D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[EzekielRaiden]

Most multi-class makes you weaker and more flexible, not stronger. It takes optimization just to put multi-class on par with a single class.

"Multi-class to to maximize" doesn't really work. It's "single class to maximize".

Personally, although I am keenly aware that the two mechanics are highly distinct, I would say 5e multiclassing's effect is very similar to what you got from 4e hybrid classes. That is: the vast majority of choices will result in a character that is weaker overall, but which has access to a broader scope of abilities...but there are certain combinations which are more powerful than the sum of their parts. (Ironically, I'd even say that Paladin-Warlock is the archetypal "more powerful together" combo for both systems, for completely unrelated reasons!)

But yes, as a general rule of thumb, multiclassing in 5e is not the charop-user's friend. The biggest reason being ASIs: unless carefully managed, an MC character will typically end up with fewer ASIs than a pure-class character, and exchanging ASIs for feats is core to much of 5e charop.

Unless you want to maximize skills. Then a half-elf rogue/warlock/knowledge cleric/bard is the way to go.

Not even sure that's strictly necessary. Obvious racial choice is half-elf of course (no other race gets 2 skills), or Variant Human (1 skill + Skilled feat). Start as Bard, get to level 3; that gives you 6 freely selected skills (Bards count all skills as "class skills" in this edition), plus two from your background (which you can choose to be anything). For the half-elf, that's a total of 2 (race) + 2 (bg) + 3 (Bard) + 3 (Lore) = 10 skills; for the variant human that's 1 (race) + 3 (feat) + 2 (bg) + 3 (Bard) + 3 (Lore) = 12 skills. Multiclass Cleric 1 (Knowledge) grants an additional 2 skills; multiclass Rogue 1 grants both Thieves' Tools (nearly the only 'tool' prof that's on par with a skill prof) and one Rogue list skill. V. human Lore Bard 3/Knowledge Cleric 1/Thief 1 has 15 skills, but Warlock alone cannot bridge the gap to get 18, even with 2 levels and an invocation. Thus it is better to take a 4th level of Bard, and take Skilled a second time, filling out the last three skills.

In fact, overall it's probably best to go pure Bard from there on out: you're only down 2 levels, but you get a "third" application of Expertise (that is, Thief 1, Bard 3, and Bard 10 each grant 2 Expertise choices), three bonus skills, Thieves' tools, Medium armor, and Shields, giving you just about half the benefits of being a Valor Bard (plus the benefit of Sneak Attack!). For this, you give up 1 5th-level spell slot, 1 ASI, and the honestly lackluster Bard 'capstone' (when you roll Init, if you have 0 Inspiration dice, get one back), as well as needing to have at least 13 Dex and Wis--which you'd want to have anyway, since those govern critical skills (Stealth and Perception mainly, but Thieves' Tools as well).

Ironically, I am actually feeling somewhat tempted to play one of these at some point--assuming, that is, the campaign starts at least at 4th level. By the time the character is overall 6th level (Bard 4/Rogue 1/Cleric 1), it would have proficiency in all skills and Expertise in 4 of them, plus access to the first-level Cleric spell listand 2 Cleric cantrips. Go with an array of {8,13,12,13,12,15} and choose +1 Dex, +1 Cha as your racial stat bonuses, for final stats of {8,14,12,13,12,16}. Dex doesn't need to go any higher because MC Cleric grants Medium armor and shield profs. Spend next 2 ASIs (Bard 8, 12; clvl 10, 14) on Charisma; final ASI (Bard 16, clvl 18) goes to a half-feat that boosts Int, with Keen Mind or Linguist being at the forefront (more for flavor than power--I actually really like Keen Mind and just wish it were a little more...potent), though this could happen earlier if the campaign in question offers lots of exploration- or language-based challenges. JOAT becomes technically superfluous for everything but Initiative, though it does mean that you can never truly be caught off-guard--you never add less than half your proficiency bonus to anything.

Of course, all this depends on getting Variant Human, which not all DMs are cool with. But it could be a really interesting character--a master of "all" trades, under a certain light.

Edit:
Part of my reason for saying I'd hope the character would start at level 4 is to have more control over the backstory (though I freely admit, I also just hate the uber-squishy early levels). If I had to "thematically" explain this character, I'd call her a "glutton for knowledge." She wants to know all of it. She started out apprenticed to a Bard college, the closest her family could get to a formal education. Then, after graduating, she "found faith" with the/a god of knowledge--after all, if "knowing everything" is her goal, the church of knowing things can't be a bad place to turn! But there, she found out that for a "church of knowledge," they're pretty stuffy and stuck up about...a lot of things. Picking locks isn't something you should know how to do! That's evil and wrong! So, at the game's outset, she leaves--not the faith, because knowledge is still her higher power, but the clergy, because they don't really care about actually knowing all there is to know. First level up, she goes Rogue--literally. But being a cutthroat really isn't her style--it's about the challenge, about going out and learning new things, testing the limits of her knowledge. Continuing the path she began, as a Bard, lets her continue to explore the mysteries of all magic, the last frontier she has yet to investigate.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

I generally multiclass to either test out an interesting combination or fulfill a concept that single-class builds can't.

 

[Wolf118]

Looking at it from a non-RP/strictly mechanical sense, MC only makes sense if you know ahead of time that your campaign is not going 1-20. Or even approaching the highest levels. MCing then provides more capability and variety in abilities for those lower levels, before the single classes realize their full potential. A fighter having 5 attacks at L20 is fantastic, but you've got to get to L20. How many campaigns last that long? A wizard taking more than 3 levels in another class forever forfeits 9th level spells. But if the campaign only goes from 1-10, then why worry about it and enjoy the fruits of another class.

But this does emphasize the flexibility of 5e. If you want to go 1-20, you can build some truly epic single classes. If you only want a short campaign, you can build some truly wondrous multiclasses.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Neither maximizing nor role-playing reasons, in my case. I usually multiclass to achieve a concept I'm not managing to pull with a single classed character. For example, I wanted to create a Raiden-like character for a friend's game, and I used a multiclass monk/tempest cleric to achieve that.

In fact, must players I know multiclass for similar reasons. The fighter/mage build is probably the poster child for this phenom.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it can be done for multiple reasons...both for mechanics and for RP reasons. A couple of potent combos I've seen so far in my group were:

- Druid/ barbarian- raging bear at low levels is a potent combatant
- Ranger/ rogue- sneak attack damage to ranged attacks has created a potent sniper-type of character

Neither of the above builds have been fully theory crafted and compared to other possible builds...that's not really my group's style. So people may poke holes in these options, but they both seem very potent at the table compared to the other characters we have in the game.

Edited to add: I didn't vote simply because I don't think there's one answer for me or my group.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My group and I generally don't multi-class, but in those rare instances that we do it is to realize a character concept that isn't quite covered by a single class (namely a "mystic theurge" type character blending wizard/cleric spells together, or when trying to be a warrior-mage that isn't primarily using evocation & abjuration spells).

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I don't understand why multiclassing is some sort of sin. If you think the features of another class are what you want your character to have, then so what? The game is about the players have a good time. However multiclassing has this 'badfun' stigma that frankly baffles me. I don't think I've played more than a couple of monoclasses in the past 30 years and had a great time as have those that played in games with me.

 

[Nine Hands]

The only multi-class that I have done in 5E was my Bard who multiclassed into Sorcerer (Wild Mage) after she unlocked mystical powers in game. I went with Wild Mage to show that she didn't really control the power she gained.

In the end, it turned her into a much more powerful character than before. Bards are not the ultimate combatants but adding in some sorcerer cantrips and sorcerer spells made her feel more powerful in combat.

 

[hejtmane]

I don't understand why multiclassing is some sort of sin. If you think the features of another class are what you want your character to have, then so what? The game is about the players have a good time. However multiclassing has this 'badfun' stigma that frankly baffles me. I don't think I've played more than a couple of monoclasses in the past 30 years and had a great time as have those that played in games with me.

I think this goes back to the younger crowd that started in 3 and 3.5 that power gamed the multi-class to they mega bad arses.

Me I cut my teeth on D&D and the AD&D 1.0 I remember when Unearthed Arcana came out man I was in heaven that was awesome especially after playing the original D&D and the initial AD&D 1.0 then spent time in 2.0. I only barley play 3.0/3.5 My son found a few of the old books I had back in the days(I am running his groups campaign as DM right now) so the only thing you could find was 3/3.5 or 4 then 5e was coming out and I had flashbacks to the early days so we switched. Then I am a very flexible GM I love concept and like players to embrace them that makes for more fun then all the power gaming in the world. Packing up your knocked out buddy in full plate and using him as a battering ram is funny and great (oh wait that was me knocked out). I embrace outside the box but within reasonable limits of the rules makes for more fun; laughter and memories with friends why I would never play adventure league.

The boys that started playing with my son enjoy it alot and can not wait until the next sessions because it is all fun because of that they talk about some of the fights they where memorable not because they where bad arse killed everything but because they had fun in the process when did things most GM's would get mad about. I work with the guys to make sure that we can build a multi-class character that will not be dreadful long tern and still fit their theme even end game.

I think 5e with smart planning even end game a multi-class character can keep up and still meet the rp reasons. Both can be effective end game to the team and not feel left behind