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