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

[ProphetSword]

I've had multi-classing in all three of my campaigns, and to date it hasn't broken anything. Actually, players rarely seem to bother with multi-classing in this edition; because single-class characters seem stronger.

 

[GlassJaw]

Multiclassing and feats are fine and won't break the game or make it all that more complicated. I wouldn't restrict anything at first. Wait and see what your players gravitate towards. If you start to see a trend towards powergaming - especially if one player is overshadowing the others - then step in.

But the concerns about multiclassing and feats are largely unfounded and are generally the result of some kind of "purity" hang-up. It's like people that think the National League is better because they don't have a DH. Bleh.

 

[Dualazi]

I disallow multiclassing in my game, because I think it was handled sloppily in this particular edition, and as a result is used more for overpowered dips than any real result of character arcs. Maybe if I was starting a game at level 10 or something I'd allow certain multiclass characters through, but as a general rule I'd vote to abstain until you can read up on it more.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

I'm with Brad.

Just about every case of multiclassing I've seen (on forums or at tables) has been pure powergaming, never about character concept.

The only multiclass I've personally tried but didn't get high enough level to even get to the combo I wanted was a Shadow Monk / Rogue. (BAMF!) I had a concept, but it came after the build plan, so that counts as powergaming.

Regarding feats I would pick and choose the ones you allow. If you want to suppress powergaming just drop Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert and the rest are fine.

 

[imdeadagain]

Multiclassing is not an issue for me, it helps shore up holes in small parties, case in point our party has Tabaxi monk, goblin fighter, tabaxi fighter, firbolg ranger and lizardfolk barbarian, we are short on healing so the goblin is mc'ing into life cleric for a few levels, without that option it would make it much tougher.

Yes it can encourage power gaming, but it doesn't make that much difference, unlike the sharpshooter/gwm feats and higher level spellcasting.


Sent from my iPad using EN World mobile app

 

[Caliban]

Multi-classing can be fun, and can make some interesting character builds. It does allow for more flexible characters, and can seem a bit overpowered below level 10 (if done optimally), but at levels 11+ most single class characters will catch up to or surpass the multi-class ones as they get the higher level class abilities and spells that the multi-class characters don't have access too.

 

[i_dont_meta]

To fulfill Character Concept--'nuff said. It's that easy. Don't worry about "power-balance"--it's a fraud. Any DM worth their salt should encourage their players to make the PC's that they want to make. Self-imposed limitations, even in the vein of good intentions, are STILL limitations...in a nutshell: if it's good enough to be published by WotC (5E) in what limited capacity they're currently publishing, there simply has to be some merit to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Celtavian]

If you're just starting as a DM, likely best to run a campaign or two with core to get a feel for the game. Then once you have more experience running combat and challenging your players, work in optional content like Multiclassing and feats. This will allow you to learn what the core classes can do before combining elements and how the game system challenges handle core characters.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I really dislike WotC era "take a level in whatever class you feel like" multiclassing. I don't like it and I don't allow it as a DM or engage in it as a player. I have yet to see a campaign that is improved in any way by its presence.

The biggest thing, though, is the nature of the campaign. Somebody touched on this a while back re:warlocks and taking the "right" spells.

If you and your players work together so build the campaign, many concerns of power balance and such fall away, because you all know what you're in for and you're in it together. A campaign built on constant combat will feel at home to a very different array of characters and abilities than one built on subterfuge and diplomacy. Just make sure you and your players are clear about (and on board with) whatever options you decide to run with.

And remember, you need to be having fun too. Do what you're comfortable with, change or ban what you don't like, and don't be afraid to discuss situations with the players and alter stuff as you need to.

 

[abirdcall]

Multiclassing is not an issue for me, it helps shore up holes in small parties, case in point our party has Tabaxi monk, goblin fighter, tabaxi fighter, firbolg ranger and lizardfolk barbarian, we are short on healing so the goblin is mc'ing into life cleric for a few levels, without that option it would make it much tougher.

5 characters is a large party.

To fulfill Character Concept--'nuff said. It's that easy. Don't worry about "power-balance"--it's a fraud. Any DM worth their salt should encourage their players to make the PC's that they want to make. Self-imposed limitations, even in the vein of good intentions, are STILL limitations...in a nutshell: if it's good enough to be published by WotC (5E) in what limited capacity they're currently publishing, there simply has to be some merit to that.

You play with every optional rule?

Playing a game with rules is playing with limitations. Even if you were to play Magical Tea Party there would still be limitations. Limitations are not a bad thing. They serve to form the sort of game that the group wants.