D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[FarBeyondC]

Seems unnecessary given that feats, backgrounds, and subclasses all offer great depth to single-class characters.

Because sometimes I want to, regardless of if it's necessary or not?

I can't and don't speak for anyone else, but when I decide to make a character for a given game, it's because I have an idea in my head that I thought would be cool to see realized.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

There is a difference between 'I play what I want' and 'Everyone else plays what I want'.

Lets see how your logic looks when it's wizards you hate instead of multiclassing:-

"What's going on? Pretty much the same thing as you choosing to (play a wizard) because you want to. You do it because it's fun for you. A DM saying no to (wizards) is doing it because he/she will enjoy DM'ing more without having to "worry" about (wizards). Kinda like (shortswords). I don't allow (shortswords) or (wizards) 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 (wizards), so no (wizards) in my campaign". Simple."

So, other people playing wizards is not okay? They don't get to play something if you don't like it? What about shortswords? Just because you have an irrational fear of them because you were bitten by a gladius when you were a kid!

What about food? Lets apply your logic again:-

"What's going on? Pretty much the same thing as you choosing to (eat potatoes) because you want to. You do it because it's fun for you. A DM saying no to (potatoes) is doing it because he/she will enjoy DM'ing more without having to "worry" about (potatoes). Kinda like (tomatoes). I don't allow (potatoes) or (tomatoes) at my table. 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 (potatoes), so no (potatoes) in my campaign". Simple."

I'm a fussy eater, but I don't tell other people what they can and cannot eat based on my preferences.

How would the fact that someone else is eating potatoes spoil my dinner?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ezekiel, normally I wouldn't respond in such a tone unless such a tone was used towards me.

I understand. My experience of your posts doesn't indicate that it's a typical thing. I just wanted to be clear that, in addition to the (arguably justified) anger, there's a good point being made.

I'm a fussy eater, but I don't tell other people what they can and cannot eat based on my preferences.

How would the fact that someone else is eating potatoes spoil my dinner?

Particularly when, in general, it is seen as appropriate etiquette for a host to provide options appropriate to the preferences and interests of those they serve meals to, even though it is (usually) purely the host's effort to create those meals. It's most usually phrased in terms of vegetarians or vegans eating at a non-vegan's home, but it can easily work the other way--or have split issues. For example, having both a vegan friend and a friend trying to use the "Atkins-style" diet (that is, low to no carbs) would almost certainly require extra effort on the part of the host--perhaps even creating food that the host doesn't like and wouldn't make for personal eating.

Though even that doesn't quite cover it, because you're really not making the food, are you? You're making the beverages and choosing the night's film--the food is ordered by the guests from a third party. And you're telling them "nobody can order the salmon, I don't like salmon and don't want it on my dining table." Even though you never need to eat it, and would barely even notice its presence much of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

If you plan out your character many levels before you even get there it's mechanic that drive you. There's absolutely NO way you would know what your character would be subject to. That's an easy one. Your playing mechanically, end of story. If you have all your levels planned out lol. That's almost not worth commenting on lmao. My choices do NOT imply either or, look up primary in the dictionary. It's the first reason you plan on multiplclassing. 50-50 situation is impossible if you know even a modicum on ANY sort of math beyond algebra. Too many variables to even process. It's impossible.

Wrong. Planning does not turn it from RP into mechanic as what drives you. If I have a vision for a character I'd like to play. Say a young Druid from Thay who see magic and is seduced by it and turns away from nature and animals in order conjure up and controls creatures as a powerful wizard, that's a roleplay reason for me to figure out that he should have a level or two of Druid and then plan him out as a Wizard/Conjurer to at least 14th level. It doesn't suddenly stop being RP that drives me simply because I know his path line for many levels.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

There is a difference between 'I play what I want' and 'Everyone else plays what I want'.

The difference is that the Players don't have the same..."role"...in the game as the DM does. The DM is the one in charge of the campaign world. If the DM decides there is no MC'ing or Feats in his campaign, then that's the way it is. If a Player decides to play a Wizard in that campaign, that's the way it is. If course the DM could also say..."And no Wizards". BUT...the player couldn't say..."Too bad, I'm playing a Wizard and then I'm going to MC with Paladin later". Because deciding campaign structure isn't his "role" in the game.

Lets see how your logic looks when it's wizards you hate instead of multiclassing:-

I'd rather not, seeing as they are two different things. Wizard is a core class. Multiclassing is an OPTIONAL rule. But, just to play along, if I did hate wizards and said "no wizards"...

"What's going on? Pretty much the same thing as you choosing to (play a wizard) because you want to. You do it because it's fun for you. A DM saying no to (wizards) is doing it because he/she will enjoy DM'ing more without having to "worry" about (wizards). Kinda like (shortswords). I don't allow (shortswords) or (wizards) 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 (wizards), so no (wizards) in my campaign". Simple."

So, other people playing wizards is not okay? They don't get to play something if you don't like it? What about shortswords? Just because you have an irrational fear of them because you were bitten by a gladius when you were a kid!

Uh, no? Yes? Yes? Maybe? I'm the DM. If I don't like wizards or shortswords, I'm allowed to remove them from my campaign world and game. Just like a player is allowed to say "Oh, I love shortsword wielding wizards...I'm gonna find another game, sorry". No harm, no foul. Different strokes for different folk

What about food? Lets apply your logic again:-

"What's going on? Pretty much the same thing as you choosing to (eat potatoes) because you want to. You do it because it's fun for you. A DM saying no to (potatoes) is doing it because he/she will enjoy DM'ing more without having to "worry" about (potatoes). Kinda like (tomatoes). I don't allow (potatoes) or (tomatoes) at my table. 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 (potatoes), so no (potatoes) in my campaign". Simple."

I'm a fussy eater, but I don't tell other people what they can and cannot eat based on my preferences.

How would the fact that someone else is eating potatoes spoil my dinner?

Ok, this is getting weird... But ok...I'm not one to shirk away for weirdness! If I HAVE to eat a meal that I am cooking, I'm not going to cook a meal made with potatoes or tomatoes. It's that simple. I'll cook something with rice and eggplants then. If someone LOVES potatoes and tomatoes, he/she is free to stay at home and cook their own meal. Someone could bring their own pot of mashed potatoes and a fresh tomato to slice up for themselves...just as long as I don't have to eat it. However, a RPG isn't an "everyone can play by different rules" game; everyone plays by the same one (re: everyone eats the same meal). Those rules are determined by the DM (or the cook). If the DM doesn't like something, he/she can nix it from his/her campaign (or not cook with them).

It's not about "I like it so I should be allowed". It's about how the DM and Player dichotomy works. The DM is the one who has to decide what is best for his/her campaign. And a grumpy DM who hates three of the 6 PC's because they all are MC'ed...well, it's not likely to be a "...and a good time was had by all..." type of game.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Arial Black]

The difference is that the Players don't have the same..."role"...in the game as the DM does. The DM is the one in charge of the campaign world. If the DM decides there is no MC'ing or Feats in his campaign, then that's the way it is. If a Player decides to play a Wizard in that campaign, that's the way it is. If course the DM could also say..."And no Wizards". BUT...the player couldn't say..."Too bad, I'm playing a Wizard and then I'm going to MC with Paladin later". Because deciding campaign structure isn't his "role" in the game.

The rules help us play the game, but the imaginary worlds which our PCs inhabit should make sense.

If the DM has created a world in which there are no wizards, or no arcane magic, or any other thing that exists in a game world, then he can; it can make perfect sense.

But it does not make sense to say that the game world doesn't include certain game mechanics! What MCing represents is simply learning different abilities. You've already decided that people can learn weapon tricks, and already decided that people can enter a Rage in combat. It makes absolutely no sense that one person is prevented somehow from learning both; that no person can possibly know both things.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules help us play the game, but the imaginary worlds which our PCs inhabit should make sense.

If the DM has created a world in which there are no wizards, or no arcane magic, or any other thing that exists in a game world, then he can; it can make perfect sense.

But it does not make sense to say that the game world doesn't include certain game mechanics! What MCing represents is simply learning different abilities. You've already decided that people can learn weapon tricks, and already decided that people can enter a Rage in combat. It makes absolutely no sense that one person is prevented somehow from learning both; that no person can possibly know both things.

Yes and no. If you play the game so that it takes years to learn something to the point where you become 1st level at it, then that will eliminated multi-classing from the vast majority of games. Most games aren't going to have the necessary years for the PC to sit and learn a second class. If you play the game so that it only takes days worth of encounters to learn a new class, even when there is no one to teach you and nothing you encountered in the game to justify it, then sure, you can get a new class when you go up a level.

It all depends on how much realism you want to play with when it comes to learning new classes.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

I haven't anything against multiclassing (or feats). I permit them in my games. When I play, however, I'm usually interested to see how a class plays out over time, and the best way to do that is to be a purist and take twenty straight levels of the same class. In theory, once I'd substantially played through all the classes that interest me, I'd cycle back around to wanting to play multiclassed characters.

That said, others have pointed out two great reasons for multiclassing: 1) fun; and 2) building to concept. I'm sure there are other reasons for multiclassing with which I'd agree, but those are the primary two that came to mind when I first read the OP and as I culled through the pages of this thread.

 

[Leugren]

I was playing a halfling rogue who was next to useless in his chosen role as the party scout due to his inability to see in the dark. It was a bit embarrassing actually, because my supposed "scout" was the only character in the party who needed a light source while plumbing the dark depths of whatever dungeon we happened to be traversing. In order to shore up this glaring weakness, I picked up two levels of warlock for Devil's Sight. Sure, I could have picked a race with darkvision from the onset, but I very badly wanted to play a halfling for reasons that had nothing to do with character optimization. Without relying on the munificence of my DM or fellow players, multi-classing was the only way that I could be effective at my chosen role.

So I guess I chose to multi-class in order to play a halfling rogue without totally gimping myself for my choice of race and class. You haven't seen sad until you've seen a halfling rogue trying to sneak around a dungeon while waving his little lantern to and fro. Some of the wandering monsters actually took pity on me and pretended not to see me.

 

[FarBeyondC]

If you play the game so that it takes years to learn something to the point where you become 1st level at it, then that will eliminated multi-classing from the vast majority of games.

Mind explaining that one? Because I'm not seeing a reason that doesn't also eliminate feats (which admittedly are optional) and leveling (which is, relatively speaking, not optional) from the vast majority of games.

Most games aren't going to have the necessary years for the PC to sit and learn a second class.

This assumes that classes are so different from each other that nothing of what an adventurer has developed and learned in the acquisition of the abilities of one is applicable to any other.

If you play the game so that it only takes days worth of encounters to learn a new class, even when there is no one to teach you and nothing you encountered in the game to justify it, then sure, you can get a new class when you go up a level.

If you play the game so that it only takes days worth of encounters to grow as significantly as one does when one levels in general, you may be dealing exceptional individuals capable of doing things that real world people can only dream of.