I suppose it's closer to 'RP reasons,' but I'd want to say for a "build to concept." 'RP reasons' to me suggests something in game, like a character having an epiphany or religious conversion or other life-changing event and choosing to change classes at that point, or joining an organization and taking levels in a PrC it offers.
MC for build to concept means you have a character idea that the existing classes can't model, but a combination of them comes closer.
This! I thought it, but couldn't put it into words. Just like how I simultaneously employ charop drives (
I want to be good at what I do), "gamist" drives (
I want to do something that will entertain me and others), and narrative drives (
I want to do things that make sense), and cannot cite any of them as being categorically superior or inferior to any other.
That's why I didn't vote. None of the options actually reflects my stance on multiclassing.
For those interested in a deeper breakdown of what I mean by these things...have a substantial digression!
[sblock=Substantial Digression]"Concept" embraces numerical, procedural (or "gamist" as I said above), and thematic elements simultaneously. If a concept is so numerically unsound as to be (nearly) impossible to execute, it won't be a fulfilling character, so I won't do it. If the procedures associated with a concept are outside a certain comfort/Goldilocks zone (e.g. the 13A Paladin is
too little mechanical engagement, while the 3.5e Druid is arguably
too much), it won't be a fulfilling character, so I won't do it. And if the thematic elements of a concept don't excite me at all, it
really won't be a fulfilling character, so I won't do it.
All three things need to be present for me to "really" have fun. An insufficiently-effective concept will frustrate me by failing too much. If the concept doesn't (mechanically) engage me enough, I will get bored and my mind will drift; if it (mechanically) engages me too much, I'll feel lost, like I'm floundering. An insufficiently (or inappropriately) themed option will fail to get me invested in the first place.
As an example, my Dungeon World game. I love(d) it--I have a great group, the story is great, and the looseness of the system means we can do what we want with it (to a far, far greater degree than any version of D&D, 5e included). My character, a Paladin, is pretty darn effective at his job: keeping the other characters alive (I'm the group's primary/only healer, apart from health potions), keeping them from doing stupid things, and absorbing the tough hits so my allies don't have to. "Optimizing" in DW is...a pretty minimal thing, all told. And thematically, I couldn't possibly be happier with my character, he's everything I've wanted out of the experience of playing a Paladin. He stumbles at times, and has been on the receiving end of his god's...not "displeasure" per se but perhaps "disappointment" and has made his amends--but for all that, he is a strong, meaningful moral example to others (especially his cohorts) and his good deeds have actually mattered for the world, his willingness to listen and forgive has genuinely changed things.
But in mechanical/gamist terms, Dungeon World is a pretty serious disappointment for me. I need barely pay the tiniest fraction of my attention to most fights; only the most seriously epic-awesome conflicts actually require me to focus. Position is naturally handwaved in DW, and only the Wizard (and kinda-sorta the Cleric) gets any amount of "mechanical levers and dials" to interact with. On my turn, it's pretty much a flowchart (with movement usually being freely allowed):
If I'm currently in a bad spot or at risk of one, act to get out of it ASAP. Roll the relevant move (usually
Defy Danger).
If I'm not, but one of my allies is, act to get
them out of it ASAP. Roll the relevant move (usually
Defend).
If nobody is, but someone has low health, heal them (roll
Lay on Hands, or
Cast a Spell e.g. Cure X Wounds).
If party health is okay, attack the nearest enemy (usually
Hack and Slash, since my Pally is melee).
And...that's it. Hampering actions are generally not worth the time (particularly now that the Fighter
and Rogue are crazy killing machines), terrain and repositioning are either absent or part of the natural negotiation process of declaring an action, and the Cleric spell list--while good for healing and non-combat "skill" stuff--does little to expand the DW Paladin's level of mechanical engagement (especially since DW spells are relatively easy to 'lose' until you
Make Camp for the day). The only way to make things engaging...is to step out of the "combat" paradigm entirely, in anything but a really major set-piece. Which I find terribly disappointing, as that means a good 20-30% of the game fails to engage me, when the remaining 70-80% is brilliant.
My DM and I have talked about this of course, and we hashed out a custom Compendium Class (the DW equivalent of a PrC) which would almost certainly be brokenly OP
in general, but is both flavorful and appropriate for our campaign. This has helped, but only a little. Dungeon World just eschews mechanical engagement too much, I suspect. So while this is probably my favorite campaign I've ever played in, it's still a little bit of a disappointment because I consistently note the absence of that one component.[/sblock]
