D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Mephista]

Accepted by everyone as awful? No. I am putting forward my personal opinion, which happens to be shared by a number of others.

The only edition I'm going to compare it to is 3e, and that's because I'm bringing up Prestige Classes. The 3e PrCs allowed for variations and specialties in a single class (covered via subclasses in 5e) and in combining two classes into one track (mystic theurge combining wizard/cleric).

So, the multiclassing in 3e allowed for gestalt/hybrid leveling, and occasionally career changes as well, through these PrCs. Since we're using the 3e style of dip multi-classing, we need the PrCs for multi-class characters to make them work.

 

[steeldragons]

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?

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my position.

"I want to play a Holy Warrior of the Good Dragon God." Perfect! You're a Paladin. Done.

No? Ok, well, want a little "not exactly a paladin" go Cleric: War domain. Done.

No? Ummm...why not?

"Cuz I want Extra Attacks and Smites with Spell Points on top for extra Smites."

[in my games] No.

You are specifically taking set levels of other classes, that not only do you not need for the "Holy Warrior" -since there's a whole class all ready for you- but aren't even related to a "Holy Warrior" concept (Warlock? Sorcerer?). You are taking classes to X level to get Y. THen switch, to level A to get C. Then switch again...

None of this is "concept"! None of this is "story"! This is, "I want this power. To add to that power. And then get these too!"

THIS is what [I'm heartened to read others with a similar experience] most players who want to MC in "modern" editions do. Because people want to deceive themselves and say "But, but, I have story reasons for it...so it's concept and I'm entitled to play the character I want to play." is not my problem and in no way refutes what I said earlier.

It's still NOT "story reasons." It's NOT "concept." The WHY of the argument to allow it is "so I can get X." It's power grab, pure and simple, and I'm not buying it.

 

[MrMyth]

I've been pretty impressed with what I've seen of the multiclassing rules thus far. Specifically, I like the following elements:

1) Many classes have enough cool features as you level up that it feels like a genuine choice to multiclass - you truly are giving up something important to do so.
2) That said, when you do multiclass, it feels like there will rarely be a 'useless' choice. Having multiple spellcasting classes blended together actually *works* - you miss out on higher level 'known' spells, but in return have much more versatility in the lower level spells known and how you use them. In past editions, if I wanted to multiclass for character reasons, sometimes it ended up as a messy and ineffective build. 5E design - and specifically the removal of BAB and structuring of the spell system - has largely overcome that.
3) You also don't *need* to multiclass to cover a specific background or character concept. Between backgrounds, feats, and archetypes, you can create a wide variety of builds within a single class. This is something I felt 4E did well, and I like that 5E has continued it.

So, I think there is plenty of room in the game for multi-classing. That said, I can understand having some specific concerns about individual features you might be able to pick up by level dipping. While I think most classes do a good job of balancing core features across their build, starting with a level of cleric for heavy armor, or snagging some rogue for expertise and cunning action, might seem like a bit much.

Personally, I'd take a close look at how those builds compare with other options - either full-classed characters, or more 'hybrid' characters who are a true blend of multiple classes. I suspect you won't find the 'min/maxing' to be as abusive as you might think.

If it is, I think the answer would be to specifically target the individual features that are proving the most problematic. Or perhaps keep multiclassing but make it a bit more restrictive. For example, I could see adding a selection of feats that you need to take in order to multiclass, such as the following:

"Divine Acolyte: Gain +1 Wisdom. You can now multiclass into cleric. Gain some other appropriate feature."

That way it requires a bit more investment rather than being something easily splashed into. I'm not sure I'd want to use it myself, but I think if I was worried about multiclassing, I'd much rather present a more contained version of the system than just getting rid of it entirely.

 

[Mephista]

There seem to be two different (but related) concerns here.

1) Dipping classes is fodder for Min-Maxers.
2) Going deep in another class makes for weaker characters than single class PCs.

As to the first: Perhaps. I'm not sure the theoretical increase in power is actually much to be worried about, however.

As to the second: If a player is willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of his vision for his character, I say more power to him.

The problem with the second is that, in the long term, the character drags behind the party and becomes overshadowed. Which is not a fun experience, and has more often caused a character to be abandoned than not (at least that I've seen).

Its very easy to congratulate and say "Awesome that you chose story over power!" but it has its drawbacks as well. When taken to its logical conclusion, we have people who effectively can't meaningfully affect combat or dungeon exploration. Most people think that's not fun, and will generally not play the character then. Which suddenly makes your choice of story less awesome.


As for the first? Beyond being a mindset that I don't want to encourage at the table (which is a strong reason on its own - ideals are great, but we have to deal with reality), there are times when GMs are simply ill equipped with dealing some of the crazy combinations people come up with, and it can be a source of frustration and headaches at the table. There are also times when a multi-class combo ends up being just as good than another player's concept, which can lead to frustration and less fun on their end - I've seen that happen before as well.

It shouldn't happen, generally because I find that players tend to want separate styles of play in the party, but when it does, it leads to frustration. In Shadowrun, I know someone who made the ultimate Jack-of-all-trades character, that could do a little bit of everything. He ended up overshadowing specialists in the party. By making everyone into single classes, it reduces the chance of overlap, and ensuring everyone has a distinct role that another can't take easily.


TL;DR - in short, I've not had any good experiences by allowing it.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the multiclassing rules in 5e (I am not good at finding loopholes and other problems in rules, so that may just be me), I just don't think it fits in my campaign at the moment. It hasn't really got anything to do with multiclassing being OP or broken, but more that I don't want the players to take one-year breaks to get a new class, when I have a time sensitive plot running.

If a player told me at third level, that he wanted to begin training his fighter as a wizard, so he could multiclass at 7th level, I might allow it, as that would give an in-play explanation for his new knowledge over time, but only if one of the other PCs is already a wizard who can teach him.

 

[Boarstorm]

I think you're getting hung up on labels, [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION].

IMO, the mechanics are there to be used and refluffed in service of a character's story, not the other way around.

It's just grabbing from several classes in order to exactly create the "template" for your vision, which is a lot less work on the DM than creating a custom class that does the same thing.

Sure, you could just rule against any special snowflakes (which is less work yet! ). But I've found that allowing them lets players have more of a sense of authorship and draws them deeper into the game.

 

[Mallus]

I explained my reasoning here - http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6462689#post6462689 .

So you're ignoring the actual description of the warlock class in favor of your own particular & specific interpretation, which seems to be based on reading too much into the spell/invocation descriptions (and not enough on the big picture).

In short, I don't think that warlock's necrotic magic is thematically appropriate for a djinn. That is all.

Note that 5e warlocks don't have to be necrotic/black magicians at all. A full 1/3 of them are supposed to work for ancient elf-y powers. Titania, the Faerie Queen, is one of the listed patron examples. And only some of their spells are necrotic... why make an issue out of this?

And, because of that, non-dip multiclassing leaves you with ineffective characters that fall behind everyone else in terms of not only combat ability, but exploration and social ability as well.

How extensively have you playtested these assumptions?

They are complete and utter crap at pulling of story driven multiclassing, and only support min-maxing.

It took me all of ten minutes to create a flavorful, and potentially quite effective multiclass PC ("Binladdin"!). The reason I created him was parody, not powergaming (also a love of wordplay!).

That said, I've personally yet to find someone who's used this style multiclassing for anything beyond twinking their character.

I've found quite a few. I game with them regularly in Philadelphia! Most of them are gearheads who also make terrific fictional characters. Perhaps I've been lucky?

 

[Mephista]

It's just grabbing from several classes in order to exactly create the "template" for your vision, which is a lot less work on the DM than creating a custom class that does the same thing.

Some of us -like- the classes having distinct fluff, and requiring reasons and Role Play to join. If you're a sorcerer, you're not a divine warrior. If you're a fiend warlock, then you have some connection to the Lower Planes. That, again, is not a divine warrior devoted to a god.

"Oh, just rip out all the class fluff and remake it" doesn't fly at my table.

 

[was]

..First, let me say that I generally do not have a problem with multi-classing. While I do allow it in my campaigns, I limit it to only two classes. Despite the argument that it's a munchkin tool, IME multi-classed characters often lag behind the others in contributing to the party.

..That being said, those arguing that multi-classing is a player prerogative in this edition are mistaken. Multi-classing is not a standard practice as listed in the PHB. Pg. 163 defines it as an "optional" rule and notes that it is subject to DM discretion twice in the very first section of the chapter. It states that it requires "the DM's permission" and that "your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign." Whether people personally find those statements morally acceptable or not, or in the spirit of the game, thats what the RAW state.

 

[brehobit]

OK,
I really can't find a case in 5e where multiclassing really is a power up. The stat-bonus being tied to each class rather than total level is a real downer. As is the need to get multiple attacks for warriors. I've only seen one person play a multi-class character in Adventurer Leagues and that's me. That's the land of min-maxers and no one takes it.

I was working on a fun Paladin/Bard (ex army Lieutenant turned singer) and I find the single classed characters to be stronger. You get some cool things, but you lose more IMO.

The nice part is it lets you do new and different things. In the case of the Warlock/Barb you get a decent melee warlock (which bladelocks really aren't). I love the idea of a character that can create his weapon and fight in the front but also has some casting to fall back on.

The Paladin/Bard is more of the same. I prefer to play melee types and support types (I loved the 4e warlord). The 5e fighter can do it okay (great in melee, weak on support) and the Paladin can too. But I prefer to be a lot more on the support side than either of those let me.

And both are imports from 3.5e as character concepts. Very much story driven, but also mechanically sound--only a bit weaker than their single classed peers.