the third flag position on the top of the page--those classes eventually relapse back to their fiendish ways and that doesn't fit my concept."

Oh I definitely think there's usefulness to multiclassing. It's for those sudden character changes. Like where you are a paladin that makes a deal with the devil.

That said multiclassing does a terrible job of hybrid style characters - which is what most people want to use it for.