D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[Rod Duarte]

I'm planning my next character to be a Bladesinger.

With this, I want to wear light armor, and use a weapon that the Wizard doesn't have proficiency with, and it'd be more than needed, to have proficiency on a save other than INT, if I'm getting up close in battles.
So, I'm planning to get 2 levels in fighter first, and then going Wizard. 2 levels because Action Surge.

 

[pming]

**SNIP**

I only have one comment: No comment.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Arial Black]

In previous editions of the game, MCing wasn't an 'optional rule', at least it was no more optional than any other. Even feats (when they appeared) weren't 'optional'.

I think that 5E was designed with both feats and MCing as part of the normal rules, but were made 'optional' at the last minute as a way to make it simpler for newbies to get into D&D, rather than publishing a separate starter set of rules like Pathfinder did.

I think that you can ignore those rules if you have new (or young) players, but they are like training wheels; as soon as your players know what they're doing, take the stabilisers off and let them use those rules.

For those of us who already know what they're doing, there's no need to ban these rules at all.

You may have an issue with a particular feat, but don't ban all feats! Just ban the feat you think is a problem. Same with classes, spells, or magic items.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

My first post here.......
As mentioned in the now long defunct WoTC forums, my primary reason for MCing is the lack of specific class i prefer playing. In 5E my current character is based on the 2E Justifer Ranger kit (and partially on the 1E), but such class can't be played with the current Ranger that is far too much spell based and not enough martial based. So i decided to start with an Outlander Fighter Battle Master and work my way up to a martial - sort of wilderness based - special ops - guerrilla guy. I am currently at only lvl 3 (just got the maneuvers), but i plan to 6 levels like this and then 4 in Ranger - Hunter (either colossus slayer or horde breaker) and then see how to proceed from there.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Welcome to the boards!

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

My first post here.......
As mentioned in the now long defunct WoTC forums, my primary reason for MCing is the lack of specific class i prefer playing. In 5E my current character is based on the 2E Justifer Ranger kit (and partially on the 1E), but such class can't be played with the current Ranger that is far too much spell based and not enough martial based. So i decided to start with an Outlander Fighter Battle Master and work my way up to a martial - sort of wilderness based - special ops - guerrilla guy. I am currently at only lvl 3 (just got the maneuvers), but i plan to 6 levels like this and then 4 in Ranger - Hunter (either colossus slayer or horde breaker) and then see how to proceed from there.

Now, this is very ingenious. I had never considered the possibility of leveling as a fighter from 1 to 6 before moving to ranger in order to create a character who feels (and plays) like a 2E ranger. Have your XP, sir.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Now, this is very ingenious. I had never considered the possibility of leveling as a fighter from 1 to 6 before moving to ranger in order to create a character who feels (and plays) like a 2E ranger. Have your XP, sir.

Thanks! To be honest, at first i tried to experiment and create my own class (ditching most of the spell casting and the highest tier features of both classes, and intermingling the features i felt would belong to this class at different levels), but my DM is not much of an experimental guy, so we decided to go "by the book". BTW, i'm a great fan of 2E and 1E, despite the fact i've never had the chance to play them. Over the years i've acquired some of the materials but never enough for an actual campaign. Not that i would have the players willing to participate, anyway

Welcome to the boards!

Many thanks! It feels good to be in the company of like minded individuals that share my passion of RPGs.

 

[Kithas]

That sounds pretty nice. Honestly I've never thought a full ranger was the best at being an archer. Fighters, rogues and even bards can do some crazy things.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Me too. I always interpreted Ranger not as a ranged attacker, but more like the guy who is "ranging", that being patrolling or crossing vast distances. This would more equate him/her as a member of either a border force/police/militia or an elite military unit specialized in guerrilla warfare. Over the years DnD has given us several different ways to go about this, especially with the 2E kits, but for my own flavor in this case i went with the "justifier". Here is the description of the class in the book:

"Some expeditions are so demanding and some foes so dangerous that they require the attention of highly trained specialist whose combat skills far exceed those of the typical ranger. Enter the justifier a master tactician whose military instincts, fighting versitality and steely nerves place him in the first rank of elite warriors...... He may organize guerrilla forces and lead them into hostile territories, he may stage reconnaissance operations to gather information on enemy strength and logistics, he may execute strikes against monster lairs, rescue hostages or eliminate tribal leaders or spell casters "

 

[Caffe Nightcap]

Just out of curiosity...to those who keep talking about "backstory" or 5 to 10 years of experience needed for the first class or explaining how a fighter can suddenly learn how to heal... How are you ok with a Wizard, who learns their spells by intense study, gaining a level in a dungeon and suddenly knowing two more spells into her spellbook that she never had before? ...or a Druid, leveling up and suddenly knowing how to wildshape? ...or a Bard, leveling up and going to college, all while in a dungeon?

I'm a role player, first and foremost. Rarely is any character I play optimized in a way that would make a min-maxer or munchkin player happy. Usually there is a synergy of abilities, and always a flavor or theme, but never at the expense of a backstory. So I understand the willingness to only extend a sense of disbelief so far...however, unless we are truly willing to run a game "hard core" where leveling only happens in a believable way (after the adventure is over, with some kind of training or study or epiphany involved), then we should realize that we have to help suspend our disbelief anyways.

The thing I think that is important, is that backstory shouldn't be more important than evolving story. Sure, a backstory might not contain an explanation for something...but why is a characters now and future bound completely by his past? Shaped by? Yes...but maybe adopting the outlook of requiring the player to present it into the current story...require the player to interact with and involve themselves in the game world in a way that makes their character change. Believe it or not, that is what many players want. They don't want a GM to read their back story and make them play it as their future. They want a GM who will provide them interactions in the game world that allow them to tell a story with their character...influenced by, not bound by, their backstory.

Whether that is multiclassing, or even just in the changes in skills within a single class...there really often isn't enough of a difference to build walls around. Sure...if someone wants to play a Paladin/Assassin, then slap them silly...then mock them until they feel embarrassed for wasting your time. But if someone wants their Sorcerer to multiclass into a Sorcerer/Cleric, is it any harder to believe that they had an epiphany, did some soul searching, and had their prayers answered by Mystra? Is that really any harder to reconcile logically compared to a Sorcerer all of a sudden knowing how to Twin a spell? ...or all of a sudden know two more spells because they killed 10 orcs?