D&D General Do We Really Need Multiclassing?

[MGibster]

One of the things I like about 5th edition is the inclusion of backgrounds which I (naively) thought would eliminate some of the desire for people to multiclass. After all, does my Fighter really need to take a level of Rogue in order for me to meet my vision of a character with who grew up as a gutter snipe stealing things? Or am I just better having the Criminal background which will allow me access to some skills and proficiency in thieve's tools?

Admittedly I grew to hate multiclassing during 3rd edition. Largely beacuse of the way prestige classes worked. In my mind, they took away all spontaneity requiring players to plan ahead to select specific classes and feats in order to get the prestige class instead of choosing such things in response to the events of the game. And as a general rule, I just don't like keeping track of character builds by dipping into other classes. But I recognize that some people just love building characters and multiclassing can be a part of it and there's nothing wrong with that.

I hear multiclassing is optional, but I've never met a player who viewed it as optional. Does everyone allow mutliclassing in their games? I don't like it, but I've never restricted it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

As long as we're not getting new classes to fit other archetypes and no commitment to breaking niche protection, multiclassing will always be the sad, janky lesser evil to not addressing those archetypes at all.

 

[billd91]

If multiclassing were removed from the game, players would reinvent it. Even with the ability to pick up a background to help with blending skills, as long as a class offers some kind of mechanical effect, players are going to find ways they want to blend them.

What I think you're running up against, particularly with the distaste for multiclassing you developed in 3e, is mostly a clash of styles. As long as a character has a lot of options, and 3e certainly added a lot from feats to skills and level-based wealth driving magic equipment, some types of players were going to map it all out with a plan to maximize their chances of getting the character they want. And that's even without talking about multiclassing and prestige classes. That player may not be you, they may even drive you crazy, but their way of approaching things is as valid as yours.

 

[Cruentus]

After having played in a two year campaign, followed by my DM'ing a one year campaign, both in 5e, for my next game I would, as part of the pitch and session zero, remove multiclassing as an option. In my experience, the players used multiclassing to build for effectiveness and "maximization", rather than for what it did for the world or whether it made sense in the world - i.e. it was a pure power play. Now, there is nothing wrong with maximizing every little bit out of a character, if that is the game that is being played, of course.

I feel like feats and backgrounds can offer "flavor" and some abilities that might fill some of the gaps people are looking for, and that I would be fine with. Want some spellcasting - then arcane adept or whatever is fine. Ritual caster, cool. But not dips into Warlock solely to unlock the special familiar to pair with darkness/devilsight/etc.

Its also part of the reason why we moved to OSE Advanced, and now play those 'simpler' games where we can work to build a character concept and have it work in a game, without having to pile on rules and spells and special abilities and feats and... I have a character playing an OSE thief who is developing his character as a merchant. And its working great and he is having a blast, at first level.

 

[CreamCloud0]

personally i'd prefer no multiclassing but good collection of other mechanics for customisation that occurs on a separate progression, backgrounds and feats are a good start, i really liked the mark of X species with their expanded spell lists for customising abilities, and i'd love something like a cross between a prestige class and a second subclass,

 

[Deset Gled]

If multiclassing were removed from the game, players would reinvent it.

This is exactly the problem I see. Even if you don't like it, lots and lots of people do. The more you remove multiclassing from the base rule set, the more alternatives will pop up. Which means that it can only become more confusing and less balanced.

Personally, I think the that the gish fighter/wizard combo is the most boring, overused and power-gamey mashup in the history of D&D. But I never recommend removing it from the game. If you do, you can be guaranteed someone will still find a way to try and do it. And using the options provided is almost always better for both the player and the GM than a home brewed solution.

 

[Undrave]

One of the things I like about 5th edition is the inclusion of backgrounds which I (naively) thought would eliminate some of the desire for people to multiclass. After all, does my Fighter really need to take a level of Rogue in order for me to meet my vision of a character with who grew up as a gutter snipe stealing things? Or am I just better having the Criminal background which will allow me access to some skills and proficiency in thieve's tools?

Admittedly I grew to hate multiclassing during 3rd edition. Largely beacuse of the way prestige classes worked. In my mind, they took away all spontaneity requiring players to plan ahead to select specific classes and feats in order to get the prestige class instead of choosing such things in response to the events of the game. And as a general rule, I just don't like keeping track of character builds by dipping into other classes. But I recognize that some people just love building characters and multiclassing can be a part of it and there's nothing wrong with that.

I hear multiclassing is optional, but I've never met a player who viewed it as optional. Does everyone allow mutliclassing in their games? I don't like it, but I've never restricted it.

Nah I don't like multiclass either. I particularly hate how classes get nerfed, or at least whined about, just because you can do single level dips to boost your build. I think the game would be better if Multiclassing wasn't about just taking levels in the other class.

 

[MNblockhead]

No, but we don't need classes either. I feel there is a tension in D&D between keeping the iconic class system, on the one hand, yet wanting granular options for customization on the other. Multiclassing feels like a kludge to provide options that other systems provide with skill trees, feats, etc.

 

[MarkB]

I've never multiclassed in 5e, but I have no objection to anyone else doing it, whether I'm playing or DMing.

Honestly, I'd kind-of like a system that made classes more modular, allowing picking up class features from any class as you level up. Star Wars Saga Edition came close to it, but WotC haven't gone back to that well.

 

[LordEntrails]

Multi-classing isn't needed to play the game. Some players need it to meet their goal of either optimization or creating the character they envision.

I rarely if ever multi-class as a player. As a DM I allow it.