D&D 5E Why do you like single or multi classing

[Bolares]

I always forget those are a thing, since most people multiclass in a synergistic fashion. I don't think I've ever heard someone say "man, I wish I had the Int to multiclass Wizard", since you wouldn't want to be a Wizard unless you had high Intelligence to begin with!

Yeah, that's why I said it is a problem for the kind of multiclass we were discussing before. If you never expected to become a wizard, but you character became interested in it in the story, it could happen. It happened in Critical Role for example. Late in the campaign a character reneged their warlock patron and became a paladin of the gods, but as a hexblade warlock, his strengh sucked. So mercer made a narrative excuse to change his stats and give him a little strenght.

 

[James Gasik]

I suppose, but you could also be like "hey can I become a Divine Sorcerer instead"? Organically changing your class into one you're bad at is not something a game can fix for you...well, unless it has retraining rules built in.

You're always going to need DM intervention at some point.

 

[beancounter]

So only background? No provision for changes that happen organically during play?

Sure, that could work too, but knowing the house rule, the players may try to make up some convoluted reason for the multiclass and insist that it was organic.

 

[beancounter]

Then your PCs are all surprised when suddenly their patrons are calling them making ‘requests (or else)’ of them or asking why they haven’t been holding up their end of the contract.

Yep, that would be my approach.

But you wouldn't believe how many people (on the other forum...) strongly insist that there should be no consequences for dipping into warlock.

 

[Bolares]

the players may try to make up some convoluted reason for the multiclass and insist that it was organic.

Everytime I read things like this I get happy for having the players I have. I'd hate to play with people who try to pull a fast one on me instead of talking and being honest

 

[Vaalingrade]

I prefer single class, but that's not really the whole story as I feel I have no choice.

For as long as I've played this game, multiclassing has been such an unholy pain that I just avoid it.

This is deeply frustrating as even with subclasses that are SUPPOSED to handle this, the game stubbornly refuses to give good treatment to certain archetypes that it just leaves you to roll your own with multiclassing.

So I prefer single class, but the second competent multiclassing is a thing (how has it gotten progressively WORSE over thirty years with absolutely no improvement over 6 editions plus Pathfinder?), I will be on it like stink on a monkey.

 

[James Gasik]

Yep, that would be my approach.

But you wouldn't believe how many people (on the other forum...) strongly insist that there should be no consequences for dipping into warlock.

I mean, this is the edition where there's no stated penalty for violating your Paladin Oath, since Oathbreaker is optional and in the DMG...

Let alone a Cleric who decides to do whatever they want, regardless of the edicts of their deity.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have had successful single and multiclass characters. That is to say they survived and contributed and also did not bore me.

As time goes by, I find myself drawn more to single classed characters. It could be a Tasha’s effect or something else but I find I can make most concepts/approaches work with a single class and feats.

I like getting to feats or ASIs faster and feel less cluttered going single classed.

Just curious about others and their preferences for single or multiclassing. Why do you like one approach over the other?

I prefer single classed characters because they feel to me like having a more solid foundation to build upon. I never feel like I can't play a character concept without multiclassing.

I did play a very few multiclassed characters and they were ok mechanically but felt diluted rather than enriched.

I also by experience look suspiciously at players who use heavy multiclassing.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I have differing opinions on the subject based on whether we are talking about the 5e D&D that we got, or in theory. In theory, I think that -- in a game where we have feats like Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster, and where we have archetypes like Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight and so forth, one shouldn't have to multiclass to achieve a character concept (except maybe for whichever combo has not yet been released, or the like). However, given the versions of such feats and archetypes we got, that's often not the case. Ritual Caster: cleric doesn't get you the core-concept abilities one might want like dealing with poisoned/cursed/diseased/dead conditions; Eldritch Knight doesn't fulfill most gish fantasies; and so forth.

Therefore I don't hate that MC exists. I do dislike how poorly it works for 1:1 thematic splits (an AD&D-esque 'fighter/cleric' or 'mage/thief' or whatever), and works so much better as 1-2 level dips for mechanical abilities. Cleric 1 on a wizard for defense. Hexblade dip for cha-combat (or warlock 2 dip in general to resolve bard/paladin's weakness in at-will ranged). I get it, those are mechanical bits that are reasonable to want. However, then the 'right' (IMO, and in theory) way to go about that is to have those options built into the wizard, paladin, or bard as build options (be that feats or archetypes or in-class selection knobs and levers). If people feel they need to dip for the mechanical widgets, rather than because it fits the thematic direction they are taking their character, IMO it is the mechanics which should be changed.

I have a distaste for multi-classing. In and of itself, no problem, but I find the most common reason for doing it is DPR, and that I really don't like.

It's often used by people who focus more on character build than character concept. People who view building a character aa akin to building a deck in magic the gathering lookingfor optimized synergies.

Yeah, exactly. I really am not a fan of system mastery as a part of gameplay. At least definitely if it means that the newbie or the person trying to stick to thematic character development feels like they are playing a wildly different game/don't feel like they could play in the same group as someone looking to play optimization-fu. There's always going to be best and least-best options in a game (at least if decisions matter at all), but I'd like them to be in a constrained spread (best build is no more than maybe 25-30% higher than regular reasonable choices, and certainly such that good decision-making in-game can wildly override optimization at character creation/level up).

I'm a 3E/PF1 guy, so naturally I love multi-classing. It's a little more manageable in 5E though. I dont get too bogged down in the details of why a multiclass character came about narratively. I view leveling pretty much under the hood.

I can see an appeal to that. At that point, though, I don't understand why one would stick with D&D at all in that case. Games like Hero System or SWADE let you build exactly what you want, nothing you don't want, so long as you stay within a build budget, and apply the thematic layer on top at the end.

 

[beancounter]

I mean, this is the edition where there's no stated penalty for violating your Paladin Oath, since Oathbreaker is optional and in the DMG...

Let alone a Cleric who decides to do whatever they want, regardless of the edicts of their deity.

Don't get me started...

I can't imagine not having potential consequences for the PCs actions or decisions. But theses folks are inconsistent in how they apply that reasoning.

For example, these people will (correctly) insist that a murder hobo that kills a town guard should be chased down and thrown in jail.

But then they do a 180, and insist that breaking a contract with an arch devil should have no repercussions for a warlock...