D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Jer]

Depends on how much fun you want your players to have. Generally, more options = more fun.

This is not true for everyone. Some people suffer from "choice paralysis" - when there are too many options available to them they get a bit of anxiety about which choice to make. It can even happen with something as "trivial" as making a D&D character. Some folks actually have more fun if you restrict their choices down to a handful instead of just having a smorgasbord of options open to them.

 

[Caliban]

This is not true for everyone. Some people suffer from "choice paralysis" - when there are too many options available to them they get a bit of anxiety about which choice to make. It can even happen with something as "trivial" as making a D&D character. Some folks actually have more fun if you restrict their choices down to a handful instead of just having a smorgasbord of options open to them.

Generally

 

[Blue]

I've never really allowed multiclassing
[...]
After so long, I was thinking of just giving them a Christmas present of allowing multiclassing.

Is it a good or a bad idea? What should I be on the lookout for? What should I be careful about? Tips?

I *am* an optimizer, and I'll tell you that in 5e (unlike earlier editions) I almost always build straight classes. I do occasionally go up a class for quite a bit (6, 11, more) and then add a bit of another class. Multiclassing with the PHB material is pretty well done to avoid cherry picking, needing to get up to 3rd and 5th to get good stuff. There are a few exceptions - fighter 2 and cleric domains are likely the most powerful.

I've got friends who like to make three class characters by 8th and I tell you they are usually one trick ponies that aren't well rounded.

Now, the UA material isn't nearly as good about avoiding cherry picking. Mike Mearls has directly said that multiclass balancing is in a later step when it gets handed from designer to developer (or the reverse, I forget which comes first). I wouldn't let multiclassing with UA material, or at least require something 5 consecutive levels with it.

Balanced doesn't mean that there is nothing to look out for, but not in a bad way. Basically some gaps between classes are easier to fill - not overpowered, just different than what you can do with a straight class. For instance, a level of fighter brings Blade Pact warlocks a lot more viable, or gives you more heavily armored casters who aren't that far behind in casting. Is it worth being half a spell level behind in casting for a caster to have medium armor, shield, and a good CON save? Sometimes and sometimes not - depends on your concept vs. it being a no-brainer for straight power.

The one thing I would warn about multiclassing is that part fo what keeps it honest is that you can build character in the high teens or 20 where everything comes together that's pretty good, but the build itself wouldn't have been viable to get there because you would have been so far behind in getting extra attack or spell levels and few ASIs, etc. So if you are multiclass characters starting at higher levels are easier to take advantage of then multiclass characters you play up to that level.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I've never really allowed multiclassing...I view it as an excuse make ridiculously broke characters. However, my players always wanted multiclassing in our games (half of them are basically munchkins that just love making the strongest characters possible).

Well, you know your players...and if you think this is a likely possibility (munchkin characters), then you were wise in nixing that option.

After so long, I was thinking of just giving them a Christmas present of allowing multiclassing.

Is it a good or a bad idea? What should I be on the lookout for? What should I be careful about? Tips?

Thank you

Give them one "last chance" to decide if they want MC or not. Make sure to say "Are you sure? As in absolutely sure? I don't want to hear and complaining later on about it...so think about your decision carefully".

Then, if they still say yes, so be it. Let them make MC characters. Make sure *you* also make -for-tat NPC opposition as well. If they come up with some wacked out uber-DPR melee character...you come up with a counter NPC for said PC. You can be nice about it, and just make it an even fight...or, if the player is being a complete dolt about it (re: taunting other PC's or NPC's, or laughing at the DM about how awesome his PC is and how there is no way for the DM to 'win' against such a perfect build, etc), then you can build an NPC that specifically targets the glass-cannons Achilles heel.

After a couple of sessions (probably a good half dozen...depending on how stubborn your players are), they'll be begging to get rid of MC'ing or at least restrict it somehow. In a nutshell, I see munchkin'ing MC/Feat builds the same way I see use of poison in a campaign; most ignorant players are all for it in the beginning...until their ignorance is filled with the knowledge that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander....and the DM has a LOT more ganders!

Now I know I'll hear cries of "You are just a petty DM out to get your players and stomp on their fun!", so I'll just say this now. No, I'm not. It's my job as DM (and creator or my campaign world...upon which *I* have poured hours and hours of time, oodles of creativity, and, effectively, my heart and soul into it), to run a believable and fun campaign so that everyone enjoys it for the longest time possible. Players, IME, are often their own worst enemies. They may think allowing Option X, Y or Z will be the cats meow...until they see the consequences of their actions. What they 'want' is to feel cool and capable...and they mistakenly believe that adding options will give them this. It won't. A quick fix, sure, it will be 'awesome' for one or two sessions. Then the high wares off and they are looking for the next "fix". The only way to maintain this is to constantly add new options. This will result in the implosion of a campaign. Why do you think everything after 2e has been focused around "Adventure Paths" and 'expected' advancement to level 20 in about a year or so of play time? Because WotC/Paizo have to sell more and more "options"...and as more are added to a campaign, the faster critical mass is reached. If a campaign 'ends' at level 20 after a year of play it doesn't 'implode'...thus, the mistaken belief that there is nothing wrong with adding more and more options.

I'm starting to go waaaay off on a tangent here, so I'll stop. Suffice it to say, make sure you players actually know what they are asking for before you give it to them. If they still want to use MC, then say ok...and don't say you didn't warn them!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Warpiglet]

The truth is that trusting the people you play with is paramount. We play by the book with the options of multiclassing and feats. None of us are out to ruin the game.

Just have a discussion that you want them to have cool effective characters but that you:

A. Want everyone to have fun
B. Want there to be actual challenge

If you all work together to make this happen, it should happen. The big issues for me come in with RAW vs. RAI. Let them know your preference. The DM should have fun too.

In my case, (as player or DM) it is for low cheese. However, is it WRONG to want a couple extra level one spell slots for my warlock? I hope not, because I took sorcerer for that benefit. Is it that much different than taking magic initiate, in the end? Its a couple extra charm person/sleep spells per day. I think it is far from game breaking...

 

[Caliban]

After a couple of sessions (probably a good half dozen...depending on how stubborn your players are), they'll be begging to get rid of MC'ing or at least restrict it somehow. In a nutshell, I see munchkin'ing MC/Feat builds the same way I see use of poison in a campaign; most ignorant players are all for it in the beginning...until their ignorance is filled with the knowledge that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander....and the DM has a LOT more ganders!

Your players are much different than mine. Mine just appreciate the challenge when I tell them I'm giving all the bad guys an extra feat, or the mini-boss is being built as a PC instead of a monster. Otherwise they just steamroll the poor bad guys if I go strictly by the DMG and MM guidelines.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

You could start out slow and limit it to two classes per character. The more they spread out, the more confused it can make you if you are not comfortable dealing with multiclassing. And if anyone wants to multiclass in two spellcasting classes, make sure you know how the rules combine them, as I think that particular bit is confusing and clunky. I also like to set a minimum number of levels a character must have in one class before they can switch to another one, usually three because that is normally where a choice has to be made for where they want to go with the class.

 

[icedrake]

Just talk to your players ahead of time and see what they want to mutliclass as. What kind of thematic character do they want to build towards mechanically?

I'm running a rouge (AT) / wizard, and I explicitly wanted to represent a fae-aligned arcane thief / researcher who has more flexibility than the pure AT archetype offers. I'm the only arcane caster in the party, so I'm the guy holding the ritual book. Yes, ritual caster as a feat could offer the same thing, but wizard levels offer a little bit more spell potency / options. I'm still limited to first level spells, I'm still dealing with raising my dex and int, and my spell attack rolls / spell saves are going to be lower than a pure wizard. Cantrips / Spells / Rituals only offer more tools for this particular character, rather than hyperfocusing his power.

 

[Kalshane]

We've been using multi-classing (and feats) in multiple games without issue so far. Sometimes multi-classing is for story reasons (such as when our fighter got a hold of the sword of a legendary paladin and eventually decided to become a paladin himself) or for character concept reasons (such as my "church inquisitor" vengeance paladin/rogue) or even for a specific mechanical benefit. Sometimes that class combination can create a nice synergy that is greater than the sum of its parts, but generally it's counterbalanced by delayed class abilities and/or ASIs.

 

[hejtmane]

We've been using multi-classing (and feats) in multiple games without issue so far. Sometimes multi-classing is for story reasons (such as when our fighter got a hold of the sword of a legendary paladin and eventually decided to become a paladin himself) or for character concept reasons (such as my "church inquisitor" vengeance paladin/rogue) or even for a specific mechanical benefit. Sometimes that class combination can create a nice synergy that is greater than the sum of its parts, but generally it's counterbalanced by delayed class abilities and/or ASIs.

Have it all as while and the multiclassing has not outdone the single class players at some points they are behind a little because of that and we have rolled stats as while. Been fun for the group both sides are happy.

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

 

[Gadget]

I would remember that there are Ability Score requirements to multiclass into & out of a character class. Many people seem to gloss over this, but it can be a limiter, especially if one is using point buy. That said, it is useful to remember that multi-classing (and feats) are optional add-ons to the system, not the default. IME, they don't add over much to the game, except min/max potential.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I personally don't have a problem with multiclassing or feats. Yes, players may be more powerful in some ways, but I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing. I only become concerned when one player's character outclasses the others.

 

[hejtmane]

I would remember that there are Ability Score requirements to multiclass into & out of a character class. Many people seem to gloss over this, but it can be a limiter, especially if one is using point buy. That said, it is useful to remember that multi-classing (and feats) are optional add-ons to the system, not the default. IME, they don't add over much to the game, except min/max potential.

Most feats are a waste compared to asi especially on point buys which is a variant rule an optional the standard is 4d6 drop L. Yes Multiclass has stats in chapter 5 you have to meet in both classes

 

[Rhenny]

I *am* an optimizer, and I'll tell you that in 5e (unlike earlier editions) I almost always build straight classes. I do occasionally go up a class for quite a bit (6, 11, more) and then add a bit of another class. Multiclassing with the PHB material is pretty well done to avoid cherry picking, needing to get up to 3rd and 5th to get good stuff. There are a few exceptions - fighter 2 and cleric domains are likely the most powerful.

***

The one thing I would warn about multiclassing is that part fo what keeps it honest is that you can build character in the high teens or 20 where everything comes together that's pretty good, but the build itself wouldn't have been viable to get there because you would have been so far behind in getting extra attack or spell levels and few ASIs, etc. So if you are multiclass characters starting at higher levels are easier to take advantage of then multiclass characters you play up to that level.

This is my experience too.

I actually like the idea of multi-classing to gain utility and a more interesting character concept, but pushing off higher level spell slots or extra attacks until later levels can make a character less powerful than the straight spellcaster or melee class. This is especially true when playing PCs from lower levels up through mid levels. Most of the games I DM or play remain in the level 1-12 range so very few if any of my players or I multi-class although I allow it, and would love to play a multi-classed PC myself some time.

 

[SmokingSkull]

My first MC character has been an absolute blast! Believe me I understood what I was doing when I made the decision, and I didn't make it lightly. We are playing mostly by the book but our DM has injected some homebrew into it so it's not balanced like traditional 5E is. However for me if I do MC it is mainly for story reasons, I treasure my immersion and if it makes sense then I'm more likely to go with it. I've played mostly single class characters so I was a little jarred by MCing at first, but once we gained a few levels and my character advanced far enough in his second class he went back to his first class and stuck with it.

Yes I know I sacrificed my high level abilities, but I really considered what mattered to me more: To have a fourth attack, an asi and survivor? Or to have rage, unarmored defense, danger sense, reckless attack, spirit seeker and totem spirit? For the character I had in mind the latter was more thematic, plus my character's niche is best described as calm fury. For the most part he keeps a level head, this is due to that mentality being reinforced during his army days. However he had been denying his more savage nature, the lower part of his reptilian brain so to speak.

So he's part disciplined, veteran warrior, part ruthless, ferocious and savage fury all rolled up into an older man whom has had a reawakened passion for life. I couldn't really have made this character possible without MCing, only other way was if I had a DM homebrew me an alternate solution, then again they could just straight up deny it.

 

[TallIan]

I really like MCing because it allows a better customised fit to whatever concept I have in my head.

In terms of power gaming I find MC characters are noticeably more powerful at extremely low levels (eg fighter1 wizard1) where a single class hasn't come online yet (many classes don't get their really cool stuff until level 3) or when you start at a very high level, where you wouldn't have to play through 4 or 5 levels of being useless baggage.

Otherwise I find single class characters are usually better at least half the time because they have higher level spells, ASIs, etc a level or two earlier.

The really power gamey MC builds tend to be one trick ponies and single class builds always seem to have the versatility to not go toe to toe on the MC terms.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Is it a good or a bad idea? What should I be on the lookout for? What should I be careful about? Tips?

One thing I forgot to ask in my first post is what level you think your campaign will cap out/end at. This can make a major difference on whether multiclassing is even worth doing. A campaign that ends, for example, at level 10 vs 15 vs 20 can be a major factor in what your players want to do with their characters.

 

[Valetudo]

Most feats are a waste compared to asi especially on point buys which is a variant rule an optional the standard is 4d6 drop L. Yes Multiclass has stats in chapter 5 you have to meet in both classes

4d6L is not the standard. Stat arry is the standard.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Your players are much different than mine. Mine just appreciate the challenge when I tell them I'm giving all the bad guys an extra feat, or the mini-boss is being built as a PC instead of a monster. Otherwise they just steamroll the poor bad guys if I go strictly by the DMG and MM guidelines.

Yeah, they are an odd bunch. If I said "Ok, we're going to use Multiclassing this campaign, sound good?" ...I'd be met with a resounding "No!". "Ok, well, how about Feats then?"... "No!" ..."Ok, what about new archtypes from the online UA stuff?" ... "N...er...hmmm. How about, no as a default, but if something seems to fit at some particular time we can do a case by case?".

See, my players, at least with regards to 5e, don't really like any of the 'options' as presented (Feats and Multiclassing as prime examples...but even a few other things that aren't even optional, such as the Spell Focus/Material Component Pouch; they aren't keen on those either, feels like a 'cheat mode enabled' type of thing).

Crazy old farts! (except for the 13 year old daughter of one crazy old fart!)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pming]

Hiya!

4d6L is not the standard. Stat arry is the standard.

I believe you are incorrect. Standard is the Random method (4d6, drop low, arrange to taste). Stat array, point buy, and everything else are the options. I don't have my book on hand atm, but I'm 90% certain thats what it is. It may be stat array for Adventure League, but the core game uses 4d6-L.

^_^

Paul L. Ming