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

[Mind of tempest]

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]

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.

 

[abirdcall]

I don't play with the multiclassing rules.

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

 

[Medic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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…

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.)