D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

Psikerlord# · Dec 8, 2014

So I hope to kick off DMing a new 5e campaign shortly and am wondering why I should allow multiclassing?

From what I can tell, allowing MCing just encourages minmaxing, and that isnt something I want to promote in this campaign. Historically I'm a big minmaxer myself ... but I think I'm growing out of it.

If you want to play a fightery/arcane type.... play an Eldritch knight. Or an arcane trickster. Or a blade sorceror. Or a bard. Or a high elf fighter with arcane initiate.

Want a divine caster fighter: paladin or war cleric.

Why do I need MCing in my game at all? If I dont allow MCing, I cut down on a lot of potential minmaxing problems, like 1 level dips into war cleric for full plate & shield mages.

Is there any good reason why I should allow MCing?

Meliath1742 · Dec 8, 2014

I just had a similar discussion on G+. I've already told my group that we won't be using the MC "option" for our new 5E campaign. Like many others I feel that MC is too meta-gamey. And like you posted there are other good ways to get the character you want to play without resorting to MC. Also, I think part of playing a class is accepting its limitations as part of the experience.

Leatherhead · Dec 8, 2014

If you can't handle or don't want it, you shouldn't. But you should probably disallow feats too if you are worried about min-maxing of that degree.

As for myself, I find tinkering with the parts of the rules to be more engaging that simply running them bog-standard. Currently I am working on running a gestalt campaign that features using the MC rules as the basis for which powers you get for picking one of the classes. So far it has been surprisingly tame.

AmerginLiath · Dec 8, 2014

I'd say that, in the absence of multiclassing, feats become more important to certain concepts. To be fair, I say this as a player with a decades' long history of being yelled at by optimizers for my choices of flavor-multiclassing and such (just because one person is a "min-maxer," it does not follow that all or even most are: the online D&D community isn't a good sample, for example, in this regard). Where feats shine is in allowing tiny dips of flavor in things like picking up a tiny bit of spellcasting (in case someone wants to only be slightly magical, the equivalent of a few levels in a class or one of a few races' abilities, without being in the particular narrative space of something like an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster).

I don't know your players, but the question remains is whether they're going to be using multiclassing (or feats) as a "min-maxing" or powergaming tool, or rather a way of freely exploring their character concept and the world (even to the detriment of their power-on-paper). I'm not saying necessarily to allow multiclassing – in DMing a game with large groups or new players, I'd use the logic in the second half of your post precisely (although I'd likely work with them regarding feats, races, and backgrounds for customizing some of the things that would otherwise come from having an additional class). But it's probably premature to assume that all players would be approaching mechanics from one certain angle (indeed, given the odd math of multiclassing in 5e, many players may steer away from it for the sake of simple ease)...

Warmaster Horus · Dec 8, 2014

My first question would be ... Do my players want to multiclass?

GMforPowergamers · Dec 8, 2014

Warmaster Horus said:
My first question would be ... Do my players want to multiclass?

that may be the most important question... followed by:

"IF your players DO want to multi class do you have a GOOD reason to step on there fun?"

Umbran · Dec 8, 2014

GMforPowergamers said:
that may be the most important question... followed by:

"IF your players DO want to multi class do you have a GOOD reason to step on there fun?"

And a way to get at the answer is to ask, "WHY do they want to multi-class?"

The fear that it *might* be for min-max reasons doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason to ban it. By my reading, while it is possible on occasion, in general multiclassing works the other way - it is trading strength in a focus for generalization, which is usually not terribly problematic. Ban it because it *is* an issue, demonstrable and provable, not because it *might be* an issue.

Warmaster Horus · Dec 8, 2014

Umbran said:
And a way to get at the answer is to ask, "WHY do they want to multi-class?"

The fear that it *might* be for min-max reasons doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason to ban it. By my reading, while it is possible on occasion, in general multiclassing works the other way - it is trading strength in a focus for generalization, which is usually not terribly problematic. Ban it because it *is* an issue, demonstrable and provable, not because it *might be* an issue.

Why? Because it would be cool? Because the system supports it. Because that's the character I want to play?

I agree that multiclassing has its' drawbacks, too, especially if single-classed characters use Feats correctly and only have to worry about primary stat improvement.

My advise would be to let your players play the game within the rules (first), the way they want to (second) and the way the DM wants to (third). Remember, as DM you have ultimate power - you want to have a dragon with the powers of a 20th level anti-paladin? Sure thing!

Players on the other hand have limited power to shape their PC and takes many game hours to earn. Let them hope, dream and achieve (while you try to kill them... :>)! It's why they play the game.

KarinsDad · Dec 8, 2014

I do not know about multiclassing between two classes that are not spell casters. For example, between a Rogue and a Monk.

I do know that we have a Ranger 2 / Wizard 2 in the group and he is starting to become less effective as time goes on, not more. Yes, he can heal a lot of times per day. But, everyone else gained either an ability score change or a feat at level 4. He did not. The melee types are one level away from getting an additional melee attack, if he continues with wizard, he will not gain that. Compared to the straight wizard, he is a level behind on wizard spells (which is substantial).

He's a jack of all trades, master of none.

The other PCs are more specialized, he is more generalized. He is not more powerful than any other PC. He does have more options, but they are generally weaker than the options of other PCs.

Umbran · Dec 8, 2014

Warmaster Horus said:
Why? Because it would be cool? Because the system supports it. Because that's the character I want to play?

The first and last in that trio are okay. But, "Because the system supports it," isn't a terribly good reason to do it. I would prefer to see some purpose being served other than, "because I can," you know what I mean?