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

[Blue]

Why allow multiclass
My standard analogy of classes and multiclassing is dropping a handful of coins on an index card. Each coin is a class. Places under the coins are concepts you can build with that class. Some coins overlap: these concepts that multiple classes could build well like an archer. But there's spaces between the coins, and spaces between the coins and the edge of the card. These are concepts you can't represent well mechanically with the existing classes.

For the places between coins, multiclassing allows you to cover that space. That's a bunch of concepts that the system would not be able to represent well with a single class.

(Spaces between the coins and the edge need new mechanics, be it classes, subclasses or other character customization like feats to cover.)

Multiclassing also allows you to adapt to what's happening instead of setting your character's mechanical path at the beginning of the game and beign locked in. Say your none-too-religious rogue gets saved at great risk by your cleric and finds religion. You can roleplay your conversion, but multiclassing would let you follow up with eventually taking paladin levels.

Multiclass balance
My experience in 5e is multiclassing is fine from a balance perspective. This wasn't the case in earlier editions. For the most part, the optimizers I knew went multiclass wild when 5e came out since that was the source of power in 3.x, but now they all play single-classed characters. That's purely anecdotal, but of the tables at my FLGS that are all heavily optimized, multiclassing is definitely in the minority.

You have more flexibility but are behind in terms of power. Delays in getting new spells levels know, extra attack, etc. The 5e classes are pretty well balanced against cherry picking though some cleric domains grant proficiencies at 1st.

The caveat is that the trade offs prevent a number of combinations unless you are starting at high level. If your character wouldn't get your first ASI until 8th and extra attack at 9th, you'd be pretty fare behind for a good chunk of your adventuring life and people end up not going for it. But if you are creating characters at 11th then it's a bigger deal since you can ignore that lag that would normally act as a gateway.

Why not allow multiclass
The best arguments I've heard in 5e about not allowing multiclassing is (a) simplicity - especially with new players so they can only focus on their class and not have to even read the others, and (b) it's pretty easy to make a poor multiclass character who lags too far behind that it's not fun.

Also, if you use all of the Unearthed Arcana playtest options, they get multiclassing balance polishing later then the publish for playtest and feedback pass - they are not necessarily balanced for multiclassing.

Conclusion
I enjoy multiclassing as both a player and DM. I feel it adds flexibility in character concepts without adding in system mastery power creep. Players are free to multiclass or not as is right for them, and will not gain nor lose spotlight based on their decision.

 

[76512390ag12]

I suggest that the key question is, does a new GM need the potential extra complications of multi-classing in their first campaign?
Not really. So as has been suggested, just leave it to one side, you can reconsider at mid levels.


Posted by C4-D4RS on the MetroLiberal HoloNet

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Generally speaking I really don't like multiclassed characters. IMXP the majority of players who multiclass are either trying to exploit the system, or they are undecided on what to play (the player who wants to be both a warrior and a wizard because he can't decide which one is more cool...).

But that said, I don't think that as a 5e DM you should really worry about it. In 5e every class gets basically the same amount worth of power for every level, there are not "empty levels" so to speak, so every time a player takes a level in a new class, he's always giving up some goodies from the first class. Front-loading is not much of a problem in 5e (to be honest, I would even hand-wave some of the official rules restrictions on multiclassing). Instead some of the classes are even slightly rear-loaded, because some high-level abilities are pretty powerful... and a multiclasser is less likely to ever get those!

In conclusion, I do not think that a player in 5e can easily use multiclassing to become more powerful than other characters. At least, not to such an extent that should worry you about overall balance. And it shouldn't require more work on your side, maybe on the player's side if he chooses two classes with complex abilities that require some resource management, but it's going to be his problem rather than yours.

 

[Amatiel]

Something I did in my campaign, as people were just cherry pickking one or two levels in certain classes (which I found annoying) - Every time you multi-class you forfeit the ability to learn your next feat, as the training and experience is used to learn a new class instead. Actually works well.

 

[abirdcall]

Something I did in my campaign, as people were just cherry pickking one or two levels in certain classes (which I found annoying) - Every time you multi-class you forfeit the ability to learn your next feat, as the training and experience is used to learn a new class instead. Actually works well.

Are you aware that ASI/feats are tied to class level and not character level?

 

[Amatiel]

I house-ruled that. All my characters get 1 feat & +2 ASI every 4 "Character" levels - i am a generous DM

 

[i_dont_meta]

5 characters is a large party.



You play with every optional rule?

Playing a game with rules is playing with limitations. Even if you were to play Magical Tea Party there would still be limitations. Limitations are not a bad thing. They serve to form the sort of game that the group wants.

Not to be snarky, but in my group (there's 4/6 PC's that have been playing once a week for almost 8 yrs now!) we've used most every optional rule available from WotC (no 3rd party material) from rolling stats to Feats and MC'ing to flanking and Hero Points. It's worked just swimmingly for us. Outside of the occasionally random Warlock 2 dip, I haven't seen anything happen at our table that seemed game breaking or detrimental.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rollingForInit]

The only situation where I'd ban MC'ing would be if I ran a game for completely new players that don't really know anything about D&D. I'd start them off without multiclassing, but would perhaps allow it later on when they're comfortable with the basic rules. But I'd also make sure to discuss this with the players beforehand.

The only downside I can see with multiclassing is if one powergamer does it and the others don't. But it's only an issue if the other players care about being a bit weaker. And honestly, a powergamer will find a way to optimise with whatever they can. If there's disparity in the group in terms of how much people optimise, you'll probably have people with suboptimal builds while others have optimised their builds anyway. Ability score distribution, subclass choices and spell choices can all make a huge difference in that regard.

 

[abirdcall]

Not to be snarky, but in my group (there's 4/6 PC's that have been playing once a week for almost 8 yrs now!) we've used most every optional rule available from WotC (no 3rd party material) from rolling stats to Feats and MC'ing to flanking and Hero Points. It's worked just swimmingly for us. Outside of the occasionally random Warlock 2 dip, I haven't seen anything happen at our table that seemed game breaking or detrimental.

Flanking is game breaking whether you see it or not.

Are you telling me that you also use Facing, Proficiency Die, Skill Variants, Hero Points, Honor, Sanity, prolonged and shortened rest times, futuristic weapons, speed factor, lingering injuries, and magic item shops?

If you don't use all of those rules and many more, then you're really just creating restrictions on your players because you don't want them to have fun.

 

[Xetheral]

One important question: do your players find more options freeing or constraining? Permitting multiclassing dramatically increases the number of choices one can make when it comes to their character. Some people love that, others hate it.

Fortunately, the balance in 5e is close enough that in a mixed party of single- and multi-classed characters, there will almost always be room for debate as to which characters are more powerful. Even more telling, amongst those tables where one type or the other is noticably more powerful, it won't always be the same type! That's pretty strong evidence that multiclass characters aren't, fundamentally-speaking, more or less powerful than their single-class bretheren.

So if any of your players would find the increased number of options freeing, feel free to allow them to multiclass. The other players at your table don't have to take advantage of the option, and won't be at a fundamental disadvantage.

Of course, you might nevertheless encounter a power disparity at your table. But that can happen in any game, whether or not multiclassing is allowed. If such a situation arises, deal with it by talking with the player(s) of the character(s) that is (are) too far above or below par--the situation can usually be fixed on a case-by-case basis without resorting to blanket prohibitions.