D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Arial Black]

If you say so, mate. You've expended a huge number of words trying to prove that the sky is blue, when I never said it wasn't, but instead said that I prefer my own worlds to have red skies.

And yet, you're effectively forcing your players to play 'red sky'.

See, the sky colour analogy which you think reflects the world that the DM creates actually reflects the PC choices that are the players' choice, not yours.

It's like insisting that no-one is allowed to play a left handed PC, because 'your world'.

The truth is that any multiclass PC (whose class makeup uses only classes you've already approved for play in your world) does not ruin your vision for your world. MCing simply does not impact any world because it's not discernible in-game, and doesn't allow abilities that you haven't already said are okay for your world.

 

[Arial Black]

But the DM does also have control over mechanics because of how it effects the game. And this is both for in-world reasons and for non in-world, play reasons.

Yep. But if a DM disallows any class for whatever reason, then that class is equally unavailable for a MC PC.

Therefore ANY abilities possessed by a MC PC are already allowed by that DM in that world.

Maybe a DM says "The gods of fickle whom they grant power - you can't MC warlock with either paladin or cleric in this world". Even though warlock, clerics and paladins all exist, there can be in-world reasons that disallow the multiclass.

For a particular MC combination, perhaps. But no god is going to take his favour away on the grounds that you just learned to fight better, so the idea that a god would abandon you for taking a fighter level is absurd.

Remember that the thing that I'm railing against is a blanket ban on MCing without any justifiable reason for a blanket ban, either in game mechanics terms or in 'vision of the world' terms.

Let's go for a non in-game reason. Say a DM wants to include a number of UA classes/subclasses (or DM's Guild, or whatever) but doesn't feel that they are as balanced vs. cherry-picking as the great job done on the PHB classes. (Mearls has even said that multiclass balancing comes at a later point then the first UA draft.) Saying "once you take a UA class you need to go to at least 3rd before you can take levels in anything else". Right there you have a DM doing due diligence (justified or not) for allowing playtest/3rd party products in to allow the players more choice.

It is wise to be cautious of UA stuff, and a DM can be honest and say that he wants to test UA classes but doesn't want the test polluted/exploited by ill-thought-out new interactions. I've no problem with that.

But a blanket ban on MCing with PHB material simply doesn't have the same excuse.

There are literally decades of D&D play in earlier editions that say that armor messes with magical physics and arcane casters can't wear it. Blanket prohibition. And even when it start being allowed, there was a failure chance that you'd just lose the spell. This was as real in-game as "metal is rare and valuable" is in Dark Sun.

Absolutely! Introduce the mechanic: spell failure chance/cannot cast spells in metal armour, go for it! But don't pretend that this mechanic prevents MCing! It might influence the choices, but not make MCing impossible. I'll just have a level of fighter but be Dex-based and use mage armour.

We also had clerics unable to use any weapons except bludgeoning ones regardless of who the worshiped, and we STILL have Druids who can't/won't wear metal armor.

Again, go for it! But don't pretend that this has anything to do with MCing; these weapon/armour restrictions apply to single class PCs too.

There's plenty of reasons why a DM customizes their own game for the setting, campaign, and mechanical feel they want. Including at the mechanical level that's not observable in-game. There should still be player buy-in - DM & players all come to have fun. But having the rules support the setting and theme for a particular game makes sense to me.

But the MC rules do not impact the list of allowed classes or allowed class abilities at all!

If someone said that it was compulsory for every single PC (above 1st lvl) to be multiclass, I'd be berating them too! It would make just as little sense as making single class PCs compulsory (which is the effect of disallowing MC). It wouldn't make sense in 'world vision' or 'allowed abilities'.

 

[Arial Black]

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?

Whether you intended it or not, your implication is that MC PCs are about 'powergaming' (on the grounds that the player is paying attention to the game mechanics) and SC PCs are about 'role-playing' (on the grounds that those players are simply choosing an archetype to define their concept).

This is known as The Stormwind Fallacy. Basically, the fallacy is that 'role-playing' and 'optimising' are mutually exclusive. If you care about game mechanics then you can't be interested in role-playing, or vice versa.

But those who care about the game mechanics can and do choose SC PCs for those reasons. Those who choose MC PCs can and do make that choice to better represent their concept.

You simply cannot accurately judge whether or not a player has powergaming tendancies based on whether or not his PC is MC.

 

[Greg Benage]

I'm posting this again because it appears what I wrote was misinterpreted. This seems rather clear to me, but it obviously wasn't clear to everyone.

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.

Well, I got irritated by your implication that powergaming is bad (no, you didn't say it explicitly, but it felt like it was there between the lines)

I have no problem whatsoever with power-gamers or power-gaming. I do think the best players engage with all aspects of the game. So I'm not super-excited about power-gamers who only power-game; I'm also not that excited about performance artists who can't be bothered to learn the rules. Good players are fully engaged, assuming the DM is doing his job and supporting that engagement.

As I said, if I have a table full of optimizers, I'm going to include every option I can, including multiclassing, because I want to maximize their enjoyment of the game. In the more likely case that I have a mixed table, I'm still going to allow multiclassing and just manage it so that the optimizers and non-optimizers can coexist and all have fun in the same game. I have enough experience as a DM that I'm perfectly comfortable doing that.

Whether you intended it or not, your implication is that MC PCs are about 'powergaming' (on the grounds that the player is paying attention to the game mechanics) and SC PCs are about 'role-playing' (on the grounds that those players are simply choosing an archetype to define their concept).

In fact, I explicitly stated the opposite: I said I allow multiclassing and that I have good players who use it to fill out their character concepts.

Anyway, thanks, fellas, for responding in a way that allowed me to emphasize and clarify my position. I was a little taken aback by the vitriol directed at what seemed to me a sensible and moderate approach -- as is usually the case, this seems to have been rooted almost entirely in a misunderstanding. Merry Christmas!

 

[Corwin]

Right. Just to be clear - do you realise what an assumption is?

So you *assumed*. Do you realize what they say about assuming?

I'll make this clear for folks in the back seats: Multiclassing is associated with powergaming.

Lets put a finer, more reasonable point on your assertion. You know, for those backseaters sitting with you:

*You* associate multiclassing with powergaming.

There. Now its at least accurate.

 

[Tersival]

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.

Its my belief that RPGs are at their best when they *are* a form of democratic recreation. The DM is effectively voted into that position by the players who choose to join the DM's campaign. That doesn't mean every little decision is put to a vote, but nobody will fully invest in the experience if they feel they're being forced to bow to someone else's whim without some say. DM or player. I agree the DM should get final say, but the players should at least get "a say".


The OP started by saying "I've never really allowed multiclassing...", maybe I read to much into that but its a very different statement to "I've never really liked multiclassing". Hopefully I wasn't too insensitive by getting tunnel vision on that distinction without offering tips or advice on what to be careful of, which was what was actually asked for.


There've been many opinions shared on the pro's and con's of multiclassing already, but going back to the OP, I think it is a good idea, not because I like multiclassing but because bending a bit will be appreciated by your players and making the sacrifice to try something you're not keen on, just because they are, is definitely in the christmas spirit.


Tips-wise: The 5E multiclassing rules can take careful, line by line, reading in places to be really understood, so watch out for misunderstandings by players but above all focus on the human element at the table. Be open about your doubts and feelings on multiclassing, suggest bringing multiclassing in temporarily as a trial even, share the fact you're allowing the opportunity anyway *just because the players want it* and any player worth having will respect you for giving them the chance to explore the option.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

So you *assumed*. Do you realize what they say about assuming?


Lets put a finer, more reasonable point on your assertion. You know, for those backseaters sitting with you:

*You* associate multiclassing with powergaming.

There. Now its at least accurate.

? I commented on the OP, and a some other reples, that either state outright or imply that they believe mutliclassing is somehow connected to power gaming. We have proof of these assumptions in this very thread. I then suggested that some of these assumptions may be formed from reading the Character Op forum ( or really, any optimization forum). That's it. So your replies are rather strange and indicate that you have consistantly miss this very point I have made.

And you have consistantly failed to read my repeated statements regarding my thoughts on multiclassing. Instead, you assume to know what my thoughts are on the matter. And you have made it clear that you know what they say about assumptions.

And 'realise' is British English, tho if you felt the need to capitalize your Z in your reply for another reason than making a point, so be it.

Tbh, your replies all read as written by someone desperate to score 'points', which is fine but at least ensure you are engaging with what a poster is actully writing/ saying, rather than what you think - or assume - they are saying.

 

[dco]

I don't need walls of text or players whining for hours to see that the only reason to multiclass is to get some powers/features from another class. You don't need multiclass to create your background, you don't need multiclass to roleplay whatever you want to roleplay, you don't need multiclass to have a profession in the world, you don't need multiclass to have the skills you want...

Wanting some powers is not bad or good, it is what it is, the same way the DM choosing to play his world the way he wants is not bad or good, it is what it is. Different people can like or dislike rules but as always all things when you play roleplaying games will depend on the DM, players will use the races, monsters, classes, professions, deities, towns, landscapes, cities, items, rules, customizations... the DM lets them. This is not a boardgame. If there is any doubt multiclass is an optional rule that needs explicit the permission of the DM as written in pag 163 of the rulebook.

 

[Caliban]

I don't need walls of text or players whining for hours to see that the only reason to multiclass is to get some powers/features from another class.

But you aren't above using walls of text yourself to tell everyone that you know exactly why your whiny players do what they do. You sound like a ton of fun to play with.

 

[dco]

But you aren't above using walls of text yourself to tell everyone that you know exactly why your whiny players do what they do. You sound like a ton of fun to play with.

And you sound like an ****, beyond that if someone can tell me a different reason to multiclass...