D&D General Should you Multiclass?

[aco175]

I find that with 5e (.5e) the subclasses do so much to fill in what multiclassing should be or was in older editions. If you want a fighter or rogue with some spellcasting- there is something for you. Same with pretty much any other combination you want. Most every time I have seen MCing is for the power of a level or two dip and not really for any concept.

We did have one rogue in a campaign that nearly died and was brought back by a village healer. He stopped advancing in rogue and became a cleric for the rest of the campaign. It was an epiphany of his life and he repented part of roleplay. Part of the reason was that the party did not have a healer and kept almost dying.

 

[Bae'zel]

I always emphasize choosing a class and subclass that supports their concept before multiclassing. Or looking at other options , to the point of houseruling, as an alternative. Most of the time I’ve found that conversation helps to determine the player’s wants and needs and there’s a compromise somewhere without needing to multiclass.

As a GM I don’t like “dips” or multiclassing purely for mechanical or OP reaons. I have no problem with players saying “no thanks” and leaving a campaign if they insist. All the power to them. There are other groups who love that stuff and that’s fine.

5e PCs feel overpowered as it is, to be honest.

 

[TiQuinn]

I always emphasize choosing a class and subclass that supports their concept before multiclassing. Or looking at other options , to the point of houseruling, as an alternative. Most of the time I’ve found that conversation helps to determine the player’s wants and needs and there’s a compromise somewhere without needing to multiclass.

As a GM I don’t like “dips” or multiclassing purely for mechanical or OP reaons. I have no problem with players saying “no thanks” and leaving a campaign if they insist. All the power to them. There are other groups who love that stuff and that’s fine.

5e PCs feel overpowered as it is, to be honest.

I hate the idea of dipping for builds. I get that it is a thing in the game, but to me it’s just not something I’m into. I much prefer Shadow of the Weird Wizard for this. I really like the way that they break out the different paths.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i'd like to say i don't hate the idea of multiclassing in principle but i hate the way it's designed, however if it was implemented in the way i'd like i do wonder if people would still call it multiclassing? something akin to 4e's multiclass feats crossed with subclasses and eldritch invocations/artificer infusions, you take the 'feat' and you get a few standard bits and also to pick from a selection of class feature packages.

 

[Clint_L]

I do think it's a testament to 5e's design balance that multi-classing works as well as it does - mixing and matching with other classes could be fraught with balance issues, but it's not, particularly.

 

[Zardnaar]

I always emphasize choosing a class and subclass that supports their concept before multiclassing. Or looking at other options , to the point of houseruling, as an alternative. Most of the time I’ve found that conversation helps to determine the player’s wants and needs and there’s a compromise somewhere without needing to multiclass.

As a GM I don’t like “dips” or multiclassing purely for mechanical or OP reaons. I have no problem with players saying “no thanks” and leaving a campaign if they insist. All the power to them. There are other groups who love that stuff and that’s fine.

5e PCs feel overpowered as it is, to be honest.

What about sideways MCing? You're not doing it for power as such.
Eg ranger 6.5. You NC out at level 6 because it kinda sucks.

You probably easily qualify for druid, cleric and rogue. Its not really helping you deal more damage for example. Well rogue might but yeah.

 

[ECMO3]

A 1-level Fighter dip is excellent for anyone aiming for a caster-martial mixed character: Bladesinger Wizard, Pact of the Blade Warlock, etc.--doubly so in 5.5e, where it gives you both a style feat and weapon masteries, on top of the Con save proficiency it already gave.

On a one-level dip I think you are better with a Ranger or Paladin so you get a caster level. On a Wizard, Sorcerer or Bard you stay on track for spell progression. On a Warlock it gives you a couple 1st level spell slots so keeping Hex is a lot more palatable. The Paladin also gives you access to Divine Smite and Wrathful Smite, both of which are awesome on any Gish. If you are doing more than 1 level it is a different story.

I don't put much value in the Constitution proficiency when Warlocks and Wizards get Wisdom. I think Wisdom is a better save even for a caster. Failing a Concentration save might cost you a spell slot, making you recast it again. Failing a Wisdom save usually costs you the spell and seriously disables you to boot.

Several caster classes, like Sorcerer, Bard, and Warlock, get so little out of their capstone ability that sacrificing just a level or two for some other benefit--especially if it's a class that still advances your spell slots--can be quite worthwhile.

I think too many people put way to much value on the captstone. You have the capstone for 1 level out of 20 levels. Even if the capstone is awesome, 95% of the campaign you will be playing without it, so for me I don't care how great the capstone is, if I am doing a 1-20 campaign I am looking for what is the most fun in the campaign from begining to end, not what is most fun for one session.

Good example, I was curious (back in 5.0) whether it was possible to get all the skills on a single character, without it sucking as a result. A Rogue/Cleric/Bard MC was quite effective for that purpose--still a solid character, but truly a master of all skills, and back in 5.0 Cleric got its Domain effects from a single level.

Don't overlook Fighter and Tactical Mind for a skill-focused PC.

 

[ECMO3]

If I had one thing I would change about multiclassing it is doing away with the ability minimums. If I want my 8 Strength Rogue to grab a couple Barbarian levels or Paladin levels that should be an option.

The whole ability minimum thing really gets in the way a lot.

After playing BG3 I realized how much cooler it is just to be able to take a different class without worrying about any of that.

 

[Umbran]

...does anyone have any good reason on why you should multiclass?

Because character backstory or character development calls for it, darned whatever the mechanics say.

A little while ago, I played a wizard character, who had a background as a former bandit, and whose life through his first level really didn't involve a whole lot of magic use. I also had had some problems choosing a subclass - the ones that fit his personality weren't going to be terribly useful. So I decided to punt, take a dip into rogue, and slide him into Bladesinger.

I'd initially envisioned him as an academic who had to do a few questionable things. By third level he was an academic who had been forced away from his vocation by circumstance, and was very salty about it.

 

[Clint_L]

If I had one thing I would change about multiclassing it is doing away with the ability minimums. If I want my 8 Strength Rogue to grab a couple Barbarian levels or Paladin levels that should be an option.

The whole ability minimum thing really gets in the way a lot.

After playing BG3 I realized how much cooler it is just to be able to take a different class without worrying about any of that.

I don't enforce that rule - if players wanna multiclass, they can.