D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Mouseferatu]

It specifically DOES address the rarity of multiclassing issue.

Certainly. But not the story- or aesthetic-based reasoning/justification that I was talking about.

Ah! I see. You're addressing my second example--"Bob called it first." I was actually more focused on my first example. But yes, if it was just a rarity issue and I had more than one player who really wanted it, I'd pick randomly or draw lots or something.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still don't quite understand why it's better to bring in house rules like switching out spell lists instead of using perfectly workable rules that are right there.

Not that house ruling is bad, but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work just to get the same results.

Agreed. But some don't see the forest for the trees.

Some years ago, I wanted to play a Battle Sorcerer. The DM said no, but on looking at my concept, let me have an arcane caster who could wear armor and use martial weapons, based on his design.

You would be astounded at how similar it was to the Battle Sorcerer.

However, sometimes a spell-list swap is all you need. I love martial spellcasters- see my sig- and I would have loved to see versions of the Bard, Beguiler or WarMage with spell lists focused on the other arcane schools, for instance. Or with a divine spell list...

Or an Arcane half-caster, based on the paladin. I'm playing an Arcane Paladin concept right now, and it is a hell of a kludge. And yes, multiclassing is involved: Marshal2/Duskblade2/Battle Sorcerer6 w/Stalwart Sorcerer. Not too many ways to have a LG PC with martial prowess, armored arcane spellcasting, and mystic auras without MCing.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What about the Barbarian/Bard? I want to fight enemies and then sing heavy metal songs about me fighting them...

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

What about the Barbarian/Bard? I want to fight enemies and then sing heavy metal songs about me fighting them...

In my campaign I have a half-orc barbarian who whips out her bag-pipe at inopportune moments. That is kind of the same...

 

[Psikerlord#]

Thread has ballooned too long for me to catch up right now, but, to answer the first question - the right answer is, because one or more of your players want to. That's the long and the short of it.

Given the advice you're getting about anyone wanting to MC is obviously trying to break the game, is it any wonder I have such a poor opinion of DM's? Are you playing the character? Is it your character? No? Then why do you give the slightest damn what your players are playing? It's no more your job as the DM to tell the players what they should play than it is their job to tell you how your game world should run.

Here's a good idea. Trust your players and make it very clear that you are placing the responsibility for the game on their shoulders. It works wonders.

For abundant clarity: the reasoning behind not allowing the optional MCing is to make the game more fun for the table as a whole. I suspect you have never DM'd, or at least never DM'd for a mixed bag of players. The one issue that can break a game is a large power disparity between PCs, which MCing can lead to, if you have a mix of powergamers and others, like I do. There is no "DM v Players" agenda.

If only some of your players want MCing, then allowing it is a bad plan overall, imo.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's still NOT "story reasons." It's NOT "concept." The WHY of the argument to allow it is "so I can get X."

I don't think the 5e multiclassing rules are any bad, in fact they seem quite good for me.

But they are certainly unnecessary from the point of view of story or character concepts.

I don't think there is any character concept that really needs multiclassing, not in an edition with 12 classes, 30+ subclasses, feats, backgrounds, and other variants.

I don't even think it's always a matter of grabbing abilities, because if you offer the player the option to gain any ability they want from another class in exchange for something equivalent, some players will still want to multiclass.

I think it goes deeper than that for some players, it might be that they are just eternally undecided on what they want to play, but they want to play it now...

Day one: I am a Fighter damn it! That's what the game is all about!
Day two: Oooo... look at all those cool spells, I am switching to Wizard!
Day three: Hey the Cleric is surprisingly the strongest class in this edition, how wouldn't you want to be one?
Day four: Enough with healing, I want to smash things, Bariarian!
Day five: I saw the light! Sweat, tears and charity, let's put ethics before everything, I'll be the best lawfullest Paladin evar!
Day six: Ethics are for wank'rs, an Assassin has much more fun.
Day nine: Hey I just saw the latest Batman movie, can I be Batman?
Day ten: You know what? I've never played a Bard... maybe this time... I could... perhaps... hell no!

 

[seebs]

For abundant clarity: the reasoning behind not allowing the optional MCing is to make the game more fun for the table as a whole. I suspect you have never DM'd, or at least never DM'd for a mixed bag of players. The one issue that can break a game is a large power disparity between PCs, which MCing can lead to, if you have a mix of powergamers and others, like I do. There is no "DM v Players" agenda.

If only some of your players want MCing, then allowing it is a bad plan, imo.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've very rarely seen multiclassing builds produce something dramatically more powerful than single-class builds, and mostly I find them to be significantly weaker. I am pretty sure that a fighter/wizard will in general be less powerful than a single-classed wizard or fighter, although they'll gain some flexibility to make up for it.

Part of my concern here is that the spectre of "large power disparity" is being invoked, but I've not seen a demonstration that this is really a relevant issue. Two objections immediately come to mind:

1. No one's shown that you can build a hugely-superior character with multiclassing.
2. No one's shown that you can't build a hugely-superior character without multiclassing.

But the only time "ban multiclassing" is a sensible way to avoid "large power disparities" is if you believe that multiclassing will allow large power disparities that can't be obtained without it.

(To be fair, you could certainly argue persuasively that multiclassing could make much weaker characters; I'm pretty sure a fighter 10/wizard 10 is significantly weaker than either a fighter 20 or a wizard 20.)

 

[wedgeski]

For abundant clarity: the reasoning behind not allowing the optional MCing is to make the game more fun for the table as a whole. I suspect you have never DM'd, or at least never DM'd for a mixed bag of players.

Just FYI, you should probably assume that most posters here, and especially someone with a post history like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], are DM's, and have run a lot of games, for a lot of different people, across a range of systems.

 

[Imaro]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've very rarely seen multiclassing builds produce something dramatically more powerful than single-class builds, and mostly I find them to be significantly weaker. I am pretty sure that a fighter/wizard will in general be less powerful than a single-classed wizard or fighter, although they'll gain some flexibility to make up for it.

Part of my concern here is that the spectre of "large power disparity" is being invoked, but I've not seen a demonstration that this is really a relevant issue. Two objections immediately come to mind:

1. No one's shown that you can build a hugely-superior character with multiclassing.
2. No one's shown that you can't build a hugely-superior character without multiclassing.

But the only time "ban multiclassing" is a sensible way to avoid "large power disparities" is if you believe that multiclassing will allow large power disparities that can't be obtained without it.

(To be fair, you could certainly argue persuasively that multiclassing could make much weaker characters; I'm pretty sure a fighter 10/wizard 10 is significantly weaker than either a fighter 20 or a wizard 20.)

Yeah this is my biggest concern with multi-classing in 5e and currently I've told my players we'll decide at 5th level whether it will be allowed in our current campaign or not. Since it's a new edition I really would prefer they get a feel for playing a single class before multi-classing as I'm more worried about those who choose to multi-class making a weaker combo then a player who sticks with the single class character. We had this issue with hybrids in 4e where some people understood the synergy necessary to create a decent hybrid while others who didn't ended up with weaker characters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've very rarely seen multiclassing builds produce something dramatically more powerful than single-class builds, and mostly I find them to be significantly weaker. I am pretty sure that a fighter/wizard will in general be less powerful than a single-classed wizard or fighter, although they'll gain some flexibility to make up for it.

Part of my concern here is that the spectre of "large power disparity" is being invoked, but I've not seen a demonstration that this is really a relevant issue. Two objections immediately come to mind:

1. No one's shown that you can build a hugely-superior character with multiclassing.
2. No one's shown that you can't build a hugely-superior character without multiclassing.

But the only time "ban multiclassing" is a sensible way to avoid "large power disparities" is if you believe that multiclassing will allow large power disparities that can't be obtained without it.

(To be fair, you could certainly argue persuasively that multiclassing could make much weaker characters; I'm pretty sure a fighter 10/wizard 10 is significantly weaker than either a fighter 20 or a wizard 20.)

There are some specific short term benefits which are fairly powerful with some combinations. In one of my campaigns we have a cleric/warlock. Being able to have healing spells available on a short rest cycle is a huge boost.