D&D General Do We Really Need Multiclassing?

[Shiroiken]

I personally hate the 3E style multi-classing. It encourages 1-2 level dips, rather than true multiple classes. I'd much rather see the multiclass archetypes be done via subclasses.

 

[James Gasik]

Honestly, it depends. Multiclassing is an artifact from the earliest days of D&D, when Elves were Fighter/Magic-Users in all but name. In AD&D, some classes are very weak, and despite having fast xp tables, playing a single-classed Thief, for example, can be a drag at a table where the DM is a stickler for the letter of the rules. With characters like that, I started leaning on multiclassing for extra survivability/utility. A Fighter/X who can hang back and use a bow until their other abilities become reliable enough to use (for the low low cost of 1-1.5 levels) is ideal, and a Priest/X is even better (because AD&D parties run on Cure Light Wounds).

Ala carte multiclassing, on the other hand, is objectively terrible for a few reasons. First, what you give up; classes are designed to give you power boosts at certain levels. Sure, you might get a lot from a Fighter 1 dip, but is it really worth being a level behind on everything your other class wants to do for the rest of your career? Your multiclass build might be terrifying at level 9, but you have to get to that point first, and every thing you do to drag yourself down sucks.

The only really good multiclass, therefore, are ones with synergy. Most of the caster classes get synergy of some kind because they progress spell slots; while higher level spells are likely always better than upcast spells, there are some standouts that simply don't get upgraded alternatives as you level up (Spirit Guardians is the first one I think of). The saturation of Charisma casters in 5e makes this worse.

And because of it's limitations, this form of multiclassing is actually terrible at reflecting a character's ongoing story- the warrior who is curious about magic and has long talks with the party Wizard, eventually taking a level of Wizard gets as their reward...the ability cast Shield, mostly, lol. Oh there's a few utility spells of note, but it's not likely that they're going to be using Magic Missile or Sleep on foes!

Ditto for a reformed Rogue who finds something larger to believe in and becomes a Cleric.

Some classes are so rotten at multiclassing it's almost not worth it; Druid (at least the Moon variety) gets a lot more out of more Druid levels than anything else- sure, a Raging Druid is a blast, but only for a few levels, and then suddenly you reallly fall behind (Treantmonk has a good video demonstrating this).

It doesn't help that some classes simply cease to get anything interesting after about 7th level or so. If you can look at your class and realize that you're not going to see anything noteworthy for 3 or more levels, getting out might be your only way to continue having fun- IF you can find a way to do that effectively.

This happened to my first 5e character, beyond 7th level, I had nothing really interesting to look forward to until my next attack in 4 levels. So I became a Rogue and suddenly had a plethora of new and interesting options.

Thus we have a paradox. Multiclassing is bad, except when it isn't. It's certainly not good at capturing the ongoing narrative and evolution of a character, and some combinations don't work well. But others work very well, and the front loaded nature of classes, where you get most of the fun stuff in the first handful of levels, can make the sacrifices of less ASI's certainly feel worth it.

I certainly have mixed feelings about combos. On the one hand, yes, if it's something few people would logically pursue, and takes a convoluted story (or just ignoring the narrative) to get to, that certainly feels cheesy. But on the other hand, I like the idea that someone can take an unusual build and make it work; I think ultimately it's because I believe the game should let any character ultimately find success, because that actually makes character creation more diverse, which is a good thing.

So what am I saying with all this rambling? Basically, that multiclassing is not necessary for the game (or if it is, that's a problem), but it might be necessary for the characters, when their concept otherwise fails them.*

*Certainly, it's nice when the DM realizes a player is struggling and steps in so that multiclassing doesn't become necessary, but it's not the DM's obligation to do so.

As for multclassing "power builds", most of these seem to boil down to "the game didn't make X an option" like using Charisma as a primary ability score for anything other than spellcasting (Melee Warlock/X builds), not giving you enough resources to use (Warlock/Paladins), or granting more survivability (anything that dips Fighter).

I'm not saying there aren't power mad munchkins out there, but I've found most people who go reaching for power are more doing it out of frustration with artificial limitations they feel are imposed on them for no good reason, or the desire for their character to feel special compared to "just another sword and board Fighter".

I'm going to echo a sentiment I saw upthread here; I don't think subclasses do enough to make some characters feel particularly unique compared to other members of their class. That's in general, there are some that do this well. And some that go a little extra (mostly for the magic classes, since WotC apparently has no imagination when it comes to non-supernatural options).

So I wouldn't ban multiclassing, but I would definitely ask anyone reaching for it to explain their motivations, to see if there's another way to deal with their concerns. Sometimes it can come down to making a boon available as a reward, or varying something like short rest durations.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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.

We don’t restrict it, but no one at our table uses multi-cladding. I would be fine if it wasn’t a thing. For me backgrounds and feats get what I want from a story perspective with multi-classing

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If you want to do away with multiclassing, the game needs a willingness to create a lot more classes. It's one of my primary frustrations with class based games, that they don't lean in on their primary strength of portraying a bunch of archetypes at nominally similar growth/power levels.

Multiclassing ends up as a player desire, because their just isn't enough variety in character optionality without it. If there was 6 different Fighters, that covered a bunch of different combat approaches, the Divine Rogue, the summoner, fey edition, summoner, elemental edition and on and on, all with some choices built into their chasses, and a few universal systems like feats for point buy-esque customization, we wouldn't miss it.

Unfortunately, you're never going to escape the calls for simplicity, which tends to get pushed as "3 or 4 classes only." Multiclassing is the compromise that's stuck, despite its problems.

You get a lot of that variety through sub-classes though. An eldritch knight is effectively a type of fighter/magic-user multi-class.

5e actually has a huge variety of class concepts when you consider all of the subclasses. Is it enough for everyone, no, but I think it covers most of the required ground. Particularly with backgrounds and feats. If anything, I would rather people get more feats than have multi-classing.

 

[Corinnguard]

The only really good multiclass, therefore, are ones with synergy.

Speaking of synergy, do you think Level Up's Synergy feat chains make up for multiclassing pushing back a particular class feature by a level or more?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Speaking of synergy, do you think Level Up's Synergy feat chains make up for multiclassing pushing back a particular class feature by a level or more?

I think they are way too specific.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You get a lot of that variety through sub-classes though. An eldritch knight is effectively a type of fighter/magic-user multi-class.

5e actually has a huge variety of class concepts when you consider all of the subclasses. Is it enough for everyone, no, but I think it covers most of the required ground. Particularly with backgrounds and feats. If anything, I would rather people get more feats than have multi-classing.

Multiclassing is an asset I would not want to lose. Especially after having chosen a subclass and your character develops differently, multiclass is the only way to achieve that.

I love multiclassing. Not for power, but for roleplaying reasons. It is also a fun minigame to not end up with a useless character (although you really have to work for that).

 

[James Gasik]

Speaking of synergy, do you think Level Up's Synergy feat chains make up for multiclassing pushing back a particular class feature by a level or more?

Sadly, I don't really know much about Level Up, I keep meaning to look into it, but other things (like the Tales of the Valiant playtest my DM is running) have gotten in the way.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think they are way too specific.

True. My issue with them is the subclasses. Take the Eldritch Archer synergy feat chain. To get this feat chain, you have to take 3 levels of Fighter, 3 levels of Wizard and the Archery fighting style. The Wizard gets a subclass at 2nd level while the Fighter gets a subclass at 3rd level. The only Fighter subclass in Level Up that this feat chain appears to work well with it IMO is the Sharpshooter subclass. I have no idea on which Wizard subclass would work well with it.

Has anyone found a pair of subclasses from two different classes that work well with other?

 

[Krachek]

I don’t allow it when I DM, but I allow feat.
The game can keep it as a Variant.

but after thought, we can get rid of it.
MC produce a fair leverage for optimizers, even if those characters look creepy on thematic.
Those who use MC for pure thematic, produce usually underwhelming character.
MC impose a burden on all low level class feature. they have to be designed with MC in mind to avoid exploit.

So MC produce creepy or underwhelming characters with a pay load to limit low level features design.

overall I think It‘s net loss.