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

[Blue]

Fifth edition was not designed with multi-classing in mind. The one page of optional rules was clearly included as an afterthought. Whenever I've seen a multi-class character under discussion, it looks like it's exploiting the rules rather than working with them. As such, I choose to not multi-class, even if the option is available in that particular campaign.

I'm not sure this is a supportable statement.

Multiclassing rules came out in the the D&D Next playtest, so it wasn't a "last minute addition". Also, many ideas were absent or were removed for part of the playtest to focus on the parts they were working on.

Moving from Next to 5e, we has have design discussions where Mike Mearls talks about multiclass balance passes for classes and where it is in the design process because that is part of any new class' formal design process. (That's also why they don't suggest multiclassing with UA material - they want to get feedback before they spend resources polishing and that multiclass balance is a later step.)

So we know multiclassing is both not a last second addition and is a specific balance step in their class design process. It looks like it's pretty well integrated.

This isn't saying you should use it - that's up to you and up to your table and we need to respect that. But just because it has roughly the same page count assigned to it as ability score generation does not mean it's hastily considered nor an afterthought.

 

[Blue]

Yuck. I will never be the guy picking up the others slack. And I'm certainly not going to distort my character concept to do so.

But do you mind if others do so, or do you call them out for it?

Say Ryner Thunderhammer, Champion of Thor, realizes that the armies of the foe are plentiful and there are more ways to fight then just smiting with her two handed maul. Through faith learns to smite foes with lightning - as well as heal her allies. Will you take her player to task for picking up a few levels of cleric (tempest) on her paladin?

In other words, are you making a statement that this wasn't for you ever but you still support other people who don't make the same decisions as you in their support of fun, or that the whole concept of multiclassing to fill in party gaps is abhorrent and badwrongfun?

 

[MechaPilot]

I only multiclass if I have to in order to fit a character concept.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So we know multiclassing is both not a last second addition and is a specific balance step in their class design process. It looks like it's pretty well integrated.

That's a matter of opinion. There are enough weird interactions with taking two levels of a class, and enough character concepts floating around which exploit those interactions, for me to conclude that it's not integrated as well as it could be.

I'm sure that they did a final sanity check to make sure that no combination of abilities was particularly game-breaking, but that's not the same as designing classes under the assumption that multi-classing would exist in the form it ended up.

But just because it has roughly the same page count assigned to it as ability score generation does not mean it's hastily considered nor an afterthought.

It's less that those optional rules only take up one page, and more what those rules are on that page. I'm sure that they could have created a one-paragraph system for functional multi-classing, but the rest of the system would needed to have been designed with that in mind.

 

[Immoralkickass]

When a Valor Bard gains Magical Secrets upon reaching level 10, nobody asks him if he stays single class because of mechanical power, or take levels in Fighter since he has been bashing people with weapons more than being bardy.

Do you see how silly your question is?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I usually try to do both. And both in a reasonable fashion. You don´t want to be a lot weaker than a single classed char but a little bit more versatile, or vice versa. The sweet spot is being as good as a single classed character while being more unique and equally powerful.

 

[Horwath]

For my 1st character, I wanted to play a ranger.

Loved the 3.5e ranger.

But, I just read the class and saw that it was bad. Wow, how right I was

So I made Wood elf rogue, outlander background and took one level of fighter for archery style and armor proficiencies so the rogue seemed more "rangery like".

 

[Coroc]

I try to avoid it like the devil does for holy water. In the current campaign where i Play a hunter archer ranger i am Kind of multiclassed in that up to Level 4 i played this character as a rogue but when the DM started a new campaign he offered the choice to rebuild the char or start with a new one.
Since the Party has got no rogue i took the criminal Background for my ranger which works almost as good as a Standard rogue for things like search / disarm / open lock.

I really love the way you can actually multiclass light in 5e with backgrounds (criminal, arcane initiate are the best so far)

 

[DammitVictor]

It has already been said that there's no conflict between building for power and building for concept, because you can do both at the same time.

I would counter that there's no difference between building for power and building for concept because there's no difference between them; they are, literally, the same thing. The majority of your character concept, in most games and any conflict/objective focused game like D&D, is going to be the things your character is capable of doing.

Not the names of those things on the character sheet, but what they allow you to do in the reality of the gameworld.

Some classes come with fiction built-in: Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks have Patrons they answer to. Sorcerers have raw magic in their veins. Those classes have rules about their relationship with the fiction, and those rules are part of the character concept. Classes like Fighter, Rogue, and even Barbarian... do not. Members of those classes are defined solely by their ability to do those things the class allows them to do.

I really hate the multiclassing system in 3e/5e D&D because it turned classes and multiclassing into a particularly incoherent form of point-buy, and because they are the face that launched a thousand of these asinine, petty arguments over how other people play-- while those players are staying 100% within the letter and the intent of the rules. I don't remember everyone having such strong opinions about multiclassing back when the game didn't have the laziest and most artificial form of "multiclassing" ever.

 

[5ekyu]

It has already been said that there's no conflict between building for power and building for concept, because you can do both at the same time.

I would counter that there's no difference between building for power and building for concept because there's no difference between them; they are, literally, the same thing. The majority of your character concept, in most games and any conflict/objective focused game like D&D, is going to be the things your character is capable of doing.

Not the names of those things on the character sheet, but what they allow you to do in the reality of the gameworld.

Some classes come with fiction built-in: Clerics, Paladins, and Warlocks have Patrons they answer to. Sorcerers have raw magic in their veins. Those classes have rules about their relationship with the fiction, and those rules are part of the character concept. Classes like Fighter, Rogue, and even Barbarian... do not. Members of those classes are defined solely by their ability to do those things the class allows them to do.

I really hate the multiclassing system in 3e/5e D&D because it turned classes and multiclassing into a particularly incoherent form of point-buy, and because they are the face that launched a thousand of these asinine, petty arguments over how other people play-- while those players are staying 100% within the letter and the intent of the rules. I don't remember everyone having such strong opinions about multiclassing back when the game didn't have the laziest and most artificial form of "multiclassing" ever.

Overall i think the approach in 5e is ok but i want more investment. For instance, a game where you multiclass by tiers, each option to multiclass only at tier changes - 5th, 11th etc.

No dipping.

As an alternative, i have used multiclass as a feat. Spend a feat to get the ability to multiclass into a single class, the basic training.