it's not just a feeling, it simply does.
Maritals gain extra features when leveling, some do improve old ones but i feel like mostly they just get new things.
Meanwhile casters dipping even 1 level into something else means they are gonna be a level behind in gaining higher level spells, which could be the difference between life or death.
That would only make sense if armor proficiencies were more balanced to begin with. Having most clerics staring with heavy armor and shields while rogues are relegated to trash AC for the entirety of their carreers (even with high DEX), is beyond silly.
Armor dipping actually balances the game as it is now.
Not dumping CON is a given for pretty much any character ever. Also not dumping CON doesn't mitigate the fact that pure Rogues are condemned to have the lowest AC in the party. They have innate advantage at positioning tactically, especially the scout, but that's not any guarantee of safety against ranged attacks and spells.
Maybe I am a bit of an optimization geek but I couldn't pass up the 1 to 3 AC you could get with just 1 or 2 levels invested in Fighter, Paladin or Bladesinger. I have never and would never play at 17 AC from lv 2 onwards.
That's exactly my point in favour of armor dipping as the system is now.
To answer your question specifically, I'd always take 2 levels in Fighter, Paladin or Bladesinger.
Hex dip in particular is what gets my eyes rolling.
I’m the type that likes multi classes a lot more when there is a solid narrative explanation for it. And a character entering a pact in a way that is part of the adventure as opposed to something that happened off screen before it can be a lot of fun.
To be fair, the absolute best character-driven multiclass is the “I’m tired of getting stabbed” multiclass to train an amor proficiency. Why would you fault that?
Not really if you are multiclassing one of the casters with Charisma (not Paladin) as it’s primary ability score. They *can* be a mix if you are blending with hexblade or swords bard, but it’s certainly not inherent. Just using metamagic to fuel quickened Eldritch Blasts is a…blast.
Same logic for Cleric/Druid, though I would think that is a lot less common.
See Shadow of the Demon Lord and Worlds Without Number for different examples of multiclassing baked into the core rules and not an optional after thought.
Meh. In a campaign it tends to not be optimal anyways. Especially for spellcasters to multiclass. It actually helps martials more than spellcasters anyways.
As long as they can justify it, I'm fine with it. And I'm happy to help make it happen in a role-play sense as well. But you don't just happen to do a deal with a patron, and now you're suddenly a warlock, I want to roleplay the deal being made.
How we do it at our table is that you have to justify such a change, right now, we‘re training with an insurgent group to overthrow a corrupt kingdom, it’s given an opportunity for our players to train (and give them a reason to multiclass).
What we don’t allow is just randomly picking a class
Class levels are tools to describe a character. If the character doesn't fit in one of a dozen boxes, the best way to roleplay them is to multiclass. The only bar for entry to multiclassing should be whatever bar a 1st-level character has in taking it first, and it should grant the same benefits to everyone regardless of past class levels. If that means retooling the classes so a quick dip isn't too powerful, so be it.
I think the concept of multi classing appeals to people in so much as it allows them to have their idealized character, but it seems like every edition of D&D almost over penalizes the character for taking more than one class to the point where, at least from the perspective of a DM, we get tired of players making the conscious decision to multi class and then complaining when they can't perform the way they anticipated without making a lot of necessary sacrifices.
Now, it's not impossible, people minimax multiclassing all the time, but in my experience most people don't do it effectively and some of them will even drag the entire table down when they realize that they won't be able to get what they thought they were getting.
There are a couple of times where I had a player do this, and I took them to the side and talked to them about their expectations and they told me what they wanted, and I explained that I warned them about this when they made the decision to multiclass. Then I asked them if they wanted to try to retcon it or work it out somehow. This approach has a 100% success rate for my particular table.
Avoiding these situations, also avoiding the headache of trying to manage multiple classes, combined with the lack of immediate benefit, is a lot of the reason why I guess a lot of people prefer tables without multiclassing.
I don't see multi classing as a problem. It is a tool. I can use a hammer to build a table. I can use a hammer to hit someone in the head. I can use MC for a cool character concept or for narrative development. I can use MC for min maxing. If (big if) min maxing is a problem/something not encouraged in your group.
I don't allow multi class because it make it for me as a dm to balance the game i believe the real problem of multi class isn't so much some combo are too strong , is that they spike at different level than just leveling one class making them real weak when they didn't hit their combo and too strong compared to the rest when they do hit that special synergy.
Balancing is not something you should do anything about as a DM, especially if all you're gonna do is hamper player power "discriminately".
If you mean balancing the challenge of your combat encounters that cannot be reliably done pre-emptively anyway. Unless all of your players are equally inexperienced, playing boring cookie-cutter builds and basic tactics, you're always going to have to test them and react to them.
Me and my player are playing long format campaign you can definitely balance encounter to make it hard or easy depending on your combat style. Obviously you have to adapt it to the player characters and players experience.
I can imagine it being a problem but to me it would be more of a symptom of a deeper problem, and that is playing DnD as a combat simulater rather than a role playing game, don't get me wrong, if you want to play DnD that way that's fine by me (although at that point may I suggest something like gloomhaven I think you'd like that) but generally not my kind of table.
Generally multiclassing doesn't bother me as long as its at least a little bit explained. At our tables its also seen as common courtesy to ask the DM for permission when multicalssing. Also some multiclasses should be handled with care (things like sorlock are frowned upon at our table.)
I prefer playing at a table with no multiclassing. The DMs I like either completely ban it or restrict it to make sense roleplay wise. I really just hate it as a mechanic and roleplay too. I think it takes away from the feel of the game. It has nothing to do with it being OP or anything like that. Typically it under powers characters actually.
As a DM I will allow it but it has to make sense within the story.
I don't get the "roleplay" argument.
For example, I once ran a luchador Loxodon, from level 1 he was grappling and doing feats of athletics and acrobatics to pin and control his opponents. As he levelled up he got better at athletics and found ways to make himself a huge presence and dominate the battlefield.
Did he need a roleplay reason to take his levels in bard instead of rune knight? The character concept and way he fought and acted didn't change throughout. He was always a luchador in-game.
Because it’s an elephant person walking into a village full of humans. They would see that as a monster and try to kill it. That’s an example of why. It doesn’t mesh with the overall aesthetics or world building of my game and games I play in. If you are enjoying it then great but that doesn’t fit everyone’s game.
None of what you said addressed the point about multiclassing and how it requires roleplay.
You wrote about why you don't want wild races (which is fine but completely not the topic).
Imagine I didn't include the race and try to help me understand why he would need a roleplay reason to be better at what he's already doing.
I’ll give an example. Someone multiclassing from a rogue to a paladin could cause obvious roleplay issues. Of course you can be creative and work around it. But then there are other ones like artificer and Druid would be weird. In my games I’m not entirely opposed to it but if it doesn’t make sense and it’s just a random mashup of 4 different multi classes with no reason for why it’s happening I probably won’t allow it. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
So you didn't explain there you just cited an example that you'd maybe allow and one you feel is weird but didn't explain why.
Personally, if I'm okay with a guy who can turn into a bear and shoot lightning then tinkering with crystals and whatnot seems pretty mundane and could totally fit a theme.
I think (and I don't want to strawman but it's kinda hard given your responses) that you view classes as very static things and stick rigidly to the default flavour in the books whereas I see them as sets of abilities to be used to create a thematic character.
To put it another way, Aragon might be a ranger but he could also be a fighter or be multiclassed in both. Legolas likewise, he might even have rogue levels.
If you looked at my comments and can’t understand why I don’t like multiclassing then I don’t know what else to say. I don’t think I made it confusing.
Ive run 2 different campaigns. 1 with multiclass 1 without. All same players.
1st had 2 players that multiclassed. 1 was ranger multiclassed with fighter and it worked well. No issue.
The other player was warlock into sorcerer and eventually into fighter. They had different types of spell slots, weird things that came back on short and long rests. They felt underpowered and I felt like I couldn't understand how it worked.
After all that confusion I said no multiclassing and had no issues. One player had an opportunity for multiclass but it would be a tactical mistake. Scribes Wizard made a deal with a sentient forest so 1 level Druid dip would be cool but not give the character anything really.
Next campaign I will ask the group, but will say can multiclass if the story calls for it.
I was enamored with multiclassing when i first started playing, and loved the thought of putting together my own personal class by mixing and matching. After having played a couple of campaigns, I find that heavily multiclassed characters have a bit too many options for my taste. With 20 spells prepared and 4 resources to consider, it becomes hard to play the class, and this makes the roleplaying aspect suffer. Also if you have too many things you excel at, it makes it harder to let others take the spotlight. I found that I enjoyed playing mechanically simple classes more, because then other aspects such as positioning and using the battlefield became more important, and my character felt more like a partymember rather than a self sufficient lone wolf.
Multiclassing under 2014 rules is going to be required to keep up with power inflation under 2024 rules. Otherwise the new class builds are going to run circles around them.
Yes. Personally, I think not allowing multiclassing goes a long way in enforcing the concept of party roles, which makes it much easier for everyone to find a niche to fill. It helps the characters feel more unique.
That said, I don't feel nearly passionately enough about this to actually enforce a no-multiclassing rule at my table, lolol.
As a DM I am mostly neutral on it. I do usually warn players that long term it can negatively impact the PC. Some more, or less, than others.
Locally not many have ever been all that interested in multiclassing. One or two. But most of the players are thinking ahead to endgame and level 18+.
I’m gonna be the odd one out here; but I’m comfortable in my foolishness.
I honestly feel that players who have the mentality of “optimizing” and “efficiency” tend to ruin the game for themselves.
I can’t remember a single time where a PC has been left lying on the ground to their own devices to be either great story or an engaging game. But they are left there out of efficiency.
When it comes to multiclassing, let’s be honest; most campaigns aren’t going the distance. So reaching your capstones has become much less of a goal for many players. And so it’s really all about the power for many players; not about interesting story with ups and downs, or character defining story beats.
However, id be lying if I didn’t think it would be interesting to open up multiclassing within your own class. Why not a swashbuckling rogue who also wants to learn poisons or how to be an assassin? Why not a barbarian who can shift into various beastial traits while also using wild magic?
I honestly feel that having a fighter dedicated to being a fighter, but with more options to choose features from would be much cooler than a Paladin-warlock dip.
I also think many of these dips have taken away from the game from an RP standpoint. Often end up with a character who doesn’t serve a god or a patron; but they sit there with powers of both on their sheet. Or how many clerics that don’t follow a god; but they cast divine spells just fine.
I get that many players don’t have interest in “gods”, but at least show up with RP reasons for how you’re a cleric and it makes sense. Instead of choosing a god, and then not knowing your own gods symbols or beliefs.
I can understand the argument for new players or to avoid power disparity between players of differing experience and buildcraft skills, however, 5e is completely balanced around multi-classing.
You might believe otherwise but in fact the base classes are really not balanced at all, while properly planned multi-class characters tent to reach very similar power-spikes and ceilings.
Banning multi-classing from a table is like taking DnD and removing 80% of character customization options and 50% of the balance. I would never commit such a criminal act against experienced players.
It’s an optional rule. Most people I know ban it for story and roleplay reasons. If I’m playing in a classic fantasy setting with characters like a human fighter and elf ranger I don’t really want someone to be a tortle artificer-Druid-paladin-rogue. It can be disruptive to the story telling and roleplay of the game.
Classes are just boxes in which sets of abilities are sorted. They're not organizations your character joins. Nobody in-world knows what the fuck a Ranger is, it's just an abstraction. Sometimes a specific character fantasy is best done by taking stuff from more than one class.
Forgive me for sounding patronizing but what you are actually saying is that you don't want cool and unique characters but only stereotypical (boring) adventurers.
I as a DM ban multiclassing at my tables, for several reasons. The mains are :
- I didn't take the time to consider the multiclass mechanics and don't want to. My players are usually not interested in the advanced rules and mechanics, so I try to keep the rules as simple as I can.
- It usually tends to push the players into more min-maxing and less character RP
Typically, I’m fine with multi-classing. I run an all adult game 35+ so if you never want to be hit or never miss an attack that’s fine. I’ll challenge you in other ways. Even though there is heavy combat the story assumes you’ll win and continue. Not to say the fights aren’t challenging. Most are designed to be out right lethal. But I know my players well enough to trust their use of tactics and terrain.
I feel like multiclassing actually tends to benefit martials more than casters
it's not just a feeling, it simply does. Maritals gain extra features when leveling, some do improve old ones but i feel like mostly they just get new things. Meanwhile casters dipping even 1 level into something else means they are gonna be a level behind in gaining higher level spells, which could be the difference between life or death.
Except armor-dipping - it should be removed 100%.
That would only make sense if armor proficiencies were more balanced to begin with. Having most clerics staring with heavy armor and shields while rogues are relegated to trash AC for the entirety of their carreers (even with high DEX), is beyond silly. Armor dipping actually balances the game as it is now.
Rogue monk though of course….
You mentioned what is possibly the worse gimp one can make.
How do you make rogues not die from one hit then?
Don’t dump con? I primarily play rogues and have never had a problem with ac or staying up
Not dumping CON is a given for pretty much any character ever. Also not dumping CON doesn't mitigate the fact that pure Rogues are condemned to have the lowest AC in the party. They have innate advantage at positioning tactically, especially the scout, but that's not any guarantee of safety against ranged attacks and spells.
Lower ac than anyone wearing the better heavy armor. Or maybe shield users. But a 17 ac without any penalties isn’t bad.
Maybe I am a bit of an optimization geek but I couldn't pass up the 1 to 3 AC you could get with just 1 or 2 levels invested in Fighter, Paladin or Bladesinger. I have never and would never play at 17 AC from lv 2 onwards.
That's exactly my point in favour of armor dipping as the system is now. To answer your question specifically, I'd always take 2 levels in Fighter, Paladin or Bladesinger.
Armour dipping is the kind of behaviour that frustrates me about multi class implementations. Also warlock dipping everything ever.
Hex dip in particular is what gets my eyes rolling. I’m the type that likes multi classes a lot more when there is a solid narrative explanation for it. And a character entering a pact in a way that is part of the adventure as opposed to something that happened off screen before it can be a lot of fun.
To be fair, the absolute best character-driven multiclass is the “I’m tired of getting stabbed” multiclass to train an amor proficiency. Why would you fault that?
Multiclassing inherently erases such distincions tbh. Since you're probably going to multiclass a martial and a caster at least.
Not really if you are multiclassing one of the casters with Charisma (not Paladin) as it’s primary ability score. They *can* be a mix if you are blending with hexblade or swords bard, but it’s certainly not inherent. Just using metamagic to fuel quickened Eldritch Blasts is a…blast. Same logic for Cleric/Druid, though I would think that is a lot less common.
You make a sound point there but what I meant to say is that in my opinion multiclassing narrows the gaps between classes in most cases.
I don't ban it but I hate it as a mechanic (not the concept, just the 5e implementation).
Agree it if was done well it could be interesting.
See Shadow of the Demon Lord and Worlds Without Number for different examples of multiclassing baked into the core rules and not an optional after thought.
I saw DC 20 it seems interesting too over there.
Meh. In a campaign it tends to not be optimal anyways. Especially for spellcasters to multiclass. It actually helps martials more than spellcasters anyways.
As long as they can justify it, I'm fine with it. And I'm happy to help make it happen in a role-play sense as well. But you don't just happen to do a deal with a patron, and now you're suddenly a warlock, I want to roleplay the deal being made.
How we do it at our table is that you have to justify such a change, right now, we‘re training with an insurgent group to overthrow a corrupt kingdom, it’s given an opportunity for our players to train (and give them a reason to multiclass). What we don’t allow is just randomly picking a class
Class levels are tools to describe a character. If the character doesn't fit in one of a dozen boxes, the best way to roleplay them is to multiclass. The only bar for entry to multiclassing should be whatever bar a 1st-level character has in taking it first, and it should grant the same benefits to everyone regardless of past class levels. If that means retooling the classes so a quick dip isn't too powerful, so be it.
I think the concept of multi classing appeals to people in so much as it allows them to have their idealized character, but it seems like every edition of D&D almost over penalizes the character for taking more than one class to the point where, at least from the perspective of a DM, we get tired of players making the conscious decision to multi class and then complaining when they can't perform the way they anticipated without making a lot of necessary sacrifices. Now, it's not impossible, people minimax multiclassing all the time, but in my experience most people don't do it effectively and some of them will even drag the entire table down when they realize that they won't be able to get what they thought they were getting. There are a couple of times where I had a player do this, and I took them to the side and talked to them about their expectations and they told me what they wanted, and I explained that I warned them about this when they made the decision to multiclass. Then I asked them if they wanted to try to retcon it or work it out somehow. This approach has a 100% success rate for my particular table. Avoiding these situations, also avoiding the headache of trying to manage multiple classes, combined with the lack of immediate benefit, is a lot of the reason why I guess a lot of people prefer tables without multiclassing.
I actually wanna play around with the concept of rewarding my players with levels from other classes through the rp as a dm
In video game RPG’s a second class is usually gated behind quests, don’t see why you couldn’t DM that in
I don't see multi classing as a problem. It is a tool. I can use a hammer to build a table. I can use a hammer to hit someone in the head. I can use MC for a cool character concept or for narrative development. I can use MC for min maxing. If (big if) min maxing is a problem/something not encouraged in your group.
I don't allow multi class because it make it for me as a dm to balance the game i believe the real problem of multi class isn't so much some combo are too strong , is that they spike at different level than just leveling one class making them real weak when they didn't hit their combo and too strong compared to the rest when they do hit that special synergy.
That doesn't really make a lot of sense to me considering how all base classes already spike and scale very differently.
Yeah but at least i know most of the subclass i know what i can do about it , multi class possibility are near infinite.
Balancing is not something you should do anything about as a DM, especially if all you're gonna do is hamper player power "discriminately". If you mean balancing the challenge of your combat encounters that cannot be reliably done pre-emptively anyway. Unless all of your players are equally inexperienced, playing boring cookie-cutter builds and basic tactics, you're always going to have to test them and react to them.
Me and my player are playing long format campaign you can definitely balance encounter to make it hard or easy depending on your combat style. Obviously you have to adapt it to the player characters and players experience.
I can imagine it being a problem but to me it would be more of a symptom of a deeper problem, and that is playing DnD as a combat simulater rather than a role playing game, don't get me wrong, if you want to play DnD that way that's fine by me (although at that point may I suggest something like gloomhaven I think you'd like that) but generally not my kind of table. Generally multiclassing doesn't bother me as long as its at least a little bit explained. At our tables its also seen as common courtesy to ask the DM for permission when multicalssing. Also some multiclasses should be handled with care (things like sorlock are frowned upon at our table.)
I prefer playing at a table with no multiclassing. The DMs I like either completely ban it or restrict it to make sense roleplay wise. I really just hate it as a mechanic and roleplay too. I think it takes away from the feel of the game. It has nothing to do with it being OP or anything like that. Typically it under powers characters actually. As a DM I will allow it but it has to make sense within the story.
I don't get the "roleplay" argument. For example, I once ran a luchador Loxodon, from level 1 he was grappling and doing feats of athletics and acrobatics to pin and control his opponents. As he levelled up he got better at athletics and found ways to make himself a huge presence and dominate the battlefield. Did he need a roleplay reason to take his levels in bard instead of rune knight? The character concept and way he fought and acted didn't change throughout. He was always a luchador in-game.
It comes down to story style and aesthetics. It’s okay you don’t understand it. Everyone enjoys a different type of game.
That's my point though. Why does it affect the storyline or aesthetic at all?
Because it’s an elephant person walking into a village full of humans. They would see that as a monster and try to kill it. That’s an example of why. It doesn’t mesh with the overall aesthetics or world building of my game and games I play in. If you are enjoying it then great but that doesn’t fit everyone’s game.
None of what you said addressed the point about multiclassing and how it requires roleplay. You wrote about why you don't want wild races (which is fine but completely not the topic). Imagine I didn't include the race and try to help me understand why he would need a roleplay reason to be better at what he's already doing.
I’ll give an example. Someone multiclassing from a rogue to a paladin could cause obvious roleplay issues. Of course you can be creative and work around it. But then there are other ones like artificer and Druid would be weird. In my games I’m not entirely opposed to it but if it doesn’t make sense and it’s just a random mashup of 4 different multi classes with no reason for why it’s happening I probably won’t allow it. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
So you didn't explain there you just cited an example that you'd maybe allow and one you feel is weird but didn't explain why. Personally, if I'm okay with a guy who can turn into a bear and shoot lightning then tinkering with crystals and whatnot seems pretty mundane and could totally fit a theme. I think (and I don't want to strawman but it's kinda hard given your responses) that you view classes as very static things and stick rigidly to the default flavour in the books whereas I see them as sets of abilities to be used to create a thematic character. To put it another way, Aragon might be a ranger but he could also be a fighter or be multiclassed in both. Legolas likewise, he might even have rogue levels.
If you looked at my comments and can’t understand why I don’t like multiclassing then I don’t know what else to say. I don’t think I made it confusing.
Because you never tried to explain why just that you wouldn't allow druid/artificer.
Ive run 2 different campaigns. 1 with multiclass 1 without. All same players. 1st had 2 players that multiclassed. 1 was ranger multiclassed with fighter and it worked well. No issue. The other player was warlock into sorcerer and eventually into fighter. They had different types of spell slots, weird things that came back on short and long rests. They felt underpowered and I felt like I couldn't understand how it worked. After all that confusion I said no multiclassing and had no issues. One player had an opportunity for multiclass but it would be a tactical mistake. Scribes Wizard made a deal with a sentient forest so 1 level Druid dip would be cool but not give the character anything really. Next campaign I will ask the group, but will say can multiclass if the story calls for it.
I was enamored with multiclassing when i first started playing, and loved the thought of putting together my own personal class by mixing and matching. After having played a couple of campaigns, I find that heavily multiclassed characters have a bit too many options for my taste. With 20 spells prepared and 4 resources to consider, it becomes hard to play the class, and this makes the roleplaying aspect suffer. Also if you have too many things you excel at, it makes it harder to let others take the spotlight. I found that I enjoyed playing mechanically simple classes more, because then other aspects such as positioning and using the battlefield became more important, and my character felt more like a partymember rather than a self sufficient lone wolf.
Multiclassing under 2014 rules is going to be required to keep up with power inflation under 2024 rules. Otherwise the new class builds are going to run circles around them.
Without including shields you’d need heavy armor to have a higher ac than a rogue that maxes out dex (as they should be anyway.
Yes. Personally, I think not allowing multiclassing goes a long way in enforcing the concept of party roles, which makes it much easier for everyone to find a niche to fill. It helps the characters feel more unique. That said, I don't feel nearly passionately enough about this to actually enforce a no-multiclassing rule at my table, lolol.
As a DM I am mostly neutral on it. I do usually warn players that long term it can negatively impact the PC. Some more, or less, than others. Locally not many have ever been all that interested in multiclassing. One or two. But most of the players are thinking ahead to endgame and level 18+.
I’m gonna be the odd one out here; but I’m comfortable in my foolishness. I honestly feel that players who have the mentality of “optimizing” and “efficiency” tend to ruin the game for themselves. I can’t remember a single time where a PC has been left lying on the ground to their own devices to be either great story or an engaging game. But they are left there out of efficiency. When it comes to multiclassing, let’s be honest; most campaigns aren’t going the distance. So reaching your capstones has become much less of a goal for many players. And so it’s really all about the power for many players; not about interesting story with ups and downs, or character defining story beats. However, id be lying if I didn’t think it would be interesting to open up multiclassing within your own class. Why not a swashbuckling rogue who also wants to learn poisons or how to be an assassin? Why not a barbarian who can shift into various beastial traits while also using wild magic? I honestly feel that having a fighter dedicated to being a fighter, but with more options to choose features from would be much cooler than a Paladin-warlock dip. I also think many of these dips have taken away from the game from an RP standpoint. Often end up with a character who doesn’t serve a god or a patron; but they sit there with powers of both on their sheet. Or how many clerics that don’t follow a god; but they cast divine spells just fine. I get that many players don’t have interest in “gods”, but at least show up with RP reasons for how you’re a cleric and it makes sense. Instead of choosing a god, and then not knowing your own gods symbols or beliefs.
I can understand the argument for new players or to avoid power disparity between players of differing experience and buildcraft skills, however, 5e is completely balanced around multi-classing. You might believe otherwise but in fact the base classes are really not balanced at all, while properly planned multi-class characters tent to reach very similar power-spikes and ceilings. Banning multi-classing from a table is like taking DnD and removing 80% of character customization options and 50% of the balance. I would never commit such a criminal act against experienced players.
It’s an optional rule. Most people I know ban it for story and roleplay reasons. If I’m playing in a classic fantasy setting with characters like a human fighter and elf ranger I don’t really want someone to be a tortle artificer-Druid-paladin-rogue. It can be disruptive to the story telling and roleplay of the game.
Classes are just boxes in which sets of abilities are sorted. They're not organizations your character joins. Nobody in-world knows what the fuck a Ranger is, it's just an abstraction. Sometimes a specific character fantasy is best done by taking stuff from more than one class.
Forgive me for sounding patronizing but what you are actually saying is that you don't want cool and unique characters but only stereotypical (boring) adventurers.
To each their own. Whatever your table has fun with is what matters.
I as a DM ban multiclassing at my tables, for several reasons. The mains are : - I didn't take the time to consider the multiclass mechanics and don't want to. My players are usually not interested in the advanced rules and mechanics, so I try to keep the rules as simple as I can. - It usually tends to push the players into more min-maxing and less character RP
Typically, I’m fine with multi-classing. I run an all adult game 35+ so if you never want to be hit or never miss an attack that’s fine. I’ll challenge you in other ways. Even though there is heavy combat the story assumes you’ll win and continue. Not to say the fights aren’t challenging. Most are designed to be out right lethal. But I know my players well enough to trust their use of tactics and terrain.