D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[Kobold Stew]

Figured I would see people complaining about no middle option. ... There's a primary reason about why you were -first- driven to that particular choice to multiclass.

That is RP. Clearly.

The thing is, it's not clear at all. Every table is different, and not everyone cares to min/max. Similarly, not everyone thinks only of their character -- they might still be metagaming (I want to cast a spell; I want to have a stronger ranged attack; we need some more healing options to survive) and have nothing to do with the personality of the character, or optimization.

The excluded middle for why I would be driven primarily to multi class is "Because you think it would add to your fun in your game."

Player fun. That's why I would consider multiclassing.

 

[Blue]

Not the fondest of the poll options. Where is "To realize the character I envision"?

That is RP. Clearly.

So the example from my daughter of "Able to heal, agile like Spiderman, and can talk to animals" is RP?

Not for nothing, but sometimes I'm envisioning a character for mechanical reasons as well. When converting over an existing campaign I was running a 4e runepriest, who is primarily a buffer / damage mitigation with some healing. Hard to do in 5e as a pure spellcaster due to concentration. We were talking about reskinning a bard "divine" with some levels of cleric.

Eh, multiclassing is a tool that I use to help make characters both RP and mechanically. It's not a required tool, the base classes are good. But it is a mighty tool for when it's needed. To continue the tool analogy it's a lathe - not needed for every project by a long shot, but the perfect thing for the projects that do need it.

 

[seebs]

Figured I would see people complaining about no middle option. I'd have worded the question something like... "what -primarily- drives you to multiclass?" . With roleplaying taking precedent over mechanics if you MUST choose a both answer. Let's be real here, there's a specific reason you are taking that new class and this being a subjective medium that D&D is, it's going to be either for the benefits of mechanics or the roleplaying aspect. Can't quantify a 50/50 answer with subjective thoughts about a DM style /Campaign/ what classes and races are allows/ what the tone of the campaign is, etc etc. I'd be literally an impossible task to give a 50-50 both answer. There's a primary reason about why you were -first- driven to that particular choice to multiclass.

But "this is the concept I have in mind" is neither "roleplaying" nor "mechanical benefits".

 

[pming]

Hiya!

In my game, I've never had a player MC his character since we started playing about a year ago. Actually, I've never had a player even consider a MC character for more than about 3 seconds...and that was only recently, one time.

The problem my group and I have with MC'ing since 3.x days is that you are "never multi-class". You are a guy with two classes (or three, or whatever). You aren't a Fighter/Magic-User...you are a Fighter and a Magic-User. You aren't a Cleric/Thief...you are a Cleric and a Thief. It's hard to really explain what I mean.

In 1e, you could be a Fighter/MU/Cleric...you'd be 1/1/1. As you gained XP, you generally divided that XP evenly, but it didnt' have to be. If the DM felt you did nothing but Fight, only casting Cure Light Wounds once (no other cleric spell, no turning undead, no MU spells or magic item use, etc), the DM generally made you put more into Fighter (so if you got 500xp he might make you put 400xp into Fighter, 75xp into Cleric and 25xp into MU).

In 5e, the very first time you play your character...you are ONE CLASS. Period. Even if you 'want' to play a Fighter/Wizard. Your characters background story and all that will have ZERO effect on your actual capabilities as far as Wizard goes. You can't really have a bg that has your characters father as an accomplished warrior who taught you the dance of steel every other day, and have a mother Magic User who always dragged you away from your work out to teach you the ways of magic...both parents vying for your affection and time. When the DM says "You are all in a bar...", and you all introduce yourselves, you are stuck with "I'm a Fighter". You can't say "I'm a F/MU", because you aren't. As you gain XP, eventually you will hit 'next level'. At that point you have to decide which class you want to advance in. This gives the feeling that all the fighting or all the casting you had done for the last half-dozen sessions is useless; you didn't learn a dang thing in that class. So...you were really "never a Fighter" if you advance as a MU, and you were never "really a MU" if you advance as a Fighter. If you did/were...surely you would have learned something, right? Nope. One or the other.

This disconnect between character, actions/rp, and mechanics has pretty much made the 3.x/PF/4e and now 5e "multiclassing" a bust for us. In the immortal words of Mr.Horse..."Hmmm....hmmm...uh huh....hmmm..... Nope. No sir! I don't like it!".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Neither of the reasons listed.

First, I'd rather play a generalist than a specialist. I have more fun with B+ abilities in all situations than with A abilities in one situation and D in the rest.

Second, having all of those abilities gives flexibility. Frex, with a fighter/mage I might be able to fly over enemies to get at the BBEG and engage him in melee combat so he can't cast. Neither a fighter nor a mage by themselves could accomplish this.

 

[Fralex]

In the playtest, I had this one multiclass concept I wanted to try out that I was really proud of. If you multiclassed between rogue (assassin) and monk (way of the open hand), it was like you were a NINJA! So cool.

Then the official version of the game came out, with the Way of Shadow. I still MIGHT consider doing shadow/assassin, but for the most part it seems every character concept I have could be achieved in less-expertise-spreading ways, through feats and backgrounds and all that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 1e, you could be a Fighter/MU/Cleric...you'd be 1/1/1.

In 5e, the very first time you play your character...you are ONE CLASS.

Unless you start at 3rd, then you can be your F/C/Mu or F/Mu/T, or and everyone starts with their sub-class, like EK or Bladesinger or whatever...

 

[crashtestdummy]

Because I'm currently only an intermittent player with my group, I have a bard character who is there in a support role. I'm considering multi-classing into cleric to improve his support ability by increasing (significantly) the number of cantrips he has available to him, as well as the range of spells available. However, as far as the poll question is concerned, I can't tell if the multiclassing is for mechanical (to get more support spells, plus medium armour) or roleplaying (to have more support spells and to make it easier for me to rush in to help people) reasons? If I do it, I'd say it's for both reasons...

An aside, to the poster earlier in the thread who suggested taking the Skilled feat twice to create someone proficient in all skills, that's not allowed. With a few documented rare exceptions, you can only take a feat once. That's why those builds include Warlock: to pick up some more skill proficiencies.

 

[Arial Black]

I multiclass because I....want to.

Why do I want to? Well, partly so I get the abilities that I think would make a cool and competent character, and partly so that the cool character has the abilities I imagine he has.

They affect each other. I might choose a particular combo I'd like to try, but then I need a cool character who would actually have those abilities, so I need a concept.

Then, when I've chosen the concept, I start to make mechanical choices that make sense for that concept, whether those are 'optimal' choices or not.

Round and round, back and forth, the crunch informs the fluff and then the fluff informs the crunch, and round and round again until I'm finally happy with both fluff and crunch.

I couldn't vote for just one or the other.

(BTW, sometimes I start with a concept and then tackle the crunch)

As an aside, there are classes and feats and rules and such that I like, and stuff that I don't. For example, I hate playing wizards and would choose a sorcerer or warlock or bard instead, every time. But I wouldn't dream of saying (when I DM), 'I don't like wizards, therefore no-one else is allowed to play wizards'! Each to his own.

I love multiclassing, and I know other people don't, and it's okay that different people like different things. Yet I read that there is an attitude that says, 'I don't like multiclassing, therefore when I DM no-one is allowed to multiclass'!

What's going on?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I love multiclassing, and I know other people don't, and it's okay that different people like different things. Yet I read that there is an attitude that says, 'I don't like multiclassing, therefore when I DM no-one is allowed to multiclass'!
What's going on?

What's going on? Pretty much the same thing as you choosing to MC because you want to. You do it because it's fun for you. A DM saying no to MC'ing is doing it because he/she will enjoy DM'ing more without having to "worry" about MC'ing. Kinda like feats. I don't allow MC'ing or Feats in my 5e game. What's going on? I don't like them. Lucky for me, neither do my players, but that's beside the point. Even if they did like them, I'd still disallow them. They just make the game "worse" for me.

But, as you said, different people like different things. My attitude is "I don't like MCing, so no MC'ing in my campaign". Simple.

^_^

Paul L. Ming