D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Imaro]

As Dannyalcatraz says, if a Fighter/Thief is as good at thieving as a single-classed thief of the same total character level, then that suggests that the thief class is badly under-powered.

Again, I remember how the initial assumptions and impressions of the monk class were way off base right after 3.x was released... Or how late in the desig of 4e some of the worse classes were pushed out, like the binder and vampire (even though they had years of experience in the system)... but that's neither here nor there...

I guess my point is I could assume that (and I'm not saying your faith or dannyalcatraz's is misplaced) ... or I and my group could get some real experience in with the game and then add complexity after being more informed of how the game actually plays out. I and my group are good with getting some real experience down before adding the complexity of multi-classing. I'm not saying going the other route is badwrongfun, I'm just saying how I and the people I play with would rather do it.

 

[trentonjoe]

But see this is kind of misleading because depending on how many levels of fighter she takes there are certain thief abilities she won't ever get and can't go back too. Anyway, I'm not claiming the high level concept of multi-classing is difficult, I'm saying the specifics like interactions with feat/ability score attainment, multi-attacks, ability attainment, spells (invocations vs. spell slots), etc. should be understood (at least on a basic level) so that decisions are informed.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The kid DIDN'T want to multiclass because she wanted the thief abilities.

 

[billd91]

As Dannyalcatraz says, if a Fighter/Thief is as good at thieving as a single-classed thief of the same total character level, then that suggests that the thief class is badly under-powered.

You can rest assured that even if the fighter/thief or any other character with proficiency in thief tools and the same Dexterity isn't as good an all-around "thief" as the single classed thief. Plenty of characters may have the same skill check at opening locks or disarming traps - but that's not all that the single classed thief does.

 

[seebs]

But see this is kind of misleading because depending on how many levels of fighter she takes there are certain thief abilities she won't ever get and can't go back too. Anyway, I'm not claiming the high level concept of multi-classing is difficult, I'm saying the specifics like interactions with feat/ability score attainment, multi-attacks, ability attainment, spells (invocations vs. spell slots), etc. should be understood (at least on a basic level) so that decisions are informed.

I don't think that's a significant problem in 5e, which has probably the simplest multiclassing rules of any edition.

Furthermore, this argument is just as persuasive as an argument against not multiclassing. If people can't make that decision in an informed way, the decision to not-multiclass is also uninformed, and taking it away doesn't really help that.

Basically, I think you are overthinking. 5e's rules are designed to be reasonable but not perfect, and I honestly don't think there's a significant risk. You can always just, say, let people redo their characters if you end up having problems. Or just not worry about it.

Also, I don't think the "if four of five wouldn't use it". I mean, apply that to anything else. "If four of five players don't want to play a healer, we should ban healing!" That's not how options work; options are by nature optional, not everyone is likely to take them.

 

[Ahrimon]

I don't know... I guess I am just totally not understanding why anyone would tell someone that in there home game "No you can't play X because I said so"

because that is what I want to play...

but it does, it answers really easily... because that idea, my pitch... you on the other hand say no out of hand just because you say so..

that's it... any optional rule "I want to use X rule, because it sounds like fun" that's the whole

yes because I could understand if you said "Here is a reason why you can't" but instead it keeps coming off as "Because I said so" and since this whole post is about why to allow things, my point of view is to allow anything that will make your game more fun for the players unless you have a good reason to stop it...

just like your "Because I have the power as a DM to make arbatray discions for the whole group" isn't a good answer to me...

once again, as a player someone approaches you with ANY optional rule... it is a rule that will not harm your game but will increase this players enjoyment... that is it.

if applied for a reason that can be descused, not at all. If the group agrees no problem. If people disagree at the table a compromise must be meet.

to try to get this back into a discussion, lets talk about the issue at one of my old tables... now I have very few hard coded boundaries, as a player or dm. most of my rules change from game to game when I DM and I am used to that with others as well. Often the answer in my experience to "No multi classing" (or any optional rule) is "Hey just this campaign, next time you can do that concept." One of my few hard and fast rules is NO KENDERS... not in a game I run not at a table I play at. My friend Ross likes kenders (one of the very few in our group that defends the little... never mind this board doesn't like those words) He once wanted to run a game, and his then girlfriend was playing a kender. I very politely said I would bow out. However, every other player said the same thing... his 7 PC party became just him and his girlfriend. He begged us to reconsider, and we explained the problem. His girlfriend and my best friend came up with a comprmise the rest of us could live with... rewriting the fluff of "Everyone loves Kenders" to "No one trusts kenders, and there are big signs at towns and shopping establishments saying they wont serve kenders" But Ross would not go for it... finaly the girlfriend switched to being a half elf.

Is it just me or do these two section totally contradict each other? On one hand you talk about "because it's what the character wants to play" and "because it sounds like fun". And then you turn around and say how you do the complete opposite and refuse to allow anyone to use a specific race. Even going so far as to having an entire table walk away and refuse to play with someone who just wanted to use that race. I hope she wasn't a new player because you could have burned her on the whole game right there.

I can't see the difference between the two. Remove the subject from the context and maybe you'll see the other side. "Players should be allowed to use X because they think it's fun." "Players aren't allowed to use X because I say so."

 

[steeldragons]

This may be for nothing, but here is a guideline for the MC parameters I use in my game. Maybe someone playing 5e who want to limit their PC's exposure, offer MCing in a "controlled" fashion, and/or prefer an older/more AD&D flavor to their games might be so kind as to try them out and let us all know how they work in a 5e game.

1. Any PC race (including humans) may multiclass, within the following parameters.

2. No character [PC or NPC] may MC more than two classes at any given time.

3. At least ONE of the classes must be the following ["base"] classes: Cleric [default Life Cleric? I think any domain makes sense here. Given polytheistic religion and all], Fighter [default Champion], Mage [default "Wizard" of my setting, let's say Evoker since that's what they used in the Basic rules, right?] or Thief [default "Rogue" for my game world.]. These are the archetypes with the broadest scope flavor/fluff-wise, so learning/mixing in with them makes the most sense/is easiest to justify. You can go to the Mage's guild or find a kindly mentor wizard and learn to be a mage. The specialist schools are something you learn later. The Thief can learn to use a sword/be a fighter, but becoming a Battlemaster or Eldritch knight takes more time/attention than that. etc...

4. MCing may be chosen at level 1. In which case, the PC is levels 1/1.
-- 4a. If a character does not begin as MC at level 1, they may roleplay toward picking up another class which they may "pick up" at every/any 5th level (5, 10th, 15th, etc...). This allows for the story/rp MC'd characters, a la the "fighter who finds god and eventually, becomes an actual cleric" example from way back in the thread, but a ton of other possibilities exist here. Essentially, any PC who takes the time and effort to try, learn, train to develop the abilities/skills of a completely different type of life/adventuring "profession." Note that at 5th level a player does not just decide to take another class and *Poof* you got a god's attention, you know how spellcasting works, you pick up a set of thieves' tools and go to town. You have to RP this shift in/addition to your interests and invest the time/effort/gold spent on it.
-- 4b. When taking on a second class after 1st level, the character begins the new class as level 1. If this class is a spellcasting class or has any other "magical" powers (e.g. channeling divine), the "caster level" of the character is the level of their magic/casting class, NOT the character combined levels.

5. The following classes are NOT available to MC. They involve in-setting organizations, specialized or consuming training, and/or well-guarded secrets that is simply too specialized, time-consuming and/or intense to permit the amount of time and effort needed to learn/master another class. These are: Barbarian [a class/human race combo, only, in my setting], Bard, Druid, Paladin.
-- Though they exist in the setting, I've never had someone play them, but Monks are in this list as well.
-- In light of the 5e class list, though they've not yet made an appearance in my particular setting, my feeling is Warlocks go here also.
-- Given 5e's lack of General v. Specialist mages, I suppose for this experiment, we will say any variety of "Wizard" is available to MC...though I can not say, at this time, how that would effect flavor in my particular setting, give it a go and see what happens...and in the absence of a generalist wizard, I don't really see another option without going "Illusionists, yes. Necromancers, no. Abjurers, yes, etc etc..." So, we'll just not do that right now for simplicity's sake.

-- 5a OPTION. For characters that want to MC into one of these "initiate" classes the following option may be presented: The Fighter who "becomes" a Paladin, the [Hedgey] Mage initiated as a Druid, the acrobatic rogue who wants to study some martial arts, etc... the former class abilities are lost/eventually forgotten from lack of use and combine with the new class. The character becomes the new class at half their former level [rounded down]. Note: not half of the level they would otherwise become. So the 4th level Fighter who has RP'ed their way to become a Paladin, which would be their 5th level, becomes [half of 4] a 2nd level Paladin.
--5b OPTION: For character that want to MC out of one of these "initiate" classes the following option may be presented: The Paladin that falls/looses their faith and becomes a Cleric of some other deity, the Monk who vacates their training upkeep to study the mysteries of the Mage, the Fey-Pact Warlock who wants to get out of their pact -eschewing magic and capriciousness for the sword and honor- to be a Ranger, etc. etc... in addition to those of your former order/organization/affiliation might well wanting to hunt you down...the former class abilities are lost/forgotten/rejected completely. The character becomes the new class at half their former level [rounded down].
-- and yes, once out of their former "initiate" class, the new PC may then apply #'s 3 & 4a, as available [every 5th level thereafter] as normal, eventually becoming MC'd with [up to 2] different classes, if such is the character's journey through life.

So, MCing Yes [in my world/for this experiment]: [EDIT for clarity] One of the two classes must be: Clerics: any domain. Fighter: Champion. Wizard: Evoker. Rogue: Thief.

Other classes that can be MC'd with: Fighter: Battlemaster, Fighter: Eldritch Knight, Ranger: any, Rogue: Assassin, Rogue: Arcane Trickster, Sorcerer: any (no such class in my games, but they're in 5e, so we'll put them here for now), "Wizard": any school/tradition [In my setting/games, this list also includes an Acrobat & Psychic classes, though we don't have psionics for 5e yet].

MCing No: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Warlock.

What do folks think of that? Let's see how that goes in 5e play.

 

[drowdude]

to try to get this back into a discussion, lets talk about the issue at one of my old tables... now I have very few hard coded boundaries, as a player or dm. most of my rules change from game to game when I DM and I am used to that with others as well. Often the answer in my experience to "No multi classing" (or any optional rule) is "Hey just this campaign, next time you can do that concept." One of my few hard and fast rules is NO KENDERS... not in a game I run not at a table I play at. My friend Ross likes kenders (one of the very few in our group that defends the little... never mind this board doesn't like those words) He once wanted to run a game, and his then girlfriend was playing a kender. I very politely said I would bow out. However, every other player said the same thing... his 7 PC party became just him and his girlfriend. He begged us to reconsider, and we explained the problem. His girlfriend and my best friend came up with a comprmise the rest of us could live with... rewriting the fluff of "Everyone loves Kenders" to "No one trusts kenders, and there are big signs at towns and shopping establishments saying they wont serve kenders" But Ross would not go for it... finaly the girlfriend switched to being a half elf.

I can list you a few times I have bent the kender rule (2 times as a DM and 4 as a player) 5 out of the 6 of them where in the 90's in 2e...

So... because your "friend" Ross wouldn't agree to Kender-Apartheid, you were going to walk on his campaign? You guys sound swell.

 

[Joe Liker]

Well no, I'm not saying he would be as good or the best at everything but as far as the basic capabilities of the rogue go (outside of subclasses and special abilities) I don't think the disparity would be that great even with 2 or 3 levels differentiation. Of course admittedly I could be way off base

You are, in fact, way off base. Every two or three levels a rogue gains make a HUGE difference in the way the character plays. I'm finding that out in the campaign I'm DMing.

Unless the fighter/rogue switches his focus completely to rogue and stops taking fighter levels altogether, the pure rogue will always be a very different character build. If he already has five levels of fighter, it's already too late.

 

[Imaro]

You are, in fact, way off base. Every two or three levels a rogue gains make a HUGE difference in the way the character plays. I'm finding that out in the campaign I'm DMing.

Unless the fighter/rogue switches his focus completely to rogue and stops taking fighter levels altogether, the pure rogue will always be a very different character build. If he already has five levels of fighter, it's already too late.

I never claimed they would be the exact same character... that's a strawman that you seem to be setting up. My concerns are centered on his main niche. What is the difference in core rogue skills between a rogue and a rogue/fighter with a difference of say 2-3 levels in the rogue class? I realize the classes and subclasses give out individual abilities but can a fighter/rogue pick locks, use sleight of hand, sneak, etc. just as well as a pure rogue... if so I'd consider that stepping on his toes.

EDIT: I would be interested in hearing exactly what these differences are in play however... would you care to go into some detail?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I tell you that to explain that I understand limits. I understand there are points of no retun I just don't understand something like multi classing being it.

Is it just me or do these two section totally contradict each other?

they do contradict each other, infact that is why I shared it, and the very next line explains why... that I am trying to build a bridge of understanding. Just like I could foresee myself not allowing multi classing in one game, and telling a player "Don't worry you can play yur warlock/paladin next time"

On one hand you talk about "because it's what the character wants to play" and "because it sounds like fun". And then you turn around and say how you do the complete opposite and refuse to allow anyone to use a specific race.

yup... and the reason is given as well, the kender is detrimental to my and others fun... basicly the idea is "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"

I also wont allow a character concept that is "I work for the bad guys and will screw over the other players" and hope neither would a DM I play under.

I can express when pressed why though... it isn't a situation of "Because I said so" it also isn't because I am the DM... In my grouips it is a group choice, no one person gets to over rule the others...

Even going so far as to having an entire table walk away and refuse to play with someone who just wanted to use that race.

well the whole group was ready to walk because the DM wanted to enforce there idea on us against our will... in fact in allowing that optional rule (the same as disallowing one) he was making a choice that affects us all, and we will not stand for it.

each DM has a built up amount of trust, some have very little some have a lot. When DMs propose things that go against what we want we have to decide to trust them or not, although I can't imagine any DM having enough trust to get me to play with a Kender again.

I hope she wasn't a new player because you could have burned her on the whole game right there.

I like introducing a new player to the game, but to be honest, If someone reads the kender description and wants to play one it would send up some red flags in my mind. In this case not only was she not a new player but she was one of the biggest problem players I ever meet. so it doesn't really count. If I could go back to that game knowing what I know now, I would have not played with her no matter the race...

I can't see the difference between the two. Remove the subject from the context and maybe you'll see the other side. "Players should be allowed to use X because they think it's fun." "Players aren't allowed to use X because I say so."

you are so close to seeing the point here.

"The DM should allow X inless they have a good reason to not allow it" and "Players and DMs are all part of a group and all have a say in what options should be used" and the 3rd one "If you really feel something is a make or break point, then you should let the group go on with out you if they want to use that option."