D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[trentonjoe]

It's a mechanics grab, not necessarily a power grab. The character isn't "better' than a straight Paladin, it's just different. Glad to see your reasoning though, thanks for sharing.

 

[Boarstorm]

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

It does, obviously, at mine.

I'm okay with my PCs being unique individuals, not just templates following a recipe in the PHB. I hated it in V:tM, honestly. A Ventrue was a Ventrue was a...

If they want to adhere to a trope, great! If they don't, that's great too.

It's a playstyle thing, ultimately. My particular style is that I want everyone to be playing the character they want to play.

I get the opposing point of view, and I'm glad that the rules work well enough that we can both find a way to make it work to our satisfaction.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

OK, how about this... I want to take a few levels of fighter (eldritch knight) and a few levels of wizard (evocker) to be a bladesinger more focused on casting...

or

I want to replay my warlord idea, so I want to take some levels of bard (valor) and some fighter (battlemaster)

or

I want to combine rogue (assassin) and paliden (Vengence) to play a character like Assasin creed...

 

[Leatherhead]

I have no idea why people allow feats if they want to discourage min-maxing. Feats are the primary (and potentially most powerful) tool for it.

 

[trentonjoe]

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.

It's a mechanics grab, not necessarily a power grab. The character isn't "better' than a straight Paladin, it's just different. Glad to see your reasoning though, thanks for sharing.

 

[Mallus]

Some of us -like- the classes having distinct fluff, and requiring reasons and Role Play to join.

I thought 3e more-or-less killed that notion (and took its stuff). Classes became ability packages to combine and recombine as needed (or desired).

I think it comes down to whether you see characters as their game mechanics, or as fictional people who are partially described using game mechanics. I'm strongly in the latter camp.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

A couple of more observations on the topic ...

The D&D core classes are iconic but not necessarily the only way to present characters of that type. I think it's sort of funny how Rangers are spell casters. How about a rogue/fighter with the Outlander background as a different take on the wilderness adventurer instead?

Elric of Melnibone has elements of fighter, sorcerer and warlock. Conan has elements of barbarian, fighter and rogue. Limiting MC'ing also limits the ability for heroic characters to capture their unique flavor.

Strong players make strong characters. A munchkinified PC is only as good as their player runs them. Like any game, some people will be better at it than others. As a DM my job is to reward good play, not just good rolls.

 

[Mallus]

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.

It must be nice to know what goes on in other people's heads without even needing to ask them.

I've got almost 10 years of gaming time with a group that makes hash out out of your assertion. But I guess we've just been lying to ourselves, eh?

 

[am181d]

Sure I can imagine any of those things...why do any of these examples mandate Multiclassing?...other than to get the bells and whistles.

"I found god, so now I get cleric spells, right?" No. Now you're a grizzled veteran with a new found devotion and faith. That's great! Cool character idea/development. Run with it. I need to grant you divine spells for you to play a faithful PC? No, sir, I do not. Maybe, if you do it for a while, I might bring that in waaaay down the line. But if every faithful peasant praying to a deity was granted spells...? Well, might be an interesting world...but not one I would run.

Your "tinker" in DL...same thing. So learn some stuff about high sorcery. Maybe you get some bonus to arcana checks...or magical history, recognizing/deciphering magic writings or whatever...but I see no reason this idea equates "the DM has to allow me to function as a member of this different class" because someone has a thought for their character.

If you're doing it for "character" reasons, and I fully endorse and support those that do, then play the character. Otherwise, as I state above, anything like this is just justifications for "gimme these other/moar powers."

So, no. Your examples, while I am sure make for interesting characters, do not say anything that leads me to "ergo, allow multi-classing."

I don't understand your argument. If folks want to play a character concept that involves multiclassing (e.g. a fighter becomes a cleric) how is " if multiclassing wasn't allowed this would be impossible" a reasonable response?

"Fighter becomes Cleric" is a valid, rules-supported character choice. "Fighter stays Fighter but becomes more pious" is also a fine choice, but it's clearly a different choice.

 

[steeldragons]

Some people like to hunt mosquitos with hand-grenades.

A-bombs work too.

But, all humor aside, neither Hand grenades nor a-bombs are necessary.

Multiclassing is optional.

The perspective that seems to be pervading the thread that NOT allowing MC is somehow doing something "wrong"...cuz the players want it...is ...well, really irritating to me.

And another thing... [this has nothing to do with you, DannyAlcatraz, just happen to have quoted you]

...I don't know about anyone else [probably not since it seems so rare an occurrence], but I am really getting tired of being made out to advocate "badwrongfun", being "adversarial", or "arrogant" and/or insinuating (if not stating outright) I am a "bad DM" any time anything is brought up advocating DM empowerment.

The DM is allowed to make choices for their game. Regards of what players say, what players want, what players think they are entitled to. The DM CAN SAY NO! They SHOULD say no. They should be fair. Yes. Note, not "balanced", fair. They should be as consistent as possible...Yes. But it's not always possible and players need to accept that. And they should damn well HAVE A GOOD TIME DMing! And if that means NOT adding in options that the players say they want...so fraggin' be it!

Is it going to "ruin" your concept that you can't be a Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer? Is it going to "ruin" your game/night if the DM says no MCing in their campaign...or even in this single campaign or one shot? Or does it just mean you work with what you got? The DM will still be shelling out enough fun adventure and excitement in a fantastic world of their design [as shaped and effected by the PCs and their choices and actions] to shake a handful of dice at. You still have loads of "meaningful" decisions, both in character creation and roleplaying, to make.

But you can't have fun with just a Paladin? She's a "bad DM" cuz they won't let you use spell points to max out smites? You character is no good now, because you have to limit your spell selection to Eldritch Knight [or, ya know, play an EK and get DM ok to use different spell schools! Still don't need MC for that.] He's telling me "badwrongfun" cuz he won't let me be a Fighter/Mage...and get Second Wind and Arcane Recovery and Extra Attacks and Ritual Casting and and and...?

I just don't get it. Just a big meany DM, I guess.