D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Tersival]

I never understand why many DM's feel the need to dictate arbitrary restrictions on rules as written in the core books since the core rules are the foundation for everyone's shared hopes and expectations for the game experience. The rules you use are a lot less important than recognizing the effect your players' preferences can have on the game experience.

If your players get more enjoyment from multi-classing they will be more invested in their characters and start each session from a happier baseline than if they're forced to make characters that are less than what they *perceive* as being allowed by the PHB rules. That extra investment is fuel and an opportunity for the DM to build tension and drama into the gameplay.

If the option truly leaves you feeling like you're being taken advantage of, is it because you don't think the proposed concepts fit into *your* preconceptions and personal preferences, or because you feel challenged and insecure over your ability to run a game with optimized characters? One option is you putting what you like above what your players like which can fester into personal conflicts, the other is an opportunity to build rapport with players through open discussion, maybe a middle ground compromise both sides can live with (if both sides give a little neither side feels unappreciated or disrespected), plus the second option might be something that pushes you to grow and develop into a better DM.

I have my share of house rules, but I present each one to the group, discuss why I think its an improvement and only put it into play if my players agree its an improvement for all - or at least worth testing. I also have a mix of munchkin/optimizer players and players who are happy to just be at the table with someone else doing the nuts and bolts character creation (they have a concept and someone else hands them a fitting character sheet). Indulging each player's preference give me happier players at the table leading to happier games.

If you're concerned the min/maxers will dominate play and spoil the experience for the rest of the group, share that with the group and seek buy in from the players that everyone gets a veto if things get out of control. Everyone will appreciate being considered.

That's my 2 cents worth anyway. Every group is a little bit different and YMMV.

 

[ad_hoc]

No. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I haven't put words in your mouth. You should read what I wrote again.

I've already explained how multiclassing detracts from neither of those things.

No you haven't.

Between the two of us, you're the only one who is expressing dissatisfaction with a part of the D&D rules. If you don't like multiclassing, then why not make it much better for you by playing something else?

There is a reason why multiclassing is an optional rule in 5e. It's an option I don't use. I also don't like flanking.

I'm not going to stop playing a game just because there are bad optional rules.

That's silly.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I haven't put words in your mouth. You should read what I wrote again.

You thought I didn't like the class system. You suggested I quit the game based on the assumption that I didn't like the class system. This reads to me like you were putting words in my mouth.

No you haven't.

*sigh* Bare contradiction is not a productive discussion technique, especially not when it's so easily refuted:

Secondly, the archetypes can also be mixed in a way that adds meaning to them. A barbarian walks the path of the thief. (Conan.) A ranger becomes a leader of men. (Aragorn.) A bard and a wizard's apprentice seek adventure as swashbucklers. (Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.) An itinerant singer learns the ways of magic. (Kvothe.) Archetypes don't have to be static. Transitions and juxtapositions between them only enhance their value as tools for character development.

Thirdly, a templated freeform system is a more complicated way to produce a simple character than just saying, "Here's a class", and generally provides less guidance for players when it comes time to advance. Looking at games like Mutants & Masterminds and GURPS, their templates are just a couple of pages in contrast to the chapter after chapter spelling out the freeform option. Contrast with D&D 5E, which does the reverse: the bulk of the rules present the classes, complete with prepackaged advancement paths, with only a couple of pages for multiclassing which you can just ignore if you don't want to do it.

That's me explaining exactly what I said I was explaining. The explanation was the entire point of those paragraphs. Now, if you don't think I explained adequately, that's fine. Raise specific questions about what I said and I'll happily clarify. But don't try to tell me I didn't do it. I did. I remember. I was there.

There is a reason why multiclassing is an optional rule in 5e.

What reason is that, do you think? Note that 5E is the first edition of the game for which this is true.

I'm not going to stop playing a game just because there are bad optional rules.

That's silly.

Then what makes you think I'm going to stop playing a game when I don't even think those optional rules are bad?

 

[Dausuul]

I never understand why many DM's feel the need to dictate arbitrary restrictions on rules as written in the core books since the core rules are the foundation for everyone's shared hopes and expectations for the game experience.

Multiclassing is specifically called out as an optional rule; it's hardly an arbitrary restriction to choose not to use a particular option.

Personally, I see the main issue as one of system mastery. If some of your players have a shaky grasp of the rules, I would advise against allowing MCing, for two reasons:

• Multiclassed characters are significantly harder to run. Players who already have trouble with the rules will need a lot of coaching from the experts in the group, which is not fair to the experts in question.
• Multiclassing is hard to do well, and playing a badly-built MC character is frustrating and boring. Less-skilled players who make multiclassed PCs are likely to discover in play that they can't do any of the cool stuff they imagined doing.

I wouldn't worry about overpowered MC characters. There are only a couple of interactions to watch out for, and most revolve around exploiting the warlock's fast-refreshing spell slots. If you rule that warlock spell slots can only be used for spells gained via the warlock class (no burning them for sorcery points, thankyouverymuch), you shouldn't have problems there.

Balance-wise, feats are the thing to worry about.

 

[ad_hoc]

You thought I didn't like the class system. You suggested I quit the game based on the assumption that I didn't like the class system. This reads to me like you were putting words in my mouth.

Again, you should read my posts again before you put words in my mouth.

*sigh* Bare contradiction is not a productive discussion technique, especially not when it's so easily refuted:

Exactly. You can't just say that you explained it. You failed to explain it. Asserting otherwise doesn't change anything.

What reason is that, do you think? Note that 5E is the first edition of the game for which this is true.

Because subclasses fix the problem. Subclasses are an elegant way to handle multiclassing.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I never understand why many DM's feel the need to dictate arbitrary restrictions on rules as written in the core books since the core rules are the foundation for everyone's shared hopes and expectations for the game experience. The rules you use are a lot less important than recognizing the effect your players' preferences can have on the game experience.

Because the GM is a person at the table as well.

Just because the players get enjoyment from something is not a sole reason to use it at the table - the GM has to be having fun as well.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Exactly. You can't just say that you explained it. You failed to explain it. Asserting otherwise doesn't change anything.

"Now, if you don't think I explained adequately, that's fine. Raise specific questions about what I said and I'll happily clarify."

It's clear to me at this point that you're not interested in having a real discussion in good faith. You can complain about multiclassing to yourself -- I'm done.

 

[Arial Black]

Because the GM is a person at the table as well.

Just because the players get enjoyment from something is not a sole reason to use it at the table - the GM has to be having fun as well.

Which of these is the way forward?

* nobody is allowed to play any character that any other player doesn't like

* each player makes the choices for their own character

"I don't like playing clerics. So I don't play clerics; simples!"

OR

" I don't like playing clerics. If someone else plays a PC who has any cleric ability at my table it completely ruins my fun, so they shouldn't be allowed to play clerics."

 

[Charles Rampant]

[MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]

It depends if the other players were the ones expected to provide appropriate challenges for the Cleric character, and to be put under pressure to understand and adjudicate the rules for it during game play. They are not, so their concerns are fairly minor.[1] When the DM is the one who does have to handle a given character, their decision to veto certain options is of an entirely different worthiness than the player-concern you described there. If the DM decides to run Dark Sun, and a player wants to play a Cleric, the DM is entirely right to say no; just so, if a DM's view of the game / world / whatever doesn't include multiclassing, then (s)he is entirely right to say no to that, too. The players, naturally, are entirely right to walk away from the game if that is a deal breaker for them, and to find a different table instead.


[1] Though we might suggest that 'I want to play a Yuan-Ti Necromancer who eats children' is something that many players will want to veto, since it risks totally changing the tone of the campaign, and will cause conflict if anyone wants to make a Paladin or whatever. However, that's more to do with overall storyline, I guess, not something in the same nature as this discussion; just wanted to mention it.

 

[Mercule]

Well, that and warlock/cleric always seemed odd to me from an RP perspective since the PC is basically serving two masters at that point.

Fiction is rife with corrupt priests, some of whom have literally made a deal with the devil. It all depends on how "hands on" your campaign setting gods are in giving out spells. In Eberron, for example, Cleric spells are just shy of being another school of magic (oversimplification) and there's absolutely no reason why a full-on Cleric of the Silver Flame (filled with true-blue Paladins) couldn't be a seething, evil demon worshiper actively working to corrupt the church.

 

[Oofta]

Fiction is rife with corrupt priests, some of whom have literally made a deal with the devil. It all depends on how "hands on" your campaign setting gods are in giving out spells. In Eberron, for example, Cleric spells are just shy of being another school of magic (oversimplification) and there's absolutely no reason why a full-on Cleric of the Silver Flame (filled with true-blue Paladins) couldn't be a seething, evil demon worshiper actively working to corrupt the church.

Whether cleric/warlock builds make sense is up to the DM and what makes sense to their campaign.

In my campaign, deities are somewhat hands on. Being a cleric / warlock would be kind of like going to your boss and say "By the way, I'm going to be also working for the competition, who sells a product that doesn't actually compete with yours. They just want to destroy the souls of all of your followers. You ok with that?"

I have had corrupt priests before, but they received their power from evil deities, and were still evil clerics. That or they were lay-priests and weren't expected to have much in the way of magic anyway.

Part of the deal of getting power from some otherworldly power on a pretty regular basis is "What would <insert deity/power name here> want me to do?" What happens if Heimdal wants you to protect the village but Xorath Eater of Souls wants you to secretly open the back door so that the town falls? One of the beings you've pledged your soul to is going to be pissed. If there are no consequences, no cost to getting power from some supernatural being, why wouldn't everyone do it?

Or to put it another way, if your soul already already belongs to someone you have no collateral to bargain with.

 

[tglassy]

You're assuming that the pact made with the Warlock's Patron is for their soul, or for their fealty. The way I've always looked at it is the Patron offers the knowledge in return for SOMETHING. That something can be whatever that particular patron needs. An Archfey isn't going to ask for your soul, because they don't need them. A Fiend likely will. A Great Old One may not even know you exist, so you're technically stealing the power (though the 'downside' could be part of your sanity.)

The best way I've seen to do a Warlock Patron for an Archfey or Great Old One is for the Patron to offer power, at the price of a favor. More precisely, one favor for every level of Warlock they want. "Oh, you want more power? Well, there is certainly more to give. But you will owe me another favor."

This favor can be anything from a simple, one time request, to an alteration to your lifestyle, to a devastating demand. For example, in a game I'm about to start DMing here on Enworld, there's a Water Genasi Warlock who's patron is an ancient Aboleth (A Great Old One). The Aboleth kept him under the water for six years, and we're starting at level five. The first three requests were time consuming, but simple. The fourth request was to always add some ink to their food. The fifth request was to go back to the surface. That's it. No reason why. No further orders. Just go back to the surface.

But, as time goes, if this character wants more Warlock power, he will have to put up with the demand. The Aboleth's goals are incomprehensible. The character has no idea why he needs to put ink in his food. But he is compelled to do so because of his bond with the Aboleth.

However, there is a way out. Multiclass. If the Aboleth's demands become too overwhelming, the character can simply not take another level in Warlock. He keeps all the power he's already learned, because he's not "Channeling" the power of the Aboleth. The Aboleth is teaching him, like a master craftsman. Teaches an apprentice. Once the Apprentice knows how to, say, throw an eldridge blast, he isn't going to forget. He will still be compelled to put ink on his food, but since the other requests were all actions, he's paid for those Warlock levels. Part of the fun will be finding out just how hard the Aboleth can push this Warlock without breaking him and forcing him to shift to another class. Since he's a "Good" aligned character, that should be interesting.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

I'm not saying that MC is purely about power gaming. Though if you go to the optimization section of these forums, it's rare to see a single class, while there are many, many 'optimized' builds that rely on multi classing. So it's hardly suprising folks associate MC with players attempting to work the mechanics rather than the character/fluff.

Anyway, we don't do it because weeeeell... no need. KISS and all that. Much as you can wrap a story around a heavily optimized MC character, you can do the same for a SC class character - so we do. Saves on paperwork, and generally less bullshankery.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Fiction is rife with corrupt priests, some of whom have literally made a deal with the devil. It all depends on how "hands on" your campaign setting gods are in giving out spells. In Eberron, for example, Cleric spells are just shy of being another school of magic (oversimplification) and there's absolutely no reason why a full-on Cleric of the Silver Flame (filled with true-blue Paladins) couldn't be a seething, evil demon worshiper actively working to corrupt the church.

Or that their warlock powers aren't simply another manifestation of the gifts the Flame grants them.
Their patron for both classes could be the same being (or related: your warlock patron might be a powerful but not actually divine servant of your deity for example.)

Whether cleric/warlock builds make sense is up to the DM and what makes sense to their campaign.

In my campaign, deities are somewhat hands on. Being a cleric / warlock would be kind of like going to your boss and say "By the way, I'm going to be also working for the competition, who sells a product that doesn't actually compete with yours. They just want to destroy the souls of all of your followers. You ok with that?"

I have had corrupt priests before, but they received their power from evil deities, and were still evil clerics. That or they were lay-priests and weren't expected to have much in the way of magic anyway.

It does make more sense in Eberron, where deities don't directly intervene. A corrupt priest still believes in their deity, they just have a slightly twisted view that probably incorporates more "end justifies the means" for example.

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

To the original question:
- multiclassing is fun, because it offers options
- there are only a few combos, which are IMO not broken, maybe slightly too powerful
- even these come at a price, delay of high level abilities / spells

The most powerful PC I had in 5e until now was a straightforward half-elf dragon sorcerer (fire).
2nd was the halfling rogue. The sorcerer just blew everything up, he only seemed "normal" when
most enemies were fire resistant. With his relatively high AC and hitpoints he even waded into
melee to act as a meat shield to protect his friends. (Also made possible by the 5e-spells-in-melee
rules...)

 

[Mercule]

Whether cleric/warlock builds make sense is up to the DM and what makes sense to their campaign.

Oh, absolutely. In my home brew setting, I still go by fluff laid out by Gygax in the 1E DMG: spell levels 1-2 are powered (more or less) by faith. Spells about that level involve actually talking with some level of emissary for your god/pantheon, with the highest level spells being granted directly by your patron deity. That would make it difficult to sell your sell and still get spells from your patron. I was just pointing out' for general conversation' that narrative justification is quite possible, even given the extreme example of a pact.

You're assuming that the pact made with the Warlock's Patron is for their soul, or for their fealty. The way I've always looked at it is the Patron offers the knowledge in return for SOMETHING. That something can be whatever that particular patron needs. An Archfey isn't going to ask for your soul, because they don't need them. A Fiend likely will. A Great Old One may not even know you exist, so you're technically stealing the power (though the 'downside' could be part of your sanity.)

Very true. The Warlock in my Eberron game uses a ported version of the Sorcerer's Dragon Blood lineage. She's actually in service to an elder wyrm who is part of the Chamber. Her pact involves working through certain aspects of The Prophesy, even if she's not quite sure why she's being asked to take certain actions. While the Prophesy is potentially religious in nature, for Eberron dragons, it's easy to see where it wouldn't have to conflict with religious obligations.

The Archfey pact, especially, could be played as a sort of obligation to a Liege. Nothing prevents a Cleric from also being a mundane noble. It sometimes makes choosing the right actions a fine line to walk, but that's part of the fun.

The best way I've seen to do a Warlock Patron for an Archfey or Great Old One is for the Patron to offer power, at the price of a favor. More precisely, one favor for every level of Warlock they want. "Oh, you want more power? Well, there is certainly more to give. But you will owe me another favor."

Oh... I like this. It could even work for the Archfiend -- what could be more innocent: "No, souls are so cliche and boring. You can't actually sell one, anyway. That's just a legend. I'm a businessman. If I do you a favor, you do me a favor. I don't need anything quite yet, so we can do this on credit. Now, let me show you this cool trick where not even magical darkness will blind you. It should prove very useful when you go after that Drow bastard."

 

[dco]

Which of these is the way forward?

* nobody is allowed to play any character that any other player doesn't like

* each player makes the choices for their own character

"I don't like playing clerics. So I don't play clerics; simples!"

OR

" I don't like playing clerics. If someone else plays a PC who has any cleric ability at my table it completely ruins my fun, so they shouldn't be allowed to play clerics."

It's not that simple, a DM is not a player. The DM needs to do far more work, create an adventure, read an adventure, try to balance things for all players and he is the last word in the table. The player has his character, the DM has his world.

The way forward is simple for me, as the DM I'm going to apply the rules I want. In this case the multiclassing rules are optional and it explicitly says the DM decides if the options are in his campaign. Some players can not like it, the same way they can not like it when you only let them use some classes, some races, some books, when you use customized monsters instead of the vanilla ones, etc. A lot of those things not explicitly optional, at that point you are better wasting your time preparing adventures for another game, being a player, or dedicating your time to another hobby.

 

[Tersival]

Multiclassing is specifically called out as an optional rule; it's hardly an arbitrary restriction to choose not to use a particular option.

It's arbitrary if the DM says "we're not using that, no chance" rather than discussing the option with the group and coming to a consensus.

I agree rules mastery is a concern, but this too is an opportunity for discussion and recognising the desires of all parties, which builds rapport and respect for when play is underway and the DM is describing scenarios. Mutual respect leaves the players trusting that the DM is not out to "win" at their expense.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

TL;DR: It's not about classless system being better than one with classes or vice versa. Multiclassing combines disadvantages of both with no significant gain.

I don't agree with the italicized part, but the rest of your post was excellent.

I never understand why many DM's feel the need to dictate arbitrary restrictions on rules as written in the core books...

The next part of your sentence actually answers the implied question:

...since the core rules are the foundation for everyone's shared hopes and expectations for the game experience.

We all develop our own idea about what D&D is about and how it is meant to be played (we may have more than one of these). However, every few years these people we pay to make official products seem to want to change the texts that these assumptions grew out of it. So new people coming to the game are going to pick up a book and start having their impressionable minds imprinted with a version of what D&D is about that may not be the same as other players who started with a different set of text to read.

I play more RPGs than just D&D. And I enjoy an extremely broad amount of D&D stuff itself. Still, there are certain things that are and are not D&D done right to me. I just have no interest in playing D&D in other ways--there are too many cool things I want to do with D&D that can't be done as well with other games, and there are too many other games that can do other stuff better than D&D.

When I'm spending my time being the DM, we are playing my version of D&D, because it is literally of no interest to me not to. If my friends want to play something else, then we'll play something non-D&D. If one of them wants to run D&D in a way I find not worth the time investment, I'll skip it.

The 5e playtest was great at figuring out what most people want out of D&D, and I was a very active participant and feel they did a really good job overall. However, that doesn't mean that I agree with every decision. Because I don't agree with everything in the core rule books, and they aren't all 'true' in my games, it is important for me to let potential players know about those--preferably before they get their heart set on an unapproved character concept.

It is because the core rulebooks set the standard for what new players expect out of D&D that many of us are so passionate about what content such books are going to contain, and is why we have these sorts of problems when editions keep changing. Fortunately 5e is here for a while, so those who started with it will likely get a longer run than those who started with 3e or 4e.

I have my share of house rules, but I present each one to the group, discuss why I think its an improvement and only put it into play if my players agree its an improvement for all - or at least worth testing.

That's a great way of doing it. However, you are taking an equal group investment approach. I do the same thing if my group is brainstorming up something to do; we'll throw around ideas and everyone who wants to gets equal input. Once we get to a point where someone is volunteering to be the GM, that person is going to get more input, because they are doing a whole heck of a lot more work, and that better be work they want to do. So in our recent superhero game that we've been playing across multiple systems for rules comparisons, we're doing just that. When your turn as GM is up, we still have discussion before we recreate our characters for the new system, but GM gets final say on stuff.

Now, that's assuming an equal group investment campaign design. This is by no means the only way we play our RPGs. Often, one particular member of our group has a campaign they want to run and they ask if anyone is interested. In that case it is their way or the highway. Sure, there may be some negotiation. But it is the GM's game, and if you don't like it you skip that game; no hard feelings. It would be an inappropriate imposition to expect the GM to change his vision of an RPG experience he wants to present, and if a player's character concept isn't appropriate for his scenario, that is exactly what they are doing.

I want to say I don't know why people have a problem with GMs acting as such, but I have enough knowledge of psychology that I do know. I would just encourage people to compare playing an RPG to other forms of non-democratic recreation they enjoy before having a kneejerk reaction that in order for a game to enjoyable for them every participant has to have full and equal input on how it's going to go down.

 

[Capn Charlie]

I have had a love hate relationship with multiclassing, but in 5e, for me, it comes down to feeling a bit too easy and abuse-able since we have so many levels (20) to work with. In my game we use 10 levels, and choosing to multiclass is a big deal, budgeting which 10 character levels you are going to take is a big deal, and getting up to 10 in a class is a pretty big deal, in terms of power and capability.