D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Mephista]

I often play subpar builds... the name came from a group of players who of the 5 of them only 1 still plays with me who were VERY powergamey...although not always good at it...

Sorry, it was meant to just be a joke.

see I think if a DM is really worried about what is and isn't acceptable he should say it, I shouldn't be expected to ask too many questions...

Well, this and that are separate issues. A GM who doesn't give a lot of detail in character creation could be doing so because they expect the players to know what they mean. You assume that your GM would allow something. Other players would expect their GM to not allow something.

Should all GMs spell out what they want? I think so. Even if its just "all variant rules in the PHB, and only the PHB, are go." GMs should be clear on what they do or do not permit, leaving no ambiguity. But someone that's just going "make a level 5 character" could mean anything. Its a very subjective statement that relies on each individuals interpretation of the rules, and the local metagame.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How bout a compromise?

Allow multi-classing, but demand training time (in the form of time off and GP spent) to gain that level. There are rules for training time in the DMG, start with that.

A first level fighter wants to level to second level? He does so as soon as he get the XP.
A first level fighter wants to pick up a level of wizard? Well, now he has to find a tutor to teach him magic, buy a spellbook and wand, spend several weeks learning basic cantrips and magical formula, and none of that is cheap. Oh, and your friends have to wait around while you do it. Are you really sure you want to change careers?

I'm say this about that: IME as both a player and GM, training time & expenses are best handled "off screen"...behind the scenes, as it were.

Why? Because those who really want to multiclass- such as myself- WILL take game time to do it if asked to. And that is no fun for anyone.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm say this about that: IME as both a player and GM, training time & expenses are best handled "off screen"...behind the scenes, as it were.

Why? Because those who really want to multiclass- such as myself- WILL take game time to do it if asked to. And that is no fun for anyone.

That's fine too.

"Danny spends three weeks and 3,000 gold to become a wizard. What are you guys doing for those three weeks?" could be a good place for other PCs to use other downtime events if they choose. It just means the guy who M/C'd can't do other cool things like carouse, craft items, or gain renown.

EDIT: and if you are bound and determined to be a barbarian/fighter/warlock, you still can; its just going to cost you all that extra downtime and hard-earned gp. So while you're learning how to fight and making alien pacts, your friends are doing other cool things like making magical swords or building a keep.

 

[MechaPilot]

I always find the "why should I allow _______" questions very odd in forums. We're really not the ones you should be asking. It's your players whom you should be asking.

Now, we can all give generalized responses about the customization offered by feats, multiclassing, or any other optional feature. However, none of our responses are necessarily going to reflect what you would hear from your players.

Additionally, customization can be had within a single class by asking one's DM about switching class or subclass features. And there's always feats, if you allow them. Plus, you could evaluate allowing characters to pick up things from other classes through downtime training; I have done that in the past and plan to use it again in the future.

 

[Ahrimon]

For me, it's a campaign by campaign decision.

I did have a thought for those that think that multi-classing breaks the verisimilitude of the game though. First, I understand where you are coming from. How did Joe fighter suddenly become a wizard while exploring the forest of dread? But the way 5e does it's sub-classes pretty much breaks the verisimilitude already. While mechanicically different, is there really a thematic difference between Joe fighter leveling up and taking a level of wizard or leveling up and suddenly becoming an eldritch knight? Either way suddenly the mundane fighter is capable of casting spells. This is spread across almost all of the classes too. Average Joe Paladin suddenly decides to take a vow to protect the weak while his brother average John Paladin vows to avenge the fallen. Story wise, why did they have to make a vow at all? Couldn't they have just proceeded as an average paladin? They didn't have to take a vow before they used their paladin-hood to schwack the goblins in the woods before.

The entire concept of leveling and gaining new abilities pretty much breaks the idea of characters evolving naturally, but it's something we overlook for the sake of the game. Multi-classing, especially for 5e, is a very short step away from regular classes so it's not something I would worry about. But if a DM ever decides to not use that option, I have plenty of single class character ideas I can play.

 

[airwalkrr]

ok, so If tomorrow I got invited to a 5e game and the DM said "Just make 5th level characters." I would ask "How do you do stats?" and "Can I start with magic items?" and then would make a character... and think nothing of being a 3/2 fighter (battle master)/ Wizard... I just would assume multi classing unless otherwise told was in... then again I would assume feats as weell

Yea, if all I said was "make 5th level characters" that is exactly what I would expect most players to ask. The scenario you describe would not surprise me in the least, and if that is what I had said, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[airwalkrr]

The weight of history actually goes the other way, 3.5 and 4E were the odd ones out. AD&D had plenty of optional rules, OD&D/BECMI did not have multiclassing. Its only been one true way so to speak for around 15/40 years of D&D history.

I respectfully disagree, at least with respect to the PH, which is what I am primarily talking about here. (If I wasn't clear I was talking primarily about the PH, I apologize, and I am making that clear now.) When it comes to the PH, for as long as there has been a PH anyway (since 1979), it has been my experience that players expect the vast majority of rules there to be sacred. OD&D and BECMI were a little different to be sure, but I have to admit all of my groups prior to 1999 were AD&D 1e or 2e groups. So I suppose I cannot comment on those versions of the game. Honestly, I do not find it relevant since those versions did not have a PH to the best of my recollection.

Were there lots of other options (particularly in other books)? Of course. That does not have any bearing on player expectations of what is allowed in the PH, and again, this is just my experience. Unless the DM says otherwise, most players I have had expect the PH to be set in stone unless the DM says otherwise with the possible exception of ability scores and equipment. Since those two questions almost inevitably pop up, I usually give guidelines for them. If I have any other rules for chargen, I describe them or provide a handout.

Again, this is all my experience, my opinion, and your mileage may vary.

 

[Zardnaar]

I respectfully disagree, at least with respect to the PH, which is what I am primarily talking about here. (If I wasn't clear I was talking primarily about the PH, I apologize, and I am making that clear now.) When it comes to the PH, for as long as there has been a PH anyway (since 1979), it has been my experience that players expect the vast majority of rules there to be sacred. OD&D and BECMI were a little different to be sure, but I have to admit all of my groups prior to 1999 were AD&D 1e or 2e groups. So I suppose I cannot comment on those versions of the game. Honestly, I do not find it relevant since those versions did not have a PH to the best of my recollection.

Were there lots of other options (particularly in other books)? Of course. That does not have any bearing on player expectations of what is allowed in the PH, and again, this is just my experience. Unless the DM says otherwise, most players I have had expect the PH to be set in stone unless the DM says otherwise with the possible exception of ability scores and equipment. Since those two questions almost inevitably pop up, I usually give guidelines for them. If I have any other rules for chargen, I describe them or provide a handout.

Again, this is all my experience, my opinion, and your mileage may vary.

2E PHB was full of optional rules, same with the BECMI rules cyclopaedia. 1E had some as well like psionics, bards etc.

 

[Hussar]

2E PHB was full of optional rules, same with the BECMI rules cyclopaedia. 1E had some as well like psionics, bards etc.

Thing was, thought, while those were labeled optional, they were expected to be in play. Monsters included psionic abilities in the 1e MM, for example. Modules used bards and included magic items for bards. 2e presumed that weapon specialisation and Non-weapon proficiencies were going to be used, even though both systems were explicitly labeled optional. I don't think Airwalkerr is too far off in saying that there was a very strong expectation that "optional" rules were going to be in play.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thing was, thought, while those were labeled optional, they were expected to be in play. Monsters included psionic abilities in the 1e MM, for example. Modules used bards and included magic items for bards. 2e presumed that weapon specialisation and Non-weapon proficiencies were going to be used, even though both systems were explicitly labeled optional. I don't think Airwalkerr is too far off in saying that there was a very strong expectation that "optional" rules were going to be in play.

Perhaps but they were still optional we rarely used psionics for example. 3.x and 4E are the odd ones out in terms of optional rules.