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

[Dausuul]

I actively dislike multiclass in 5e. I was initially going to ban it in my current campaign but one of my players wanted it so bad.

It's often used by people who focus more on character build than character concept. People who view building a character aa akin to building a deck in magic the gathering lookingfor optimized synergies.

I prefer when characters are defined more by their personality and choices than by the efficiency of their mechanics.

If you have a neat concept that isn't well represented by an existing class/subclass I would prefer to just homebrew something than use a multiclass kludge.

I pretty much agree--even though I myself tend toward optimized builds.

The problem with 5E multiclassing is that the resulting characters are horribly underpowered unless you optimize carefully or luck into a strong combo (which basically means "warlock + other Cha-based class"). If you're creating a concept which calls for a mix of class abilities, multiclassing is almost always the wrong way to go about it.

If I were in charge, multiclassing would work like 4E hybrid classes, where each class has a half-powered "multiclass" version, and you pick two and stick them together. If you just want to dabble in another class, that should be handled through feats.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I ban it (basically the only thing I ban). D&D is a class based game, characters are supposed to have holes. Plus its almost always just wanting a Warlock 2 level dip (or hexblade 1). I disliked it in earlier editions (1st/2nd) as well, as it was basically trading at most 1 levels for 2 classes worth of power, making humans even more pointless.

I did like 4th's multiclassing via feats, so am open to some house ruled feats. I do give out a free feat to everyone at 1st level, which helps realize gish concepts.

 

[Horwath]

I love the idea of multiclassing, but hate the execution of it in 3.5/5E.

My best version would be dualclassing with even split levels.

But even split MC in 5e is greatly underpowered.

having 6/6 character vs 12th level single class is not even a joke.

If MC characters got "extra" levels at certain character levels, then dual-classing might work.

I.E. if 5th level MC character would be 3/3 vs 5th level single class, that might be a good power depth vs. width.

then every 3 levels after you get 2 levels instead of one. You still get only one set of HPs and HDs.

I.E. 8th level character would have 2 extra levels(at levels 5 and 8) for a 5/5 MC split.

And if we have fighter/wizard 5/5, character would get at 5th level wizards HPs(4+con) and fighters HD(d10) and at 8th level fighters HPs(6+con) and wizards HD(d6), so character would have 4 d10s and 4 d6s HDs to heal.

this would continue until character is 20th level with 13/13 split, but still counted as 20th level character.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't bother with multiclassing because I don't give much of a fig of any game mechanical functions. My character's identity and story and background are all narratively based, and I'll represent it in-game with whatever might make sense based on class and subclass fluff (plus taking into account what other players are playing so as to keep a good class spread.) But I never care about specific game mechanics and thus don't ever feel the need to multiclass or level dip.

So for instance, if I'm envisioning my character as a holy warrior... I'd b perfectly fine representing it mechanically as a Paladin, or as a Cleric of the War domain, or even a Fighter or Bard with the Acolyte background. Any of those would be a-okay, and the choice would probably come down to what the group needs after everyone else made their selections. But I wouldn't expect to ever multiclass Fighter/Cleric because I don't see the point. It's just additional complexity for little to no gain.

 

[Dausuul]

I suppose, but you could also be like "hey can I become a Divine Sorcerer instead"? Organically changing your class into one you're bad at is not something a game can fix for you...well, unless it has retraining rules built in.

The game could fix it by not having ability scores influence your class abilities (including attacks and defenses for martial classes) in the first place. But that's probably out of scope for any iteration of D&D.

 

[collin]

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 like how you roll.

 

[Retreater]

What is the saying? "Everyone's second favorite edition?"

Exactly. Few can agree on a favorite, but 5e is sort of a Rosetta Stone for D&D.
The only group I know who won't play it is my friend's group who mostly came to RPGs with PF1e, and think "all RPGs must be this complex and I don't want to try anything different" all while still struggling with the complexity of PF1 after nearly a decade of play.

 

[jgsugden]

I build story with my character. This is easier when the DM supports me by weaving the story into the campaign, but even in a dungeon delve with little to no cohesive story from the DM, I still do it on my own because I enjoy it - and I usually look at the class levels as a way to manifest that story.

However, I also look at the classes mechanically and look for interesting ways to combine class abilities with heritage abilities, other class abilities, etc... I then let that inspire an intent for a storyline for the PC, but in truth it is driven by a desire to get a chance to use that mechanical combo in play.

 

[Cadence]

I think I would like a single class system that had tons of flexibility (like PF with all the classes, archetypes, and feats, etc...).

The one level-dips for optimizing annoy me.

And I really hate that we have this thing where every class gains the amazing power to make up for years of missed training just by leveling. (The fighter who never picked up a book becomes a wizard, or the wizard who never did anything athletic becomes a fighter, or etc...)

 

[Stormonu]

I can deal with the system delaying the maturation of a character concept to 3rd level, allowing 1st and 2nd level to be “feeling out” or concept growth for a character. Unless players are new, I generally start at 3rd level.

What bothers me about multiclassing is needing it to make a concept work - background, class, subclass and no more than a feat should, in theory, make it work, and kick in by around 3rd level (maybe not a great power level, but you should be “on track”). I endorse homebrew additions in that regard, if needed. In contrast, I generally find multiclassing tends to make your skill base broader, but shallower - and most multiclassers end up gimping themselves in the long run.

Of course, the one-level dip for optimizing annoys the heck out of me.

As for the “suddenly, I’m a wizard too”, that’s not much of problem for me, as I can assume that the desire/knowledge/practice has been happening in downtime that hasn’t been referenced in the game until it now became important. I mean, I don’t normally roleplay out the fighter doing his nightly practice or the cleric doing evening prayers and reading sacred texts for those that began their careers in that class - but I can assume that they are doing such things during the times between adventures.