D&D 5E To MC or not MC? That is the question!

[DND_Reborn]

In a few months or so I might be running my game and I am thinking about not allowing multiclassing at all. It got me curious about how other tables run it or not.

If you have a special method, such as multipathing or using subclasses for multiclassing, please share and thanks!

 

[Eyes of Nine]

In games I run, most of the players are NOT experienced D&D players. However in my game with many very experienced 4e/5e players, multi-classing is a way of life - except for me. I prefer to play straight class; but that's because I don't usually care to think about my character much outside of the actual session.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't know about everyone else, but our players will gnash their teeth, dig in their heels, and fight to the death over the ability--nay, the right-- to use the Multiclassing Rules. And then they will never use them.

Seriously, in all three of my gaming groups--with 5 to 7 players in each--we have only one multiclassed character. And it's mine.

Are we the only ones?

 

[Stoutstien]

I allow players to multiclass but few ever do. Some multi-class options have the potential to be out of line but those can be addressed pretty easily.

 

[BMaC]

No multiclassing for our groups. Use the immersive backgrounds, feats, and subclasses.

 

[Salthorae]

Fully allow it and Feats.

Usually people actually DON'T multiclass, but there are no restrictions on it other than the stat requirements in the PHB.

 

[Prakriti]

I hate a-la-cart multiclassing ("I'll take a little fighter here... a little rogue there... mm... a little more fighter, I guess... and maybe a little bard on the side"). I hate it especially because it tempts people away from their character concept for the sake of optimization. They start out as a pure-class Warlock, but then they see that they'd get a nice little DPR upgrade if they took a few levels of Sorcerer, and suddenly they're considering compromising their character's principles just for a little more DPR. Awful, awful, awful.

Multiclassing worked so much better in AD&D. If you were a Fighter/Mage, you were a Fighter/Mage for life, starting at level 1. I wish they'd go back to that system.

 

[cbwjm]

I have a player running an artificer who is considering picking up a single level of wizard for some additional spell utility. The others haven't brought it up but then they seem to be enjoying their characters as is.

 

[Salthorae]

Multiclassing worked so much better in AD&D. If you were a Fighter/Mage, you were a Fighter/Mage for life, starting at level 1. I wish they'd go back to that system.

Multiclassing for Demi-humans in AD&D worked so much better from an optimization standpoint. Not necessarily a narrative one. And it didn't work for humans.

I like the modern version of it because it allows my character to grow and explore things in the fiction of the world and have it meaningfully represented on the sheet.

I'm playing a Fighter (EK) in a game right now. I never planned on multiclassing into warlock, but in our game, we've traveled to the fey courts, and my character has been noticed and contacted by the Raven Queen, or maybe her agents. If I decide to pursue those threads, I can very easily see multiclassing into Warlock because of the story.

Certainly, I couldn't have done that in AD&D without DM fiat or something.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I find that in most games I'm in, about one player (out of roughly four) will multiclass. Usually for a specific ability rather than purely story reasons, though.