D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[keterys]

3E style multiclassing (which 5E is) is much more often about making less effective characters than making more effective characters. They did actually address some of those flaws, but it's very easy to end up with a franken-character who is low on feats/stats, melees less than half as effectively, casts a mishmash of low level spells, etc. Unfortunately, even when they addressed the spell pyramid stacking for multiclass casters, it's not like they made the scaling on most of the spells actually effective. A 3rd level Burning Hands is a lot worse than a Fireball. In fact, a 9th level Burning Hands is still usually worse than a Fireball. Nevermind a meteor swarm.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think a more common issue would be "That build idea's pretty weak. You're giving up a lot of effectiveness and I'm not sure you're going to see much benefit." A DM has to watch out for PCs that are too weak as well as too powerful.

No he doesn't, at least not with experiencd players. He isn't the Fun Police. "Underpowered" PCs are a self-correcting issue. If a PC doesn't pull its weight or isn't fun to play, it usually gets killed in action or the player retires the PC voluntarily.

 

[keterys]

If only multiclassing had been in the DMG, with a couple different options, instead of only one in the PHB. Does it even have the wording like feats that it's totally a DM dependent option? Cause I find feats more basic than multiclassing.

 

[Imaro]

If only multiclassing had been in the DMG, with a couple different options, instead of only one in the PHB. Does it even have the wording like feats that it's totally a DM dependent option? Cause I find feats more basic than multiclassing.

The PHB specifically calls out multi-classing as optional...

 

[Umbran]

No he doesn't, at least not with experiencd players. He isn't the Fun Police.

"Experienced player" does nto equate to "player with rules-mastery". When the GM has more rules-mastery than the player, does he or she not kind of owe the player the benefit of that knowledge?

"Underpowered" PCs are a self-correcting issue. If a PC doesn't pull its weight or isn't fun to play, it usually gets killed in action or the player retires the PC voluntarily.

Maybe. Or maybe the PC gets hauled along and protected by the other players (on the same basis as, "Well, they are a PC, so we *have* to accept them into the party"), and other characters take the heat for having the under-powered PC there.

The GM is not the Fun Police. But the GM is the Game Editor. Just as he or she chooses the rules options available based on what is apt to work best for all concerned, should they not weigh in on such matters as well?

 

[keterys]

The PHB specifically calls out multi-classing as optional...

Okay, good.

So why are we having a 20-page discussion about this? It's an optional rule. If you don't like it, don't use it. Done and done.

 

[Imaro]

Okay, good.

So why are we having a 20-page discussion about this? It's an optional rule. If you don't like it, don't use it. Done and done.

Honestly I agree... but there seems to be a contingent of posters who believe that the optional rules should by default be open to the players if they want them... regardless of the DM's opinion and despite the fact that their availability is specifically called out as up to the DM...Go figure.

 

[steeldragons]

I want to know what anyone says about my comment 8 pages ago..

I want to have a fun character that the game supports and here it is, it wont break the game being too powerful or too weak and is well within the fluff...

What is it you're looking for people to say?

Everyone wants to have a fun character. I, as DM, want you to have a fun character.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Since the debate was the use or not of MCing, I still want to know why you need multiclassing in the game to "have a fun character"? Why is a single classed character not possible for a fun not too powerful/too weak PC?

This, originally very large fonted, statement does not answer that. Why do you need me, as the DM, to have MCing in the game? Your [and others] answer, essentially: Because I want it to build this character this particular way (whether that's for the additional abilities, the story reasons, whatever, we will hopefully not have to revisit. Whatever the reason is!).

When I ask again. The answer, worded differently/with more words, is still "Because I want it." This time "it" being "a fun character that the game supports, etc... etc..."

It is not, as I said several times yesterday, a sufficient answer for me to say yes. Continuing to answer "Why?" with "Because I want it" does not get us anywhere.

There is virtually no limit to "fun character that the game supports...won't break the game being too powerful or too weak and is well within the fluff..." that you can make without including the optional subsystem needing DM approval of Multiclassing.

Coming up with corner case after individual story of why a specific character needs a particular concession [using MC] does not change or disprove this. We can all come up with stories that can use it...Why is it impossible or so awful a prospect to imagine coming up with a character that doesn't need it?...and have that character still be considered "fun" and no more restricted in-game/story wise [other than by their array of class abilities] than one that does [multiclass]?

To, possibly, sway the conversation into a different direction [as to "productive", one can only hope], I pose this:
What is so wrong/unfun/threatening/inconceivable with that style of play? No new classes at every level up. Non-existent or, as [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] posted last night, severe or arbitrarily limited MCing parameters. How is that such a terrible burden for people's characters and/or on the players, themselves?

 

[Mephista]

Okay, good.

So why are we having a 20-page discussion about this? It's an optional rule. If you don't like it, don't use it. Done and done.

Because the OP started off by asking "Why should I allow it."

Proceed to lots of pages of discussion between the drawbacks and virtues of multi-classing. Which seems to be winding down to repeating the same points over and over again.

 

[Ahrimon]

When people say that they are concerned about a character not pulling his weight the first thing that comes to mind is that it's a group problem of people that want their characters to be finely tuned machines. Or more confrontationally "mor powerz!" I'll never understand why people insist that character X takes feat Y because it's 2.342134% more powerful that feat Z.

I love that 5e is more like 2e in that characters of varying ability all play well together. So what if my bard can't do 1/2 the damage that the cleric does. So what if my wizard illusionist doesn't cast sleep all the time. If we're all contributing and we're all having fun it doesn't matter.

I have no problems with the multiclass rules as they are, but I would like to see more options for mixing the class abilities to create a more custom character. I don't think that multiclass characters are going to be more or less powerful to any significant degree than any single class character can. What's next, should we ban feats because someone who is taking a feat obviously wants (and I quote) "kewl powerz!" over someone who doesn't? Maybe we should ban backgrounds too. That's just another source of "kewl powerz!". For those that say "because the player wants it" I suppose you also force your DM's to re-do their campaign for magic items when they didn't want to include them because "the player wants it". Heaven (pun intended) forbid that the DM creates a custom pantheon when a player wants to play a worshiper of deity X from the PHB.

If a DM chooses to not use the optional rules of feats or multi-classing, then I have no issues with it. I'll make a fun character and have fun playing with the game. It's the DM's prerogative for the game he's putting together. If, as a player, you don't like that set up you can talk to the DM and the others and see if you can find a middle ground, and if not. Your have to choose to accept it or find a different game.

Personally I think there's a lot of entitlement coming out from both sides, but I think it's stemming from some stubbornness to prove to the other side that they're right. Give it up. We can all play the game they way we want. Give the OP some information and options. Don't attack to the other side just for having a different opinion of what is fun.