D&D 5E Why do you like single or multi classing

I have had successful single and multiclass characters. That is to say they survived and contributed and also did not bore me.

As time goes by, I find myself drawn more to single classed characters. It could be a Tasha’s effect or something else but I find I can make most concepts/approaches work with a single class and feats.

I like getting to feats or ASIs faster and feel less cluttered going single classed.

Just curious about others and their preferences for single or multiclassing. Why do you like one approach over the other?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DND_Reborn

Legend
Just curious about others and their preferences for single or multiclassing. Why do you like one approach over the other?
I prefer multiclassing because I find a single class rarely fulfills my vision of the character.

Often, I will only take a few levels of a class and then move on. While this lacks the depth of single class characters, I find the wider variety of options I get from multiclassing appeals more to me.

Concerning Tasha's: I don't like all the feats that step on the toes of the features key to classes (e.g. metamagic, eldritch invocations, fighting styles, etc.). Soon, I expect feats that allow sneak attacking, raging, smiting, ki strikes, and every thing else that makes classes unique. 🤷‍♂️

Finally, we have always done feats by character levels, not class levels, so multiclassing does not slow down gaining feats at our table.
 

I almost always multiclass because I like having characters who can A) participate meaningfully in almost everything the group does, B) make full use in combat of action, bonus action, and ideally reaction as often as possible, and C) feel somewhat unique. While I think this is all probably possible with some sort of single classed build of every class, it is much easier to achieve with a dip in something else.

Multiclassing also does a lot more to satisfy my theorycrafting urges.

I'd probably be more single-class oriented if feats were a larger part of the game, but if you actually want strong stats they are too few and far between in 5e to satisfy me. I've only played one character who had more than one of them and that required him both being a Fighter, and hence getting an extra ASI, and being bitten by a Werebear, and hence getting his Strength upgraded to 19 for free.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I have mixed feelings about multiclassing. I do like having the ability to combine features from different classes, and a one-level dip into a class is one of the most efficient ways to pick up a proficiency you really want, plus a bunch of extra benefits. But I also feel like multiclassed characters often don’t have a cohesive story tied to the mechanics, and I don’t care for that. I enjoy multiclassing when the player and the DM work together to come up with a narrative for the character’s particular blend of abilities, or in campaigns where you have to train with someone of another class to start gaining levels in it. But I don’t like it when you can just pick up a level of whatever on a whim with no narrative justification.
 

payn

Legend
I'm a 3E/PF1 guy, so naturally I love multi-classing. It's a little more manageable in 5E though. I dont get too bogged down in the details of why a multiclass character came about narratively. I view leveling pretty much under the hood. So, putting together a unique blend of abilities allows me to build my own class. I like systems that tie in the background to make it feel a little more organic, but often find these features to be wanting. I think bounded accuracy helps make more sense of the setting in general, so 5E likely does multiclassing better in this approach of D&D than previous editions.

I'm not opposed to single classing either. Whatever seems to fit my imagination for the campaign is what I go with. I do vastly prefer systems that allow a full range of multiclass choice. So, systems like 4E and PF2, are kind of a bummer for me in the multiclassing department. YMMV
 

I do both fairly regularly. I like gish concepts, which are hard to pull off without multiclassing (except for paladins and hexblades, but those come with a lot of rp baggage I don't always want).

When I play non-gish concepts, I rarely multiclass.
 

I'm a 3E/PF1 guy, so naturally I love multi-classing. It's a little more manageable in 5E though. I dont get too bogged down in the details of why a multiclass character came about narratively. I view leveling pretty much under the hood. So, putting together a unique blend of abilities allows me to build my own class. I like systems that tie in the background to make it feel a little more organic, but often find these features to be wanting. I think bounded accuracy helps make more sense of the setting in general, so 5E likely does multiclassing better in this approach of D&D than previous editions.

I'm not opposed to single classing either. Whatever seems to fit my imagination for the campaign is what I go with. I do vastly prefer systems that allow a full range of multiclass choice. So, systems like 4E and PF2, are kind of a bummer for me in the multiclassing department. YMMV
I think it is limiting when we are not allowed to make a unified whole. For example, I don’t think of a sorcerer warlock has to be two professions. I see them as practitioners of magic drawing on many sources like they do in fiction.

I like to think of multiclass characters as a unified whole in a narrative sense—-unlike others the dual classing (not multiclassing) of 1e.

I had a cleric warlock that had been a mercenary captain. Long story short I took cleric with heavy armor at one—-channeling the ideals of the seven heavens. I assumed he was already in touch with the fallen angel who was trying to redeem himself when at level 2 celestial patron warlock levels started.

I just assumed he knew the heavy armor and weapons from his mercenary days and the cleric abilities were just his burgeoning celestial pact abilities.

It was actually a cool and effective character. Sadly we moved on at 8th level due to incompatible party goals…
 

In fact we got single class, dipping, and multi split class which is almost inexistent except for sorcerer-paladin-warlock mix.
Tasha feats give enough variety and flavor, and look to me more natural than dipping so I prefer feats over dipping.
As for sorcadin and sorlock I can live without them.
So no MC for me.
 


I prefer to go single class for now. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that I DM most of the games that I play and I don't have much chance to explore the players' side of things.
 

I tend to prefer single classes as I hate getting lost but I might try some multi classes if I ever get the chance to play, which given I am going to uni next academic year might be possible.
 

payn

Legend
In fact we got single class, dipping, and multi split class which is almost inexistent except for sorcerer-paladin-warlock mix.
Tasha feats give enough variety and flavor, and look to me more natural than dipping so I prefer feats over dipping.
As for sorcadin and sorlock I can live without them.
So no MC for me.
I can see feats helping scratch the dipping itch. I love PF1 archetypes. Its like a whole other multiclassing dimension. I also love the concept of prestige classes, though have not liked the execution of them to date.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
I don't play with the multiclassing rules.

I find feats and subclasses do a perfect job of what multiclassing used to do.
 

Medic

Lawful Neutral
Caster - single class.
Martial - multiclass.

Important features tend to be front-loaded in 5th Ed, and proficiency bonus is tied to character level, so exploiting break points provides a way for martials to expand their arsenal.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
In general I don't tend to plan characters. At most I have a rough sketch of what I want to do, but not an strict plan. Which is why I like multiclassing as is. That way I can always shift whenever it makes sense.

Concerning Tasha's: I don't like all the feats that step on the toes of the features key to classes (e.g. metamagic, eldritch invocations, fighting styles, etc.).
I like those feats. Not in principle, but as they are they let you double down on things from your class. I like having metamagic from first level on my sorcerers and it is a nice alternative to Magic Initiate which was always near-mandatory.
 

payn

Legend
Caster - single class.
Martial - multiclass.

Important features tend to be front-loaded in 5th Ed, and proficiency bonus is tied to character level, so exploiting break points provides a way for martials to expand their arsenal.
Through the editions this seems to always be the unwritten rule.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
I like those feats.
People do, especially if they favor not multiclassing.

Not in principle, but as they are they let you double down on things from your class.
Which is fine, as well, of course. My preference is for breadth instead of depth, however, so I like taking feats for things my class doesn't provide. But, just different tastes. :)

I like having metamagic from first level on my sorcerers and it is a nice alternative to Magic Initiate which was always near-mandatory.
Do you allow feats at level 1, or are you just referencing the variant human? We do feats at level 1, so no judgement there LOL!
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
I’m not opposed to doing either - focusing on a single class or multiclassing. But I do tend to go the single class route as a player because when I pick a class at chargen I’m usually looking to do what that class does over the long haul. I’m not usually looking at blended abilities like how an ability from class A interacts with an ability from class B. Though for the next campaign a friend is planning, I might go barbarian/druid to work with raging wildshape combat. That idea does intrigue me…
 

I’m not opposed to doing either - focusing on a single class or multiclassing. But I do tend to go the single class route as a player because when I pick a class at chargen I’m usually looking to do what that class does over the long haul. I’m not usually looking at blended abilities like how an ability from class A interacts with an ability from class B. Though for the next campaign a friend is planning, I might go barbarian/druid to work with raging wildshape combat. That idea does intrigue me…
I am not at all opposed to either. However, my favorite classes are warlock and cleric—-I have found a dip helpful once but often just do moderately armored for warlocks and go for it from there. I simply like cleric and warlock abilities enough I am loathe to delay them.
 

In general, I like single-class characters IFF that single class actually fulfills the concept I'm going for. Sometimes that's a gimme, like with Paladin, where I have little reason to multiclass (and, in general, do not care for the one actually-useful MC, Hexblade Warlock.) Other times, I'm sorely tempted, but will hold off, e.g. I like the idea of Sorcerer MCs, but find it hard to justify them in most cases.

On the other hand, some classes just beg for a little bit of MC. Bard, for example; it has a crappy, crappy capstone. I've got a delightful little build for it, taking one level of Rogue, three levels of Lore Bard, one level of Knowledge Cleric, and then Bard the rest of the way. You get great spells (and only "lose" one level's worth of slots), medium armor, and a TON of skills and Expertise. The one Sneak Attack die is kinda meh, but between Magical Secrets and the generically strong Bard chassis, you get a character that is incredibly versatile without painful sacrifices. And it's not, at all, just a franken-build: I have a story I'm somewhat proud of to explain exactly why this character would take this path and no other, one driven purely by their values, not optimization. (If I were optimizing, I'd be picking up two levels of Warlock, for Hexblade, eldritch blast, and Agonizing Blast.)
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top