D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Arial Black]

It's your PC, but the DM has the final decision in the rules of the game, meta or not. Multiclassing is an optional rule and the DM chooses not to use it the player has the choice to accept that, find a different game, or volunteer to DM themselves.

A player demanding that the DM uses multiclassing is no different than demanding that the DM uses minis and a grid for tactical combat or that they play in Dark Sun when the DM is putting together a more traditional sword and sorcery game. Basically you don't have a right to it. You can discuss it with the DM and the rest of the group, but if in the end the DM chooses not to use an optional rule or even change the default rules the only choice you have as a player is play by the DMs selection or don't play.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

The DM didn't conquer the players and require them to do whatever he says. The DM rules by consent.

It is incumbent on the DM to take his job seriously, and make his decisions in a fair and open manner.

If the DM has a rule, he should be self-aware enough to avoid fooling himself about the reason he has such a rule. If he realises that his rule makes no sense or is just about what he likes or dislikes without regard to what the players may like, he should think again.

Does the rule make a difference to the DM's world or game?

A rule can make a difference to his world. For example, the DM may have created a world where arcane magic simply doesn't exist; as a consequence, no class or ability can grant arcane spells. The DM tells the players (before they create their characters!) that there are no bards, sorcerers, warlocks or wizards, and that there are no eldritch knights or arcane tricksters, and no Arcana domain, and feats cannot reproduce arcane magic.

Fine. But it would not be fine to ban Fighters or Rogues on the grounds that there is 'no such thing' as 'fighting' or 'rogue-ing(?)' in his world. That would be absurd.

A rule can make a difference to a game, in terms of how a particular game mechanic affects the game-play itself. For example, he might introduce the Flanking rule (or take it away again) from the DMG on the grounds that there should be a benefit for such positioning (or take it away because that rule gives far to great a benefit for far too little difficulty, and he doesn't like the inevitable 'Conga Line Of Death' that this rule encourages). But he cannot reasonably say that it's not allowed to stand in a flanking position! He can just say that there is no mechanical benefit for standing in that position.

One common problem with DMs is the tendancy to think, "I don't like it, therefore no-one else can have it!" "I don't like pizza, therefore no-one else is allowed to eat pizza" is just weird. "I don't like playing paladins, so if any player plays one I'll punish them by giving 'fall or fall' scenarios until they stop" is the kind of passive/aggressive bollocks that shows you're not ready to DM.

So, if you're thinking about a rule, ask yourself why you're making the rule. Is it really because it goes against your vision for your world? Is it really because it messes with game balance? Or is it just because you don't like it, without any rational reason and without regard for differences in personal taste or player agency.

Does multiclassing affect your vision for your world? No, it simply cannot; it is a meta-game construct that is not observable in the game world.

Does MCing mess with game balance? No, it is already balanced; there is no part of a MC PC that you don't already allow in your game.

It's just your personal taste.

As a quick check, think about if the opposite rule would make sense or not. The opposite of 'no multiclass PCs' is 'no single class PCs (above 1st level)'. Would that rule even make sense in the world? Would it make sense in game play?

If a player wants something for his PC and asks you if it's okay, if you say 'no' then you should have a valid reason for disallowing it.

"Can my human PC be left handed?" "No!" Doesn't make sense.

"Can my PC start at 20th level" "No, the PCs are starting at the same level, and for this campaign we are starting at 3rd". The game has to be fair.

"Can I play a cleric?" "No, Dragonlance at this time has no clerics because the gods abandoned mortals". Valid world creation.

"Can I play a fighter?" "No, my world doesn't have fighters because there is no such thing as....fighting?" But barbarians can still hit each other?

"Can I be muticlass?" "No!" "Why?" "Because in my world if you learn how to fight then you cannot sell your soul, or if you worship a god then you cannot be as skillful as someone who doesn't." WTF?

"Now that we've leveled up, can my Rog 3 take a level of fighter?" "No, because I don't allow fighting styles or healing". "Yes you do, Jeff is playing a Ftr 4; how can you say that you don't allow Ftr 1? How can you say that rogues cannot learn how to fight when they already fight by stabbing people?"

There is no valid reason to ban MC. It's just personal taste. DMs should recognise this and not impose their personal tastes on the players. "I like anchovies on my pizza, therefore everyone else must have anchovies on their pizza too!"

 

[CapnZapp]

There is no valid reason to ban MC. It's just personal taste. DMs should recognise this and not impose their personal tastes on the players. "I like anchovies on my pizza, therefore everyone else must have anchovies on their pizza too!"

Calling out badwrongfun-itis.

Not using multiclass rules is perfectly valid.

The DM doesn't even have to provide a reason, other than "not using optional rules, like to keep game lean".

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

One common problem with DMs is the tendancy to think, "I don't like it, therefore no-one else can have it!" "I don't like pizza, therefore no-one else is allowed to eat pizza" is just weird.

That's not weird at all.

I hate mushrooms. Even just the smell of them makes me want to barf. Therefore, no-one has mushroom pizza around me. Or mushroom soup or mushroom stew or mushroom anything. I tell people this when we are ordering pizza, so everyone knows up front. The fact that this offends someone' personal taste is irrelevant - mushroom in food spoils the entire meal for me, even if there aren't any on my plate. If someone else is insistent that they must have mushrooms (arguing that I am infringing on their agency) and they put mushrooms in a meal then I will go home. It's a deal-breaker (meal-breaker?).

It's the same with a game. If I'm in a game, the game will not have X, Y and Z.

Sometimes it is because of rational reasons. For example, in my current game, there are no plate armour, lances, heavy warhorses, rapiers, etc, because Primeval Thule is a bronze-age world.

Sometimes it is because of an irrational "I don't like it". For example, I don't GM evil characters.

Now, some things are negotiable. For example anchovies and garlic on pizza or feats and multi-classing and rules from SCAG and EEPC and DMG.

Not mushrooms, though. Those are never negotiable.

 

[Ahrimon]

"With great power comes great responsibility."

The DM didn't conquer the players and require them to do whatever he says. The DM rules by consent.

It is incumbent on the DM to take his job seriously, and make his decisions in a fair and open manner.

No one is conquering anything. The DM, selected by the players, decides on the world he is running complete with what optional rules he wishes to use. The players at that point can choose to play in that game or not. And if they don't want to then they can select a different DM or find a different game.

There is no valid reason to ban MC. It's just personal taste. DMs should recognise this and not impose their personal tastes on the players. "I like anchovies on my pizza, therefore everyone else must have anchovies on their pizza too!"

No one is banning anything. The DM is simply deciding not to use an optional rule. The multiclass rules are no different than flanking rules, feats, or allowing any number of other optional rules.

What if the DM decided that fighters don't get action surge at level 2? Or that fireball was now a level 4 spell? Fair or not that's the structure of the game the DM has chosen. It's no different than saying no Paladins, no cleric multiclass, etc.

You keep presenting your argument as if the players want it then the DM has the responsibility to do it. I couldn't disagree more. The DM has the responsibility, and as you put it the power, to decide what goes into the game. For better or worse. The players have the power to select characters within the defined boundaries that the DM has put forth or find a new DM to play with. IF they do chose that game then they have the responsibility not to be bad players and do their best to enjoy the game put forth. If they aren't enjoying it, they can voice their opinion and/or bow out of the game. They don't have the right to get what they want just because it's what they want.

 

[Arial Black]

That's not weird at all.

I hate mushrooms. Even just the smell of them makes me want to barf. Therefore, no-one has mushroom pizza around me. Or mushroom soup or mushroom stew or mushroom anything. I tell people this when we are ordering pizza, so everyone knows up front. The fact that this offends someone' personal taste is irrelevant - mushroom in food spoils the entire meal for me, even if there aren't any on my plate. If someone else is insistent that they must have mushrooms (arguing that I am infringing on their agency) and they put mushrooms in a meal then I will go home. It's a deal-breaker (meal-breaker?).

I hate mushrooms too, but I don't stop anyone else from having them; I just remind them how stupid it is to eat toadstools.

It's the same with a game. If I'm in a game, the game will not have X, Y and Z.

So, if my character has mushrooms, you the player will walk out of the game, taking your bat and ball with you?

Sometimes it is because of rational reasons. For example, in my current game, there are no plate armour, lances, heavy warhorses, rapiers, etc, because Primeval Thule is a bronze-age world.

These are all rational reasons. They do affect the game world.

Sometimes it is because of an irrational "I don't like it". For example, I don't GM evil characters.

Not playing with evil PCs, or not allowing PVP, are all rational. These things affect game play in a serious way. It's fine to ban these.

But if someone else's character is 'X', is that a rational reason for me to walk out of a game? It depends on 'X'.

X = PVP allowed? Rational to walk out if PVP is a dealbreaker. It can wreck campaigns.

X = multiclassing allowed? Irrational to walk out. The fact that each player can choose for themself what class to take their next level in, and every player has access to the same choices, is not a rational reason to walk out of a game.

In your game, you are playing a Clr 3, Pete is playing a Ftr 3, and Jeff is playing a Rog 3. Any reason to walk out? No.

You all gain a level. You choose a 4th level of cleric. Any reason for Pete or Jeff to walk out? No, that would be absurd at this point.

Pete gains a 4th level of fighter. Any reason for you or Jeff to walk out? No, that would be absurd.

Jeff takes a level of fighter instead of rogue. Any reason for you or Pete to walk out? No, that would be absurd. The abilities of a 1st level fighter are already in the game, and so the fact that someone has those abilities will not affect how the game is played, will not affect the game world (Look Pa! That stranger has levels in two classes!), and the idea that Jeff now has a fighting style can spoil your game so much that you walk out is absurd.

Tell me how Jeff making that choice for his own PC spoils your game so much that you walk out.

 

[Arial Black]

No one is conquering anything. The DM, selected by the players, decides on the world he is running complete with what optional rules he wishes to use. The players at that point can choose to play in that game or not. And if they don't want to then they can select a different DM or find a different game.


No one is banning anything. The DM is simply deciding not to use an optional rule. The multiclass rules are no different than flanking rules, feats, or allowing any number of other optional rules.

What if the DM decided that fighters don't get action surge at level 2? Or that fireball was now a level 4 spell? Fair or not that's the structure of the game the DM has chosen. It's no different than saying no Paladins, no cleric multiclass, etc.

You keep presenting your argument as if the players want it then the DM has the responsibility to do it. I couldn't disagree more. The DM has the responsibility, and as you put it the power, to decide what goes into the game. For better or worse. The players have the power to select characters within the defined boundaries that the DM has put forth or find a new DM to play with. IF they do chose that game then they have the responsibility not to be bad players and do their best to enjoy the game put forth. If they aren't enjoying it, they can voice their opinion and/or bow out of the game. They don't have the right to get what they want just because it's what they want.

No-one is denying that DMs have the authority to do have whatever rules they like, just like no-one is denying that players can walk away if they like.

But having the authority to do something doesn't stop you being a Dick. Don't be a Dick. Don't make irrational decisions that have no effect other than spoil one players fun for no benefit whatsoever. There is no rational benefit for a blanket ban on multiclassing, unless you are keeping the game simple for newbies, and that falls away when they are no longer newbies.

The only effect of stopping Jeff from taking a level in fighter is to spoil the game for Jeff. It doesn't make the game any better whatsoever for you or Pete or Ahrimon. If one of your players says he won't play if Jeff takes a level of fighter instead of rogue then that player is being a Dick.

"What, Pete's fighter chose the Protection fighting style instead of Dueling? I'M OUTTA HERE!"

 

[Ahrimon]

No-one is denying that DMs have the authority to do have whatever rules they like, just like no-one is denying that players can walk away if they like.

But having the authority to do something doesn't stop you being a Dick. Don't be a Dick. Don't make irrational decisions that have no effect other than spoil one players fun for no benefit whatsoever. There is no rational benefit for a blanket ban on multiclassing, unless you are keeping the game simple for newbies, and that falls away when they are no longer newbies.

The only effect of stopping Jeff from taking a level in fighter is to spoil the game for Jeff. It doesn't make the game any better whatsoever for you or Pete or Ahrimon. If one of your players says he won't play if Jeff takes a level of fighter instead of rogue then that player is being a Dick.

"What, Pete's fighter chose the Protection fighting style instead of Dueling? I'M OUTTA HERE!"

So, if I understand your point of view correctly..

If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of multiclassing he's a Richard and irrational.
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of feats he's a Richard and irrational.
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of flanking he's a Richard and irrational.
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of evil PCs he's a Richard and irrational.
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of (insert optional rule here) he's a Richard and irrational.

Or more succinctly, If the DM doesn't give me the game I want to play in he's a Richard and irrational.

I think you and I have very different opinions on the social contract of the game and entitlements of the players on both sides of the screen, so I'm just going to agree to disagree with you.


*My apologies to all of the Richards out there for using your name in vain.

 

[CapnZapp]

But having the authority to do something doesn't stop you being a Dick. Don't be a Dick. Don't make irrational decisions that have no effect other than spoil one players fun for no benefit whatsoever. There is no rational benefit for a blanket ban on multiclassing, unless you are keeping the game simple for newbies, and that falls away when they are no longer newbies.

Stop it.

Equating "ban on multiclassing" with nnewb-only game amounts to trolling. You're calling thousands of games badwrongfun. Stop it.

The only effect of stopping Jeff from taking a level in fighter is to spoil the game for Jeff. It doesn't make the game any better whatsoever for you or Pete or Ahrimon. If one of your players says he won't play if Jeff takes a level of fighter instead of rogue then that player is being a Dick.

No straw men, please.

The only scenario worth discussing is when the DM clearly says "this is a no-optional-rules game" even before Jeff and Pete create their characters.

Thus, Jeff is perfectly aware that he started as a Rogue and will finish as a Rogue. There is no surprise. Jeff isn't stopped from anything. If he couldn't live with remaining single-classed he should not have accepted to play in the campaign in the first place.

Playing without multiclassing rules is a perfectly acceptable way to play the game. Many games are played that way, newcomers as well as veterans.

You are free to consider games without multiclassing unappealing, Arial, but you'll need to stop claiming your personal opinion is universal truth or you will just make a fool out of yourself.

 

[Satyrn]

Equating "ban on multiclassing" with nnewb-only game amounts to trolling. You're calling thousands of games badwrongfun. Stop it.

No, she's saying that banning multiclassing when your players want it is badwrongDMing.

I would not feel comfortable holding back options from my players just to satisfy my preferenences. It feels selfish to me and I can't figure out what is gained by doing so.

What do you as a DM gain by banning multiclassing when your players want it, and how does that outweigh what your players lose by not getting to multiclass though they want to?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not:

*****

DM (me): No multiclassing in this game. The reason is because the campaign takes place in a very dark age...war has ravaged the countryside for decades. Life is cheap, and the average life span is about mid-20's. The population is divided into three castes: Lower born, High born, and Outcast. All PC's come from the Outcast side of things.

Lower born folks (95% of population) toils with 12 to 16 hour days, performing the job their father had, and their father before them, and their father before them, etc (e.g., if you were born in to a farmer's family, you are a farmer). Lower caste can not choose to do any other job; trying to do so is illegal and you and your family will be either put to death, or given lifetime hard labour work (which works out to be a death sentence with a 6-month to year "life sentence).

High born folk are the rulers, generals, high-merchant lords, etc. About 4.5% of the population fit here. Likewise, if you are a high-born, thats what you are. Trying to switch to some other 'job' means giving up all your wealth, sending your family to the salt mines, and a bounty on your head.

Outcasts are the 0.5%. They are the ones born into "adventuring class families" that date back to before the Dark Times started. If you were born into a Monk tradition family, you are a Monk and don't know of anything else. Same with Clerics, Druids, Fighters, etc. Like Low and High born people, you can never change 'jobs'. The sentence for defying this is the same as the others; effectively, death for "Betrayal of Lineage". No member of the Outcast caste may ever teach another person his chosen "class" without approval from several betters (his father, his trainer, his liege lord..at a minimum). Secretly training someone is, you guessed it, punishable by death.

Thus, no muliclassing. It is not completely unheard of...but if you really want your character to be MC, you will have to find in-game people to teach you. Learning another class also takes years of training with others in that class. And, all the while, if anyone finds out they are rewarded greatly for "telling on you", and the punishments for being discovered are...harsh, to say the least.

*****

So, is that "reasonable"? If it is, is it 'barely' reasonable...or 'super' reasonable? At what point does the DM's 'reasoning' become adequate? Would a DM get away with "No MC because people don't have time to teach others, and class-teachers are extremely tight-lipped and stingy about who they train"?

Sorry, [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION], I think it's you who are being irrational. I have no problem with a player who asks "Can I be MC with this character?" every time he wants to make one...I would have a problem with a player who asks "Can I be MC with this character?", and when told no follows it up with mumbles and sour looks about 'no fair', and 'being irrational', and 'just trying to lord his DM status', etc.

Y'see, from a DM perspective here, if I have to spend 5 minutes or more coming up with "reasons" that are satisfactory to the player(s) ever time I make a ruling...we are not going to be getting much gaming done. It also puts a bad slant on the game, becoming more of a meta-fantasy-bureaucracy where everything is ruled on by committee with the DM being nothing more than just another voice on the committee. That said, I can come up with "reasons" for every decision I make as a DM...but the players do not have the right to "demand" that I provide those reasons to them just because they ask. This would grind any game to a halt in short order as soon as you get "that guy" in your group. Everyone knows who "that guy" is...the one who thinks he has just as much say in the game as a DM, deciding if X happens, or that Y doesn't, or that Z is an actual 'thing' in this world, etc. simply because "he's part of the table and has just as much of a say, because roleplaying is a group activity".

The DM is not a Player, and the Players are not the DM. They have different parts to play in a TTRPG game. The DM decides all the "rules of the multiverse", and the players make characters that fit into that concept and style of game. If the DM doesn't want MC'ing for "reasons", or even if just because he doesn't like the dilution of single-classes due to personal preference, that's all his/her prerogative. If a Player doesn't want to play in a DM's game because the DM doesn't allow MC'ing, that's all his/her prerogative as well. A Player trying to belittle/strong-arm/force a DM to allow something the player likes when the DM doesn't? No. Not cool. THAT is perfect example of being a Richard.

^_^

Paul L. Ming