D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Caliban]

Many players find multiclassing fun and interesting. Twenty pages in, and I have yet to see anybody explain why denying them that option makes the game more fun and interesting.

Of course, DMs can do what they like, make all weapons do 1D6 damage, ban clerics, make all cantrips into first level spells, whatever, and of course if players don't like those strictures they can choose not to play the game. But "no multiclassing! Not at my table!" is such an absurdly petty hill to die on.

I get the impression that very few DM's actually disallow multi-classing, although some will ban specific combinations for RP reasons (Cleric/warlock and Paladin/warlock being the main ones).

But some people seem to want to get their panties in a bunch over even the hint that a hypothetical DM might not let them play with all possible toys and are trying to get a consensus that such DM's are being horrible to their poor deprived (and equally hypothetical) players.

People supporting the hypothetical DM feel that the other side is being entitled and childish. Their game, their rules. Deal with it or don't play.

People supporting the hypothetical Players feel that the other side is being irrational and possibly worse than Hitler. Their character, their choices, and how dare you limit their choices.

The sense of moral outrage on both sides is amazing considering that banning Multiclassing hasn't actually happened in 99% of the 5e games I'm aware of.

 

[Satyrn]

I get the impression that very few DM's that actually disallow multi-classing, although some will ban specific combinations for RP reasons (Cleric/warlock and Paladin/warlock being the main ones).

But some people seem to want to get their panties in a bunch over even the hint that a hypothetical DM might not let them play with all possible toys and are trying to get a consensus that such DM's are being horrible to their poor deprived (and equally hypothetical) players.

People supporting the hypothetical DM feel that the other side is being entitled and childish. Their game, their rules. Deal with it or don't play.

People supporting the hypothetical Players feel that the other side is being irrational and possibly worse than Hitler. Their character, their choices, and how dare you limit their choices.

The sense of moral outrage on both sides is amazing considering that banning Multiclassing hasn't actually happened in 99% of the 5e games I'm aware of.

This thread started like so: "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."

I have been discussing that DM and those players. They are not hypothetical.

A couple other posters seem to be saying they are in a situation like the OP, and I have asking them what they get out of doing it. But about them, you may be right. They might be talking in hypotheticals and they don't actually ban multiclassing when their players want it. I can't tell.

 

[Caliban]

This thread started like so: "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."

I have been discussing that DM and those players. They are not hypothetical.

I said 99% of 5e games, not 100% of 5e games.

 

[Arial Black]

I get the impression that very few DM's that actually disallow multi-classing, although some will ban specific combinations for RP reasons (Cleric/warlock and Paladin/warlock being the main ones).

But some people seem to want to get their panties in a bunch over even the hint that a hypothetical DM might not let them play with all possible toys and are trying to get a consensus that such DM's are being horrible to their poor deprived (and equally hypothetical) players.

People supporting the hypothetical DM feel that the other side is being entitled and childish. Their game, their rules. Deal with it or don't play.

People supporting the hypothetical Players feel that the other side is being irrational and possibly worse than Hitler. Their character, their choices, and how dare you limit their choices.

The sense of moral outrage on both sides is amazing considering that banning Multiclassing hasn't actually happened in 99% of the 5e games I'm aware of.

Partly because 'Internet'.

Partly because in a debate then you emphasise the things that are different and ignore the things that are the same, so that the debate targets the thing you are debating.

 

[Arial Black]

On the other hand I think those optional rules are awful and only got there to satisfy some old players, not to simplify things for newbies. There is no marketing.

A friend got me The Lone Wolf Adventure Game for Christmas (surprise!), and I've been reading through it for a few days, on and off. It's an RPG based on those old Lone Wolf choose-your-own-adventure books.

In the box there is a 'Read Me First' sheet, and it tells you that you (gamemasters AND players) can start to play straight away, without knowing the rules!

How? Because there are two introductory adventures which give you the information you need to play that scene, and both players and 'Narrator' learn the rules as they play.

There are two levels of rules: 'Initiate' and 'Master'. The box includes six pre-gens (the game includes full rules for making your own PC and some blank character sheets), and they are double-sided. On one side is the Initiate character sheet (called 'Action Chart' - they really are targeting this at people without any previous RPG experience; for example, instead of rolling a d10 they have the box lid inscribed with random numbers from 1 to 10 into which you flip a token. Where a normal RPG would instruct you to 'roll a die', this game instructs you to 'pick a random number' by flipping a token into the lid) and on the other side is the Master character sheet/action chart for that same character.

The Master rules are simply the Initiate rules but with more rules added on to that basic framework. Altough it says that the players and Narrator can decide between them which Master rules they want to use and not use, it seems as though the expectation is that you will soon use all or nearly all of the Master rules as soon as you've got your head around the basic Initiate rules (which you could write on a napkin BTW).

How do I know that the expectation is to move away from Initiate and on to Master rules ASAP? Because the first of the two adventures uses (and teaches as you play) the basic, Initiate rules. The second adventure, which the first segues into, uses and teaches the Master level rules. You are expected to learn and use the Initiate rules for ONE (short) adventure, and then move onto the Master rules and never look back.

Over the years you notice trends in gaming. For the last few years the trend has been to simplify game systems. The Grognards are going to play anyway, but the money is with the huge, untapped resource that is the vast majority of the population that has never played an RPG and who would be put off by complex rules from the get-go. Games nowadays either have simple rules or they start with a simpler version of the rules and add complexity later. D&D 5E is no exception.

D&D 5E not only has simpler rules than 3E or 4E, but also has made a couple of rules which were 'normal' in previous editions (MCing and feats) 'optional'. Is the intention that MCing and feats are only there for a few people who want a complex variant while most will stick to the 'basics'? Or, like Lone Wolf, do they expect us to start using MCing and feats as soon as we've got our heads around the basics?

We can tell by looking at the expectations of organised play. In AL, MCing and feats are no longer optional. The expectation is that players will have learned the baby game pretty darn quick and want to play the grown-up version as soon as they are let out of the house.

 

[Herobizkit]

Quick fix:

If you take a UA class, you cannot multi-class. You are able to take your feat etc at 4.

If you multi-class, you cannot have access to a feat at 4 etc. (assuming 'your' DM allows both). You simply take your stat bonuses and enjoy your versatility.

Players hate the word "can't", especially when it pertains to their character.

 

[dco]

Many players find multiclassing fun and interesting. Twenty pages in, and I have yet to see anybody explain why denying them that option makes the game more fun and interesting.

Of course, DMs can do what they like, make all weapons do 1D6 damage, ban clerics, make all cantrips into first level spells, whatever, and of course if players don't like those strictures they can choose not to play the game. But "no multiclassing! Not at my table!" is such an absurdly petty hill to die on.

If you avoid selective reading you should find a lot.

A friend got me The Lone Wolf Adventure Game for Christmas (surprise!), and I've been reading through it for a few days, on and off. It's an RPG based on those old Lone Wolf choose-your-own-adventure books.

In the box there is a 'Read Me First' sheet, and it tells you that you (gamemasters AND players) can start to play straight away, without knowing the rules!

How? Because there are two introductory adventures which give you the information you need to play that scene, and both players and 'Narrator' learn the rules as they play.

There are two levels of rules: 'Initiate' and 'Master'. The box includes six pre-gens (the game includes full rules for making your own PC and some blank character sheets), and they are double-sided. On one side is the Initiate character sheet (called 'Action Chart' - they really are targeting this at people without any previous RPG experience; for example, instead of rolling a d10 they have the box lid inscribed with random numbers from 1 to 10 into which you flip a token. Where a normal RPG would instruct you to 'roll a die', this game instructs you to 'pick a random number' by flipping a token into the lid) and on the other side is the Master character sheet/action chart for that same character.

The Master rules are simply the Initiate rules but with more rules added on to that basic framework. Altough it says that the players and Narrator can decide between them which Master rules they want to use and not use, it seems as though the expectation is that you will soon use all or nearly all of the Master rules as soon as you've got your head around the basic Initiate rules (which you could write on a napkin BTW).

How do I know that the expectation is to move away from Initiate and on to Master rules ASAP? Because the first of the two adventures uses (and teaches as you play) the basic, Initiate rules. The second adventure, which the first segues into, uses and teaches the Master level rules. You are expected to learn and use the Initiate rules for ONE (short) adventure, and then move onto the Master rules and never look back.

Over the years you notice trends in gaming. For the last few years the trend has been to simplify game systems. The Grognards are going to play anyway, but the money is with the huge, untapped resource that is the vast majority of the population that has never played an RPG and who would be put off by complex rules from the get-go. Games nowadays either have simple rules or they start with a simpler version of the rules and add complexity later. D&D 5E is no exception.

D&D 5E not only has simpler rules than 3E or 4E, but also has made a couple of rules which were 'normal' in previous editions (MCing and feats) 'optional'. Is the intention that MCing and feats are only there for a few people who want a complex variant while most will stick to the 'basics'? Or, like Lone Wolf, do they expect us to start using MCing and feats as soon as we've got our heads around the basics?

We can tell by looking at the expectations of organised play. In AL, MCing and feats are no longer optional. The expectation is that players will have learned the baby game pretty darn quick and want to play the grown-up version as soon as they are let out of the house.

I don't find the rules difficult, for example the feats are also optional and choosing a feat is as difficult as choosing +2 for one stat or +1 for 2 stats, it's only another choice, for multiclassing the only added difficulty are some limitations. It could be that the designers wanted to make the game easier at that arbitrary point, I don't know.
What I know is that feats and multiclassing can change the standard balance of the game adding extra attacks, magic as OA, extra actions to classes without them, etc and when I read the monster manual I don't see optional monsters stats for the optional rules. That's also a good reason to make them optional.

In any case we don't know why the designers made those rules optional and if we knew it wouldn't change anything, they would continue being optional, this debate is pointless.

 

[Rhenny]

In my experience, people multi-class when they grow bored of other options or to create a character concept that isn't available as a single class. It seems a natural extension for veterans of the game, and I don't find it more difficult to DM for.

It is far more difficult (and perhaps even balance jarring) to DM for parties with Druids or parties that use conjuration spells. Shapechange and extra critters is a DM nightmare some times.

 

[Corwin]

It is far more difficult (and perhaps even balance jarring) to DM for parties with Druids or parties that use conjugation spells.

Best Typo of the Month Award(TM) goes to Rhenny!

Druids: The best at establishing connections between things via magic and vocabulary!

 

[Satyrn]

Best Typo of the Month Award(TM) goes to Rhenny!

Druids: The best at establishing connections between things via magic and vocabulary!

I started typing out a little in-play scenario using conjugation spells, but my creativity failed me and I could not make it funny or interesting enough.