D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Arial Black]

...Way too long, didn't read. Sorry, I simply don't care enough about this enough to read that massive wall of "I'm still right and all of you are still wrong" on something that is so subjective.

DM's will run their games the way they want to. Even if YOU insist it isn't rational. Deal with it.

Oh, I dealt with this very subject in the post that you chose not to read.

 

[Caliban]

Oh, I dealt with this very subject in the post that you chose not to read.

And yet I still feel I made the right decision.

 

[Arial Black]

And yet I still feel I made the right decision.

A personal preference which is properly yours to make. You have my full support.

How would you feel if that choice was taken away from you?

 

[Caliban]

A personal preference which is properly yours to make. You have my full support.

How would you feel if that choice was taken away from you?

Exactly how would you take away my ability to choose NOT to read something?

For the nth time, Multiclassing is an optional rule. It's not "taken away" by the DM - by default, it's not an option, the DM has to choose to allow it. That choice may be (should be) influenced by player preference, but ultimately it is up to the DM.

I already know your response: 'Yes it's their choice, but they should choose to do allow it or they're being poopyheads".

We get it.

 

[Arial Black]

Exactly how would you take away my ability to choose NOT to read something?

For the nth time, Multiclassing is an optional rule. It's not "taken away" by the DM - by default, it's not an option, the DM has to choose to allow it. That choice may be (should be) influenced by player preference, but ultimately it is up to the DM.

I already know your response: 'Yes it's their choice, but they should choose to do allow it or they're being poopyheads".

We get it.

Perhaps my take on this is influenced by my experiences.

I've played since the '70s with AD&D 1E, then 2E, 3E, 3.5E, Pathfinder, 4E (for a bit) and now 5E. In all that time MCing was not an 'optional' rule any more than any other rule. In 1E/2E I could play a fighter or a thief or a fighter/thief, and the latter wasn't some special option allowed only if the DM toggled that particular switch.

Although 3E/Pathfinder's MC rules were very different, they to were not 'optional'; each time you gain a level then you choose to either gain a level in one of your classes or gain the first level in another class. It's the players' choice, not the DM's.

I was surprised to see that MCing was optional in 5E, but then I realised the marketing strategy: they want to make the game as easy to pick up as possible. It's like having a stripped-down basic rules-set to make learning the game easier, and the expectation is that you progress to the full rules once you've got the hang of the basics. Like training wheels on your first bicycle; your parents may insist you use them when you start, but you'd look pretty silly having to still use them when you are 16.

So I think it's inappropriate to insist on these training wheels when the players are no longer newbies.

I suppose that if 5E is your only D&D experience then you might view MCing as just as 'optional' as the optional rules in the DMG. But they really are the 'normal' rules that were only made 'optional' to ease newbies into the game, as a marketing decision.

So, DMs of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your training wheels!

 

[dco]

I suppose that if 5E is your only D&D experience then you might view MCing as just as 'optional' as the optional rules in the DMG. But they really are the 'normal' rules that were only made 'optional' to ease newbies into the game, as a marketing decision.

On the other hand I think those optional rules are awful and only got there to satisfy some old players, not to simplify things for newbies. There is no marketing.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A lot of these conversations skip over many of the details like consensus and numbers on each side of the table. From authoritarian DM lording his power over his players to demanding special snowflake players that demand that their character wants be met. The reality is usually somewhere in between those extremes.

If a DM tells his group that he doesn't want to use multi-classing for (insert reason here) and most of the players are cool with it but one or two, then those who aren't have to choose if they want to play in that game. If every player wants multi-classing then the DM has to choose if he wants to DM for those players. The DM is perfectly within his right to say, it's cool that you want multi-classing, but it's not my thing so I'm going to bow out of the DM seat. The DM is not obligated to run a game for the players. And the players are within their rights to say that not using multi-classing isn't their thing so they're going to bow out of the game. If both sides really want the game to happen then one of them will compromise. If not, then so be it. But no one is required to play in a way that they don't want to play.

For the record I am a fan of multi-class characters and the top of my list of characters I want to play is a multi-class character. But once I find a new group, if the DM doesn't use multi-classing I'm not going to pitch a fit or call him irrational, and no matter what I think of his reasoning think that he's a Richard. I'll simply pick a different character from my list of really want to play characters.

And that's a reasonable attitude. Pitching a fit is seldom constructive. But it does seem strange to me when a DM is not willing to compromise on a point like this when the players want it. Multiclassing just has so little impact on their side of the table. It's not like the player is asking to use some bizarre optional race that might mess with the worldbuilding. (Or hell, even a core race: I'm much more sympathetic to "no elves" than "no multiclassing".) So why even bother taking a stand here? Why not allow it and get on with the campaign?

 

[Valetudo]

Honestly Im of the opinion that as the dm I control what is used when I dm. Im not gonna dm something I dont want to. Now the player has the choice of playing or finding another game. Im up for suggestions and I want my players to have fun. But I also have seen what happens when players try to force something in my games. I will walk away at that point. Having said that I have no problem of mcing in 5th as long as its not munchkin multiclassing. If you want to run your game without, Im fine with that.

 

[Valetudo]

On the other hand I think those optional rules are awful and only got there to satisfy some old players, not to simplify things for newbies. There is no marketing.

And you have the right to have your opinion. I personally think the way wizards treats new players as if they cant handle the whole game is kinda insulting. Not every newby needs or wants it that simple.Its ok to have both.

 

[Iain_Coleman]

Many players find multiclassing fun and interesting. Twenty pages in, and I have yet to see anybody explain why denying them that option makes the game more fun and interesting.

Of course, DMs can do what they like, make all weapons do 1D6 damage, ban clerics, make all cantrips into first level spells, whatever, and of course if players don't like those strictures they can choose not to play the game. But "no multiclassing! Not at my table!" is such an absurdly petty hill to die on.