D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[GMforPowergamers]

...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.

you know what I'm sick of it too.

I'm sick of having to defend (what I would think is a common thought) the idea that the players having fun and being given the ability to do things they want isn't some high crime... or worse that a player would dare ask for something and NOT BE POWERGAMING or trying to break the game..

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!

that whole thing right there is pretty much an attack on my groups way of playing... infact that is something I hate to have to defend... the DM has what ever rights the players give him no more or less...

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...

turn that around, would it ruin your game night to say yes, can you find a middle ground if you both want other things?

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.

and all of that is REGARDLESS of what the player is playing...

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...?

and what is the harm in saying "Oh you want to play X, I can work with that"

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

how about taking a step back and looking that some people have been playing a different way with no problems... ever

 

[trentonjoe]

Now...warlock? Dwarf warlock? This is where I "call you into my office" and ask you to explain to me why you brought a dwarf warlock to work. It's pretty darn far out there.



Okay, so this is highly mechanically focused, and I'm probably going to reject it on that basis. I'll work with you and see if your character concept (story-driven) came first and you are just trying to create it mechanically, or if it were the other way around. Let's assume you really liked the character concept and that just seemed like the best way to manifest it in the rules.

From the concept you described, forget about warlock. Too much of a stretch and doesn't fit a good draconic deity. It also seems rather unnecessary for your concept.

Paladin I can do. So let's just start as a paladin--that's the class defined as a holy warrior, and you wanted to be a holy warrior. It's also a class that works well story-wise for dwarves. Now you are a dwarf who for some backstory reason really connected with Bahamut and his teachings, and decided to be a holy crusader in service of his causes. A bit eccentric, but sounds acceptable.

Now you are thinking of taking sorcerer levels (I'm assuming draconic). If the only reason is to get more spell slots for smiting, that is a no. If the primary reason is to get more spell slots for smiting, and you are thinking up ways to justify it in the story, it is still probably a no. If, on the other hand, you always saw this dwarf having a sorcerous arcane streak, I'll start discussing it with you. Why do you feel a need to add sorcerer to his story? I can see how you might look at it as providing a connection with your deity--but paladin or cleric really doesn't need any added connection. Providing an additional kind of connection is redundant and unnecessary.

But perhaps you want some arcane dragony magic--it just feels like he should have it. Okay, let's consider taking the Magic Initiate feat, and take draconic as one of your languages. Or perhaps you'd prefer the Ritual Caster feat, or perhaps both. That will allow you to add some arcane spice.

So here's what I say.

This is my story:

I am dwarf that has connected with the spirit of Bahumut. In exchange for my devotion to him he grants me powers, as I am not truly a priest, my powers manifest as a dragon's would. I don't "cast" spells I gain a breath weapon. For example, I don't cast Burning Hands, I breathe it (exact same mechanics, just looks different). When I fly, I grow wings.

As I gain in power, Bahumut gives me the ability to channel his strength (Divine Smite). Later on my breath weapon become more flexible (Sorcerer spells) and can do different things (you, know just like him) or I can choose to channel the breath weapon into my attacks charging them with the power of the Great Dragon.


Would you still rather me a straight Paladin after that discussion?

 

[steeldragons]

Player: "I want to play a warrior obsessed with alchemy and using transmutation magic to enhance his own body into the perfect fighting machine. Can I play a Fighter / Wizard (Transmuter)?"

DM: "Hey, did you check out the Eldritch Knight? It's a build for the Fighter designed to blend magic and weaponry, seems like it might be a good fit."

Player: "Yeah, I saw that, but it actually focused on Abjuration and Evocation magic. I could only learn a very small amount of Transmutation,

DMSD: "So we'll swap out the evocations for transmutations. Problem solved?"

and wouldn't get any of the cool Transmuter features."

DMSD: "Ah. So it's about the kewl powerz?"

DM: "Well, why not just play a full Transmuter then, and spend your feats on gaining armor and weapon proficiency?"

Player: "Yeah, that... that would take a while before I really have enough feats to do that... "

DMSD: So you have this concept [that you just have to play and I should allow MCing for when I've said we're not doing MC], but don't want to wait for it? 4th level is too long [assuming we aren't starting over 4th to begin with, in which case, no wait]? Variant human for a weapon proficiency at 1st and get your armor at 4th...or vice verse? Or, while understanding that you will be a serious rarity as a dwarf wizard, Mountain Dwarf Transmuter for the armor from level 1 and get the weapon at 4th?

DM: "Well, that's what you get for wanting to play a wizard who can wear armor and wield a sword. It wouldn't be fair for you to just get those features for free."

Player: "But it wouldn't be for free! It would be using this system, right here in the rules, that is designed to let you do exactly this sort of thing, and is intended to be balanced with all the other characters at the table!"

DMSD: Which is an optional system I've already said wouldn't be in the game. So why is this character in front of me in the first place? You have three possible ways to get this "concept" you're asking for, without it.

Here's a fourth: Fighter: Battlemaster. At 3rd you get prof. with Alchemist supplies. At 4th Magic Initiate Feat.

Here's another: play a Ranger [as chain mail swordy fightery instead of leathery bow as ya wanna]. I'll throw in Alchemist tools for you at level 1 and Arcana, only as relates to alchemy and transmutation magic, as a choice for one of your 3 starting skills. You can choose from the Ranger spell list and Arcane:Transmutation spells. No, not the whole wizard spell list. Transmuter spells.

Maybe we can work up an Alchemist background? Maaaybeee, as we get down the road, I'll work in some Transmuter features as future/higher level feats for you. [which automatically means I then have to come up with customized feat options for any/everyone else who wants them. Since what is allowed for one player must be allowed for all. But I would likely be inclined to do so.]

DM: "You really should be more like Bob over here. He has chosen a nice, balanced character in Anger Breakfist, the Barbarian that hits everything for All of the Damage. His background is that he wants to Kill All of the Things and Take All of the Loot. Much better than that 'warp your own flesh into a living weapon' min/maxing nonsense you came up with."

If the player tried to throw this up, I'd probably say something like, "Why do you think not getting your precise way is automatically saying this? It's not an either/or proposition. Your guy can be the greatest alchemically transmuterist Fighter there ever was. Use one of the 5 options I've offered [without multiclassing] and Roleplay him as such."

 

[trentonjoe]

I've had something similar happen with same DM, the same players, in games running concurrently. That flexibility with the same core of players expanded everyone's gaming abilities, I think.

If the story is good, the rules don't matter.

One of my favorite DMs runs a totally railroaded game. There's little real choice we just follow his lead. He often MAKES us CHARATCERS and defines their motivations. But the story is great and we love being characters in his world.

My games couldn't be farther from that. I often don't even look at my players character sheets. When my story is good my game is good....

 

[Eric V]

Multiclassing is optional.

For sure.

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.

What a thing to be irritated by!

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.

But...you are being arrogant when you presume to know the minds and motives of every player in the world wanting to multiclass. I mean, you see that, right?

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.

Sure. If our DM did what they wanted "Regard[les]s of what players say, what players want" he'd have an empty table.

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.

It might, if I really wanted to play a character like Altair and can't because you mistakenly think my multiclass rogue/paladin is more powerful than a single class version of either rogue or paladin.

The DM will still be shelling out enough fun adventure and excitement in a fantastic world of their design

Lol, maybe...but if my DM couldn't unclench enough to allow multiclassing...eh, I guess it's still possible.

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...?

Oh, man. Thing is when people look at this, they seem to forget that you have to get there! Getting there is NOT half the fun; while the MC toon is bouncing between two classes, the single-classed character is unlocking higher-level powers. In other words, are you really sure the MC class is drastically (or even slightly) more powerful than a single classed character.

Did anyone do the math on the paladin/warlock/sorcerer to see if that was really game breaking?

Anyone else notice that a some of the greatest characters in the "Inspired Reading" at the back of the PHB can NOT be done without multiclassing?

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

Well, honestly...do you think that's possible here?

 

[Meliath1742]

I think you've nailed my thoughts exactly...and I've been doing this since 1982!

 

[steeldragons]

I'm a lousy speller... so sue me... oh wait didn't you feel attacked by something earlier in this thread... how do you think this makes someone feel?

did you know what I ment, could you figure it out? I bet you could, but because we disagree you have to go out of your way to shame a very simple mistake... way to be classy...

That is categorically untrue. It has nothing to do with whether or not we disagree. As I said, it's a repeating mistake that I was correcting. Your apparent level of spelling notwithstanding, when communicating in a written medium it is bothersome and might require some extra care/attention. As to the "classiness" of bringing it up, I would think/hope that the correction might be helpful so as to avoid the mistake in the future. It has no baring on something as insignificant as a disagreement about multiclassing.

 

[Meliath1742]

FWIW, multiclassing is the only thing I've disallowed. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br/>

I think you've nailed my thoughts exactly...and I've been doing this since 1982!

 

[Umbran]

...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.

I reacted to you not when you advocated DM empowerment, but when you claimed to know why others did things, even when they said otherwise. I said it came across as arrogant for you to declare why *everyone* does something. I spoke up not when you spoke of DM empowerment, but when you painted all players with a broad brush.

If you don't want to be called out on that, don't do it.

 

[steeldragons]

You are looking for a reason to say no though.

That is mistaken. I am looking for a reason to say "Yes."

You haven't given one reason why MC shouldn't be allowed besides that you don't like it and people "might" min/max.

And the fact that multiclassing in 5e is explicitly a DM approved optional sub-system. As are feats.

So, yeah, I am, in actuality, looking for a reason to say "Yes. We should use this." because the game does not assume it.

That is it, and while it is your right to not allow it in your game, you have hardly articulated a good reason why it shouldn't be allowed.

See above.

The first rule of DMing is to make sure that people have fun

I don't know if it's the first rule, but yes it's a biggie.

and if that is the character that they want to build, why shouldn't they get to build their character. The other thing that DMs should try to do is find a way to so yes (not that you can always say yes to players but you should look for a reason to say yes) while you are starting from the point of No and convince me to say yes.

That is a matter of some contention, the whole "look for reasons to say yes" mumbo-jumbo created by recent/"modern" editions. We never "looked for reasons to say yes." Something made sense [more or less] or it didn't. Understand, we never looked for reasons to say "no" either, for that matter. Did it make sense [in the game and/or world] or didn't it? "It makes my character moar kewlz/gives me more powers" without "it makes sense [for the game or in the world setting]" does not a Yes equal simply becasue the player <Gollum voice> wants it</Gollum>.