D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Greg Benage]

There is no other valid reason. "I don't like it so you can't have it" is a childish response not worthy of a DM.

In many cases, it's a very clear player signal that they're trying to power-game. Sometimes they'll just outright say so. "Why does your draconic sorcerer want to make a pact with a powerful fiend?" "So I can get eldritch blast, hex, Pact Magic slots, Agonizing Blast and Devil's Sight!"

That said, I allow MC, and I also have good players who use it to fill out their character concepts and not just to upgrade their at-will attacks or whatever. If I had a table full of optimizers, I'd allow it and never think twice. If I had a mixed table, I'd only be concerned about it if I thought some optimizers were angling to create a PC imbalance that would make the game less fun for others. I have enough experience as a DM to manage that, but some don't. Simply opting-out of this optional rule is an easy solution for them. The easy solution usually has costs, but it's certainly a rational choice.

 

[Corwin]

In many cases, it's a very clear player signal that they're trying to power-game. Sometimes they'll just outright say so. "Why does your draconic sorcerer want to make a pact with a powerful fiend?" "So I can get eldritch blast, hex, Pact Magic slots, Agonizing Blast and Devil's Sight!"

It's a bit tough to paint anything meaningful with a bush that broad. "In many cases"? Really?

BTW, at the beginning of the campaign, did you ask this same player why he wanted to play a draconic sorcerer? I'll bet he said something like, "So I can get access to lots of cantrips, metamagic, scaly skin, cold affinity, and eventually wings!"

Filthy power-gamer...

 

[Greg Benage]

Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[Satyrn]

In many cases, it's a very clear player signal that they're trying to power-game. Sometimes they'll just outright say so. "Why does your draconic sorcerer want to make a pact with a powerful fiend?" "So I can get eldritch blast, hex, Pact Magic slots, Agonizing Blast and Devil's Sight!"

I'm playing my single classed Battlemaster so I can get lots of attacks, the two weapon fighting style, Riposte, Parry, and a couple feats without missing out on the "normal number" of ASIs.

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm playing my single classed Battlemaster so I can get lots of attacks, the two weapon fighting style, Riposte, Parry, and a couple feats without missing out on the "normal number" of ASIs.

Okay?

Some people play a battlemaster because they want to play a great swordsman devoted to his craft. So what?

 

[Corwin]

Did you read the rest of my post?

Yes, why?

 

[Greg Benage]

No reason. Proceed.

 

[Satyrn]

Okay?

Some people play a battlemaster because they want to play a great swordsman devoted to his craft. So what?

Well, I was wondering if this was a clear sign that I'm powergaming.

 

[Corwin]

Okay?

Some people play a battlemaster because they want to play a great swordsman devoted to his craft. So what?

But there are tons of ways to achieve that trope. Why did you decide on battlemaster fighter? Why not champion fighter? They hit harder with that sword. Or how about swashbuckler rogue? They are master duelists, to be certain.

Or maybe School of Swords bard? Or War Cleric? They can qualify as great swordsmen dedicated to their craft. In their own way.

 

[Greg Benage]

Well, I was wondering if this was a clear sign that I'm powergaming.

To the extent that your engagement with character creation is focused 100% on class abilities and their game-mechanical effect, yeah, probably. But again, so what?