D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Umbran]

TO answer the actual thread question, "There is no reason to allow Multiclassing [in your game] unless you want to." As the DM, whatever your reasons, if you don't want to in your games, then don't.

While this is true, in terms of GMing best practices, there are some reasons that are better than others. And a GM probably should review their reasons, to be sure they actually achieve the results they want, and those results are also good for the players.

As you astutely note, there is no "character" reason to permit it other than for "min-maxing" or, really, and more accurately, "power-gaming." The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to cherry-pick their character abilities and they can't do that without an MC level of having access [eventually] to alllll of a class' features.

Gah, no. Sorry, you are, objectively speaking, incorrect. There are reasons to allow it - reasons players can want it that aren't power gaming.

Note, there's a difference between "wanting to pick their abilibties" and "power gaming". Not all desire to pick abilities has to do with increasing power. As has been noted - perhaps the fighter finds (a) god. Picking up some clerical ability is probably not a power-win for a fighter, but it may make sense for the character to do so, in terms of story.

The assertion that there might be "story" reasons to allow it...that's kinda...well, bogus.

No, your assertion that other reasons don't exist is bogus. And kind of insulting. It is effectively a claim to know why everyone else does things, despite their personal assertions to the contrary, which comes across as pretty darned arrogant, too. Just so you know.

 

[pkt77242]

It sounds like you've already answered this for yourself...and I agree with it.

TO answer the actual thread question, "There is no reason to allow Multiclassing [in your game] unless you want to." As the DM, whatever your reasons, if you don't want to in your games, then don't.

I agree, the options exist for types of characters that simulate what used to be multiclassed characters. Granted in a more 1-2e way [thank gods] than a 3e way. But a LOT, if not all, of character options are there/doable.

As you astutely note, there is no "character" reason to permit it other than for "min-maxing" or, really, and more accurately, "power-gaming." The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to cherry-pick their character abilities and they can't do that without an MC level of having access [eventually] to alllll of a class' features.

The assertion that there might be "story" reasons to allow it...that's kinda...well, bogus. There would only be an "in story" reason for it if the DM has such a story to take place. There are a million OTHER ways to handle some story situation/reason then "sure, go ahead and start up a whole second class."

From the player side, the argument from a player/background "story" perspective, e.g. "I've got this GREAT idea! So, she was a born Sorcerer and then joined up this knightly order and took an Oath of Vengence against the demon that killed her brother & sister-knights. She's the last of her order. So I'm a full Pal/Sor [with all of the bells and whistles, thereof]." So you have to allow MCing, because the player has come up with this story? *shrug* And, it's simple, no you don't.

It's sort of backwards. "I need multiclassing because I already came up with this story..." That's just nonsense. We're not doing MCing. So, no. You don't. Come up with a different story. If you say "no MCing" that player can try to work with the framework you have set for the game you are running, i.e. get as close to their "important/creative concept/story", or play something else. My guess? In most cases, they will come up with something else right quick.

Whatever other bs floats around, the only reason a player that wants to play a "fighter/mage" can't or won't be satisfied in playing an Eldritch Knight (or any of the other ways to get there that you give in the OP) is because they want ALL of the fighter stuff and ALL of the mage stuff. There is nothing to it but entitlement, "wanting their cake and eating it too", and powergaming.

Don't want to encourage that? [And I do applaud that you do NOT want to!] Don't allow multiclassing.

First problem I have is that it isn't the DM's game, it is the groups game, and you come off as being very adversarial and are attaching a motivation to all players that want to MC when you are simply incorrect. Not everyone who wants to MC wants to min/max and to attack all players as only wanting to do it for that reason is not fair.

Second the EK doesn't cover a fighter/mage because they are severely limited in spell selection. Again you have decided what you think is right and demand that your players play that way and that they can't have a good reason for MC in advance.

As to your last point, no they want a fighter and a mage not a fighter who can only cast wizard spells. Also by MCing they don't get all the fighter stuff and all of the wizard stuff, so I have no idea where that is coming from.

 

[wedgeski]

A tip for would-be DMs. Start by finding out what your players enjoy and build your campaign around that.

+a million

 

[Mallus]

Is there any good reason why I should allow MCing?

I can only think of one reason, but it's a damn good one:

Because one or more of your players are interested in building & playing multiclassed PCs.

Honestly, I don't think you need any more reason than that.

(wall of text go!!)

You say you used to minmax, so you obviously understand the enjoyment some people get from mechanical optimization & general gearheading. If you were a good optimizer, then you already know it's possible to make mechanics-focused characters that don't break the given system, ie it's possible to show a little restraint when building a character so that you can get your minmaxing kicks without making running the campaign unduly hard for the DM & irritating the other players.

It's cool that your interests have moved away from mechanical optimization. But there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. All it takes is a little willingness to compromise, to smooth out problems that may occur over time. Starting from the position of "No you can't multiclass because I don't enjoy it anymore" is *not* a compromise.

It really comes down to DM'ing styles. I'm a longtime DM with some very particular tastes when it comes to D&D/RPG'ing. The one universally true thing I've found is: different people enjoy different aspects of gaming. When I DM, it's important to me to be accommodating. I can't ask my players to have the exact same taste as me. I have to take their preferences into account, too, or else why I am running a campaign with other people, instead of writing a terrible fantasy novel or playing a solo CRPG?

My attitude is "Let's find a way to make this work" as opposed to "No you can't at all". It's not a bad approach...

Also, I've found it's hard to ban your way to better PCs and more engaged players. If some of your players like optimization, work with that. Use their interests as a jumping-off point for better role-playing. Try building some interesting fiction around their multiclassed PC. It can't be that hard.

Just telling people their interests are wrong, and they should be interested in something else usually doesn't work so well...

You're spot-on, though, about 5e having a lot of good single-class options that take the place of multiclass PCs in prior editions.

 

[Moorcrys]

FWIW, multiclassing is the only thing I've disallowed.

In my experience as a player and a DM from 3.x onward, it's only ever been used to gain mechanical advantage and never grown out of any organic need to fulfill a character concept. And I'm not pointing fingers at anyone else that I'm not willing to point at myself - that's what the system encourages us to do. Take a look at the charop threads on the WotC board - any weird mechanical loophole being exploited is through multiclassing. I can get x, y, and z by multiclassing with absolutely no drawback where I would have had to spend a feat or made some sort of sacrifice otherwise? Why wouldn't I? And it only gets more and more unbalanced as more material becomes available. It becomes a headache or forces all players to do it to keep up. So I just remove the temptation. I actually feel as though 1e and 2e did multiclassing best - when you multiclassed you picked 2 or 3 classes at character creation and were "all in" for the rest of the character's career - you didn't cherry pick... you were a fighter/cleric or a ranger/magic-user from level 1, just a level or 2 or 3 behind everybody else. I wish they had some optional rules for that in the DMG.

For my money, the 5e combination of races, feats, skills, backgrounds, classes and class paths allow you to create almost any 'character concept' that you want - and I'm all for tweaking something to help you fulfill a concept within that, such as swapping a skill proficiency from a background, etc. Also, going forward, I expect game designers to keep other classes in mind when designing semi-balanced, new materials for the game system - I don't expect them to run through every possible multiclass combination and make sure there's no way to bork one class ability or another... they don't and they won't.

I'm all for playing in a game where that's the case if the DM wants to go gonzo with it, but as a DM myself I don't want to deal with it. And if that's a deal breaker for you as a player, I totally understand and wish you the best. It's just not my style.

 

[Tormyr]

7 players at my table, and only one of them wanted to multiclass. The character's story was that she was an orphan who grew up on the streets and was taken in by an itinerant monk. He protected her from attackers and died, and she escaped. When she came back, one of the few items remaining was his training book. She studies that book and takes levels in monk from time to time. Right now she is a rogue 7/ monk 1. She will probably take her next monk level at rogue 8/monk 2.

 

[Mallus]

BTW... while both of my 5e PCs are single-classed and likely to remain that way, I'm very tempted by various Warlock multiclass concepts.

In a thread on another board, I cooked up an evil take on Disney's Aladdin (named either "Badladdin" or "Binladdin"). A Pact of the Chain Warlock + Assassin Rogue. He's basically Aladdin who kills people for his supernatural patron, the Genie of the Lamp. His suspiciously super-smart monkey sidekick is actually a disguised imp (or quasit).

In his case, multiclassing allows me to seamlessly combine flavor, mechanics, and an awful pun/pop-culture joke. In other words, to make a perfect D&D character.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As you astutely note, there is no "character" reason to permit it other than for "min-maxing" or, really, and more accurately, "power-gaming." The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to cherry-pick their character abilities and they can't do that without an MC level of having access [eventually] to alllll of a class' features.

The assertion that there might be "story" reasons to allow it...that's kinda...well, bogus. There would only be an "in story" reason for it if the DM has such a story to take place. There are a million OTHER ways to handle some story situation/reason then "sure, go ahead and start up a whole second class."

Damn, so 80+% of my PCs in D&D for the past 37 years have been badwrongfun? I guess I need to quit playing D&D. :/

 

[billd91]

FWIW, multiclassing is the only thing I've disallowed.

In my experience as a player and a DM from 3.x onward, it's only ever been used to gain mechanical advantage and never grown out of any organic need to fulfill a character concept. And I'm not pointing fingers at anyone else that I'm not willing to point at myself - that's what the system encourages us to do. Take a look at the charop threads on the WotC board - any weird mechanical loophole being exploited is through multiclassing. I can get x, y, and z by multiclassing with absolutely no drawback where I would have had to spend a feat or made some sort of sacrifice otherwise? Why wouldn't I? And it only gets more and more unbalanced as more material becomes available. It becomes a headache or forces all players to do it to keep up. So I just remove the temptation. I actually feel as though 1e and 2e did multiclassing best - when you multiclassed you picked 2 or 3 classes at character creation and were "all in" for the rest of the character's career - you didn't cherry pick... you were a fighter/cleric or a ranger/magic-user from level 1, just a level or 2 or 3 behind everybody else. I wish they had some optional rules for that in the DMG.

This makes me wonder if this is, in part, a perception problem. The CharOp board is full of powergaming and multiclassing shenanigans, sure, but most people don't play like that. I know of quite a few players who have multiclassed in 3e-based games to fulfill a particular story element or character concept present from the beginning. It's just that the 3e (and later) versions of multiclassing are piecemeal in sequence rather than constantly concurrent which gives the illusion that they're cherry picking rather than fulfilling an important concept. But that's just an artifact of the rules, not really a fair reason to consider the two types of character - a Fighter 1/MU 1 1st level character in AD&D and a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 2nd level character in D&D - different in concept.

 

[BigVanVader]

BTW... while both of my 5e PCs are single-classed and likely to remain that way, I'm very tempted by various Warlock multiclass concepts.

In a thread on another board, I cooked up an evil take on Disney's Aladdin (named either "Badladdin" or "Binladdin"). A Pact of the Chain Warlock + Assassin Rogue. He's basically Aladdin who kills people for his supernatural patron, the Genie of the Lamp. His suspiciously super-smart monkey sidekick is actually a disguised imp (or quasit).

In his case, multiclassing allows me to seamlessly combine flavor, mechanics, and an awful pun/pop-culture joke. In other words, to make a perfect D&D character.

Oh my god, that could turn really creepy if you end up kidnapping a princess. "I could show you the world. WHY WON'T YOU LET ME?!"

That would be awesome.