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

[toucanbuzz]

I traditionally ban multiclassing as I feel it's usually abused for cheese, to dip purely for a mechanical advantage and not roleplay, but I'm easing up with my current group. One person is availing himself of it and has a solid roleplay reason that fits.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve had the occasional multiclass character in my games, but it’s vanishingly rare.

 

[Don Durito]

I think there's very little issues with multiclassing if you just ban Warlocks.

 

[Iry]

Multiclassing usually gives a little more power and utility in the early levels, but tends to result in a loss of power over a longer campaign. So it's usually not a great idea unless you really want that utility (and some people do) or have very specific features you want to combine (Smite + Pact Magic, etc).

That said, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. We can make a good story out of it either way.

 

[atanakar]

No multi-classing and no feats my campaign. No one objected. They were playing "mathfinder" before meeting me and have had their fill with these two aspects of d20.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've found that with groups that actually play every level, rather than start at a higher level, multiclassing drops a lot.

I suspect it's because there is always something good coming up in the next level that you don't want to delay/be behind the other players. For example, getting an ASI is pretty impactful. And what fighter wants to stay at one attack per round when the others now get 2 at level 5? So they put off multiclassing.

But start at level X? Much easier to do a multiclassed build since you don't have to actually experience those delays

 

[Don Durito]

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.

Need to make it so that if the player starts talking about multiclassing a devil appears right in front of them in a puff of smoke and says to the character "Sure. Just sign here on the dotted line".

 

[Don Durito]

My experience is that multiclassing tends to become really tempting to players around about level 6 or so. At that point a lot of classes start falling into a bit of a dead zone, where they don't really get all that much to hold on for and the temptation to pick up something now becomes stronger.

It doesn't even have to be optimal. Taking a level of Rogue in order to basically just get expertise and help reinforce a character concept is something I've seen a few times.

But it doesn't help that Warlock is often both mechanically appealing and a way to help add some character development.

 

[tommybahama]

If it's done in a way that makes sense with the story then I'm okay with it. I multi
classed my battle master with cleric because our cleric and paladin are absent a lot of the time. But it also made sense narratively and my DM made me work for it with a mini quest to obtain my holy symbol.

 

[Oofta]

I couldn't care less if people mult class. Their character is their responsibility.

I ban certain warlock patrons for thematic reasons, and I've considered banning the class, but that's different.