D&D 5E To Allow Multi-Class or Not....A DM's Dilemma

[iserith]

I wouldn't go that far, but I realized because you said it that I forgot to mention that even though my group does allow anyone that wants to multi-class to do so, that as of yet not a single character played has actually been multi-classed.

I agree with [MENTION=35019]Croesus[/MENTION] that it doesn't tend to create more powerful characters. I do tend to create a lot of multiclass characters myself though because I really like niche concepts - usually to fit some stupid name I came up with while drunk - and the additional options help me realize that mechanically. I'm surprised you haven't seen any multiclassed characters though. My current campaign has seen a couple, but admittedly not many.

 

[Lanliss]

I am personally a fan of the Concept version of multiclassing. Single classes are fine, and can be entertaining, but most of my character concepts require at least a little bleed between the classes. Unfortunately, my two favorite flavor-based multiclasses are also considered two of the most optimal dips, so it looks like I am only doing it for power, when really I just want a Warlock Pirate, or a Duelist with a bit of magic thrown in. That being said, most concepts can be kind of reached with single classing and a bit of flavor change, so don't feel like you have to include it just so your players can play what they want. My Warlock pirate could work just as well as a single classed Warlock, and my Magic Duelist can be an EK. They just wouldn't have the exact mechanics I want tied to them, which is a sacrifice I am willing to make for someone else to feel more comfortable.

 

[cbwjm]

When starting 5e with my group, nothing was restricted. So far, we've had 2 multiclass characters, a fighter/rogue and a fighter/cleric. The fighter/cleric added cleric at 5th level for RP reasons. The fighter rogue is an in your face swashbuckling duellist. Neither are causing issues and multiclassing allowed them to create the character they wanted (although the fighter/cleric switched to full cleric for unrelated reasons).

 

[Bawylie]

I am personally a fan of the Concept version of multiclassing. Single classes are fine, and can be entertaining, but most of my character concepts require at least a little bleed between the classes. Unfortunately, my two favorite flavor-based multiclasses are also considered two of the most optimal dips, so it looks like I am only doing it for power, when really I just want a Warlock Pirate, or a Duelist with a bit of magic thrown in. That being said, most concepts can be kind of reached with single classing and a bit of flavor change, so don't feel like you have to include it just so your players can play what they want. My Warlock pirate could work just as well as a single classed Warlock, and my Magic Duelist can be an EK. They just wouldn't have the exact mechanics I want tied to them, which is a sacrifice I am willing to make for someone else to feel more comfortable.

I'd rather kitbash than MC. Like write up a custom subclass or swap out mechanics. You know?


-Brad

 

[Lanliss]

I'd rather kitbash than MC. Like write up a custom subclass or swap out mechanics. You know?


-Brad

Also a possibility, and a much better way to get to a focused concept. However, that is a matter for the DM to decide, so I can't really force it on my DM. As a result, I play with what I can.

 

[Kobold Stew]

One factor that has not yet been raised is whether you are starting at level 1. I think, depending on the group, there can be a difference between starting with a multi class character, and letting one develop organically.

The few niche cases I have seen where a particular multi-class build is slightly stronger than a straight single-class character are not things that develop organically. I think you have no need to be concerned about multi-classing, and you can probably let it develop over the course of play. It might not even come up, in the end.

(The same with feats, tbh: apart from the variant human, there's no need to decide on feats until characters reach level 4 and at that point many of them would choose an ASI in any case. You might be clear until level 8! Ruling against feats (and variant humans), though, only has the effect of there not being any humans in the party, in my experience.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[nswanson27]

Admittedly, I am new at being a DM. I played a lot of AD&D rules when I was younger and picked up again with 5E rules in the last 6 months. Since I began playing again, out of necessity I had to become the DM. Either no one else in the group wanted to do it or they didn't have the means to get their hands on a minimum of PHB, DMG, and MM.

I had never been a DM before but decided to try. Now I kind of like it.

My biggest dilemma now is whether to allow players to multi-class. It seems a lot to me like having your cake and eating it too which could create game imbalance over those who don't multi-class. Like you want to be more self-reliant without having to rely on the other players in your party which to me goes against a core idea behind the game. Why not just play a single class player to the best of it's abilities while understanding it's limitations and weaknesses and making allowances for that in your game play? Why not let other PC's strengths pick-up right where your weaknesses end? That would seem to me to help keep other players from feeling useless because you don't have one that can do almost everything.

On the other hand, I could see a use for multi-classing if you are deficient in party members. Maybe you have less than 4 players and that just leaves no way to account for some of the things the party is bound to encounter. It may be a more viable option than have one or more players run multiple characters.

I realize all DMs will run their games the way they feel is best for them and their players. I was just curious about what other's thoughts were on multi-classing in general.

I might be in the minority here, but:
1) I have yet to see a build that can actually do "everything". Maybe more things, but not all things. There's plenty of group dependency even with MCing.
2) Biggest imbalances that I've seen are actually underpowered builds vs. group than overpowered builds vs. group. Like, a warlock that didn't choose hex or any attack spells on their spell list (true story). Sometimes the playstyle expectations and preferences are what's really the problem.
3) As the DM, verify any assumptions you have about players' ideas of fun. You said that you felt that MCing is "having your cake and eating it too". Do your players feel that way? Like, have you actually asked them? No matter which way you end up going, deflating misconceptions right away is in everyone's best interest.
4) MCing can actually help cover single-class imbalances. You're probably going to have imbalance complaints if someone picks beastmaster ranger or 4-elements monk. If you do disallow MCing, you might want to make an exception if someone goes down these roads.
5) Have the players tell each other what sort of character they want to be. This can suss out lots of problems before class choices are set in stone.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Unless character MCing reduces your enjoyment of the game, stay out of it. If your players want to MC why should the DM get in the way without having real good cause?

 

[FrogReaver]

You had better tell me if feats and multiclassing are allowed before I start the campaign...

One factor that has not yet been raised is whether you are starting at level 1. I think, depending on the group, there can be a difference between starting with a multi class character, and letting one develop organically.

The few niche cases I have seen where a particular multi-class build is slightly stronger than a straight single-class character are not things that develop organically. I think you have no need to be concerned about multi-classing, and you can probably let it develop over the course of play. It might not even come up, in the end.

(The same with feats, tbh: apart from the variant human, there's no need to decide on feats until characters reach level 4 and at that point many of them would choose an ASI in any case. You might be clear until level 8! Ruling against feats (and variant humans), though, only has the effect of there not being any humans in the party, in my experience.)