D&D 5E To Allow Multi-Class or Not....A DM's Dilemma

[CydKnight]

Admittedly, I am new at being a DM. I played a lot of AD&D rules when I was younger and picked up again with 5E rules in the last 6 months. Since I began playing again, out of necessity I had to become the DM. Either no one else in the group wanted to do it or they didn't have the means to get their hands on a minimum of PHB, DMG, and MM.

I had never been a DM before but decided to try. Now I kind of like it.

My biggest dilemma now is whether to allow players to multi-class. It seems a lot to me like having your cake and eating it too which could create game imbalance over those who don't multi-class. Like you want to be more self-reliant without having to rely on the other players in your party which to me goes against a core idea behind the game. Why not just play a single class player to the best of it's abilities while understanding it's limitations and weaknesses and making allowances for that in your game play? Why not let other PC's strengths pick-up right where your weaknesses end? That would seem to me to help keep other players from feeling useless because you don't have one that can do almost everything.

On the other hand, I could see a use for multi-classing if you are deficient in party members. Maybe you have less than 4 players and that just leaves no way to account for some of the things the party is bound to encounter. It may be a more viable option than have one or more players run multiple characters.

I realize all DMs will run their games the way they feel is best for them and their players. I was just curious about what other's thoughts were on multi-classing in general.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My thoughts, as an experienced DM with experienced players and multi-classing allowed in our games, is that you should not include any optional rules you aren't absolutely comfortable with; it's better to start restrictive and add things if you become completely comfortable with the idea than it is to end up in a situation where you realize you've got to cut something because it isn't working out.

Because allow things you aren't completely comfortable with ups the odds that your experience isn't as satisfying for you and your players as it could be, and that the campaign ends prematurely as a result. I've even seen budding DMs entirely abandon the idea of being a DM because they tried to do everything that some other DM did after years of experience on day one, and as a result felt that DMing was too hard for them.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[abirdcall]

We don't allow multiclassing at my table.

The major reason is that I like that D&D is a class based system. Subclasses are an elegant way to have differentiation within the classes while maintaining their chassis.

So I just don't think it is necessary. While it isn't terribly implemented in 5e, it's also not great. For example, a character who is a Class Y/Class Z can look much different than a Class Z/Class Y. It's fiddly and inelegant.

I also don't think your point about having fewer than 4 players (I will only play with 3-5 players so minimum for me is 3) is good. Having specializations means that characters will shine in some situations and have difficulty in others. This is a good thing. That means that class choice has an impact.

 

[iserith]

Admittedly, I am new at being a DM. I played a lot of AD&D rules when I was younger and picked up again with 5E rules in the last 6 months. Since I began playing again, out of necessity I had to become the DM. Either no one else in the group wanted to do it or they didn't have the means to get their hands on a minimum of PHB, DMG, and MM.

I had never been a DM before but decided to try. Now I kind of like it.

My biggest dilemma now is whether to allow players to multi-class. It seems a lot to me like having your cake and eating it too which could create game imbalance over those who don't multi-class. Like you want to be more self-reliant without having to rely on the other players in your party which to me goes against a core idea behind the game. Why not just play a single class player to the best of it's abilities while understanding it's limitations and weaknesses and making allowances for that in your game play? Why not let other PC's strengths pick-up right where your weaknesses end? That would seem to me to help keep other players from feeling useless because you don't have one that can do almost everything.

On the other hand, I could see a use for multi-classing if you are deficient in party members. Maybe you have less than 4 players and that just leaves no way to account for some of the things the party is bound to encounter. It may be a more viable option than have one or more players run multiple characters.

I realize all DMs will run their games the way they feel is bet for them and their players. I was just curious about what other's thoughts were on multi-classing in general.

If you are running any published adventures as-is, I would probably not include any optional rules like Feats and Multiclassing. If you're running your own stuff or willing to add to the difficulty of the given challenges in the module to account for any increase in power level as a result of including these options, then sure, give it a shot. We learn by doing.

Talk to your players about it and get their opinions, too. And if they convince you that it's worth trying, let them know you'd feel better about it if you can reverse the decision later if things turn out to be a problem and ask for their buy-in on that.

And remember it doesn't always have to be one way. This campaign right now might have no feats or multiclassing or UA options. The next campaign might have all or some of those options. Use what's best to support the kind of game you want to run.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As a player, I would prefer to play in a game that doesn't allow multi-classing. For as long as multi-classing is an option, I need to take it into consideration, and I would prefer to just worry about playing my own character as it is. There's no reason to make it any more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[Croesus]

Hmm, I'm going to go against the grain here and suggest that multiclassing is fine. I've yet to see a multiclass character at my table that is clearly superior to a single-class character, and usually they are worse than the single class. They gain some flexibility, but lose a lot in power. I've read a few threads about problems with warlock multiclassing, but most builds seem to be high level. Since I require all new characters to start at 1st level, I have no problem if a player wants to play a multi-class character that is weaker early on. By the time their build is optimal, they've played the character a year or more and have earned it.

That said, this depends on your group. How much do they want multiclassing, and why? If it's to twink out characters to outshine everyone else, then you shouldn't allow it. If it's because some character concepts are difficult to pull off single class, that's probably okay. I have no problem allowing some things in my group, then taking them back if it turns out to cause problems. My players understand this, so we've had no issues in the very few cases where I've done that. So if your group is okay with allowing multiclassing, but tweaking things if some combos are problematic, you should be fine.

Feats, on the other hand, definitely avoid in the beginning.

 

[Bawylie]

A lot of people will give nuanced takes on the capabilities of your players and the table's desires for the type of game they want to play.

I'm going to part from that and just say "multiclass is trash."


-Brad

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm going to part from that and just say "multiclass is trash."

I wouldn't go that far, but I realized because you said it that I forgot to mention that even though my group does allow anyone that wants to multi-class to do so, that as of yet not a single character played has actually been multi-classed.

 

[WarpedAcorn]

I don't like D&D's "Class" system and never have, but I do love D&D. I would much prefer a skill-based system where you can assign skill points into different areas to customize your character as you want. Multi-classing is the closest to this, so I am all for Multi-Classing as both a player and as a DM.

Multi-Classing does not make my job harder as a DM at all and I have to scratch my head when other DM's say it does. Yes, certain multi-class combinations synergy and can produce some awesome results...but those results always occur under certain conditions. As the DM I can control those conditions pretty easily. Maybe a Sorcerer has dipped into Warlock to try and abuse those Short Rest spell slots with Metamagic, then I can easily put situations that prevent constant Short Rests (if I see that as being something that is being abused). The other thing is that in order to Multi-Class you have to give up something else...like Bonus Attacks or higher level Spells.

As a player, I love the option to Multi-Class and build the character I want to play. Sure, I'd still play in a game that doesn't allow Multi-Class, but given the choice between playing at a table that does or does not allow it I would choose the one that allows it.