D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Mephista]

Your reasoning for this isn't clear to me. Care to elaborate?

The warlock is a dark magic user. They specialize in curses, deception, destruction, and mind control, with a side of being corrupted into being similar to your patron. Hex, Lifedrinker Invocation, and most (non-Fiend) direct damage spells deal necrotic.

Meanwhile, I see the sorcerer as a kind of Elemental specialist. Most obviously with the dragon origin, of course, and the references to the shugenja. Their spell list is primarily comprised of spells that could, arguably, have an elemental theme to them. Its more of a primal class - infinite cosmic power in itty bitty living space. I see a genie more likely to use magic that's akin to sorcery than I do to the warlock's dark magic, simply as a matter of style.

That is why.

 

[trentonjoe]

Just kinda wondering (because I play in pro Multiclassing Groups) what some of you guys think about this:

I want to play a Holy Warrior of the Good Dragon God.

I start out as a Mountain Dwarf Warlock with the Good Dragon being my patron (use the Arch Devil from the PHB).

Take 5 levels of Warlock- Get to 2nd attacks
Then take 2 levels of Paladin to get the SMITE ability
Then take the the rest of the levels in SORCERER to gain more spell to convert to smites

The character from start to finish is a front line fighter who fights in the name of his god.

Just wondering, why wouldn't some of you allow this? Why would you just prefer the PC be a straight Paladin or Fighter or Cleric?

 

[Mephista]

I would want to know why a DM wants to change that basic tenet besides "it's min-maxing". So what? I expect you as a DM to be using your advantages to present players with challenges so why can't they access possibilities offered to them as players if they choose, to meet those challenges? I like to play fighter-thieves (old term) because in AD&D thieves were the only classes that had honest-to-god skills, which I liked, and I wanted to beat on things when TSHTF. Now that's a bad thing?

Players should be able to enjoy the game in a way they want to & supported within the rules and not be railroaded into pigeon holes because of their DM's biases about 'game balance'. There is plenty of challenging content out there for DMs to use to face any party, regardless of whether they can swing a sword and cast a cantrip.

It is also the job of the GM to ensure that all players get to enjoy the spotlight equally in play - the one reason why game balance of any kind exists. If one player is using multiclassing to min-max and overshadow the others in play, to the point its difficult to create a challenging encounter for the min-maxer that won't casually wipe out the non-min-maxed characters.

So, if that's a problem at your table, and there have been tables that have reported it, then it is well within the DMs power and expectations to ban such measures from their table. Individual fun has to take second seat to the fun of the group as a whole.

So, "because min-maxing" is a valid reason in this case.

 

[Moorcrys]

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.

It may be that my perception has been skewed by my experiences with it - in the 3.x games I played from 2000 onward the people who would multiclass without optimizing would be corrected by fellow players or have their characters re-done by more mechanically adept players in order to optimize them. So from my experience, most people did play that way, or they would hand over their concept to someone good at playing that way in order to keep them effective enough to play with those who optimized. I'm glad you didn't wrestle with it like I did - and again, I'm not slamming that style - I was always fine to play in those types of games, but I could not stand to DM them. Particularly in 3e it just wasn't fun for me to constantly approach the next week's game simply trying to create things mechanically challenging enough for the players without gimping their builds rather than focus on any kind of plot/story for them to engage in. Entire classes became useless and unplayable because it was hopeless to put them in an optimized party without having an optimizer player multiclass it into a 'workable' character. It became a race of mechanical one-upsmanship which, frankly, they were way better at than I was, rather than a RPG. It burned me way out - the same with 4e when the hybrid rule presented a similar hurdle.

And certainly, it's not a fair reason to consider a Fighter 1/MU 1 1st level AD&D character to a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 second level character different in concept no, but that's not where I was headed with my wistful remembrances of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D multiclassing - in post-2e incarnations, multiclassing is more about (a 5e example) 2 levels of 1 class to get your path bonus and basic armor and skillset, then switch to your next class for the double attack at 5th level, then back to another class to get x spell slots to boost the one spell that increases damage for your double-attack combo until you have enough slots for that coveted 4th level spell combo, the round out the last x levels to max out your attack bonus, etc. If you consistently go back and forth from fighter to wizard and back again I'd agree with your argument, but we both know that's not really how it really works, is it? Most multiclass builds are designed around you taking a couple of levels of one class to get something, then switch to another class to get something, then back to the first class to optimize what combo you got from the first and second class etc. Additionally a split multiclass in 1e/2e isn't really 1 for 1 - so if you had a 10th level fighter, the multiclassed fighter/magic-user equivalent wouldn't be 5/5 - it'd be more like 8/7 or 8/8.

I try to be a 'yes' DM for the most part - I feel as though saying 'no' to multiclassing to an individual allows me to say 'yes' to the group more often, because I'm looking at the group as a whole and designing based on a system more easily balanced for using the base classes as written, as opposed to trying to re-balance to make things work for one or two people who have optimized using the multiclassing rules and yet keep things from overpowering two or three others who haven't. It's not like I'm rubbing my hands together and cackling about it - if you're a DM who loves to handle that stuff and can do it better than me then you're awesome and I say have at it. But honestly I haven't gotten any argument from my players about it... no one has accused me of trying to steal their fun away or being cruel bastard yet. At least about that anyway. ;-)

 

[Boarstorm]

That is why.

Got it. Thank you.

 

[Joe Liker]

Minmaxers will always be capable of terrible things, even without multiclassing. If you want to curb that behavior, then that's a different discussion you need to have with your players. Banning multiclassing is neither necessary nor sufficient if that is your reason.

I personally don't like to think of classes as rigid and impossible to escape. A character concept can and should be as mutable and open to subtle variation as real life. In real life, I have many talents that have nothing to do with my primary career, and I'm not comfortable when my character isn't allowed the same freedom. Not that I always multiclass in D&D, but it annoys me to be told I can't just because minmaxers exist.

Many eldritch knights and arcane tricksters want to be slightly more magical or slightly more martial. No two people can agree on what the iconic ranger actually is. A paladin of the ancients might decide that some druid magic would enhance his character concept. All of this can be solved by multiclassing.

In my opinion, the classes presented in the Player's Handbook are just starting points. The rich variety of players' creative expression should not be denied just because some players are inclined to make their decisions based on combat prowess alone.

Just ask your players to explain their character concepts as clearly and with as much detail as possible before the campaign gets off the ground. If you later see them taking levels in classes that don't fit the concept, talk to them and urge them to come up with a solid explanation of why they are changing their concept. If their story is too convoluted or contrived, tell them so and ask them to do better. If they cannot, THAT is when you might want to say 'no.'

I personally don't bother trying to curb minmaxers unless it gets so out of hand that the other players aren't having fun. So far it only ever almost happened once -- but that player realized that he wasn't having much fun himself and asked if he could make a new character.

At the very least, try to remember that 5e is VERY different from 3.x. You should at least give its multiclass system a chance to shine before you pull out the banhammer.

 

[Mallus]

If one player is using multiclassing to min-max and overshadow the others in play, to the point its difficult to create a challenging encounter for the min-maxer that won't casually wipe out the non-min-maxed characters.

Why resort to a blanket ban on multiclassing instead of fixing the problem character?

Where's the advantage in that?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some people like to hunt mosquitos with hand-grenades.

 

[keterys]

Eh, why allow multiclassing in the first place. No reason to include broken parts of the system unless they're necessary. If someone has a really cool character concept that only works with multiclassing they can bring it up.

Chances are they could get what they need by just "retraining" their character or with a custom class anyways.

I'd rather work with someone to give them a custom class than be saddled with the multiclassing system. That said, the real reason to keep multiclassing is because it was published in the PHB so now people will feel entitled to use it and optimize around it, and suddenly the DM will be the bad person for not using it.

 

[sidonunspa]

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?

Because some character concepts can't be simply defined though the current class list...

for example.. want to play someone like Harry Dresden? You would have to pick Wizard (Envoker) and take a few levels of Far Warlock (path of the Sword)

I have an idea of a Fay Knight... Knight Background/Paladen/Warlock (Fey) who is a offical representative of the Fay Court upon the Mortal Realm...