log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E To MC or not MC? That is the question!

Does your game allow multiclassing or not?

  • Multiclassing is a way of life.

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Most PCs are multiclassed.

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Maybe half the PCs pick up a second class or more.

    Votes: 15 12.7%
  • Sometimes a PC will multiclass.

    Votes: 46 39.0%
  • It is pretty rare for a PC to multiclass.

    Votes: 34 28.8%
  • We don't play with multiclassing (or no one does it anyway).

    Votes: 14 11.9%
  • Other. Please explain below.

    Votes: 1 0.8%

  • Total voters
    118
I don't like 'optimizers'. I could care less if a character is optimized or not, I just don't like players who are obsessed with DPR or having the absolute 'best' character.

Fortunately, no one I have had join my games or other players at games I have joined have been that way in a few decades. So, I pretty much let players play anything they want, with the understanding that if it impacts the fun of the other players changes will be made.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Sacrosanct

Legend
If it's done in a way that makes sense with the story then I'm okay with it. I multi
classed my battle master with cleric because our cleric and paladin are absent a lot of the time. But it also made sense narratively and my DM made me work for it with a mini quest to obtain my holy symbol.
That’s how I am. I don’t ban multiclassing, but it has to have an in game reason. You can’t just decide all the sudden to take a level dip in a class unless your character has had some sort of exposure in the game to explain why they suddenly have those skills.
 

Jediking

Explorer
My last two characters (usually I DM) were both multiclasses:
Triton Ranger 5/Bard 1 (killed at lvl 6). A true pirate, who could mix it up in melee and add support

Tortle Fighter 5/Druid 4 (currently playing). The spore+champion subclasses makes him a dangerous melee character, with an array of support spells


i’ve enjoyed them both and havenot found them to be out of balance with the other 5 characters, all of whom are single-classed
 

Minigiant

Legend
Multiclassiing allowed in both the game I play and run.

Maybe one out of six actually do it in campaigns. Too much of a power hit until it starts flowing. The flavor benefits aren't worth the power hit.
That number doubles in one shots though.
 

Need to make it so that if the player starts talking about multiclassing a devil appears right in front of them in a puff of smoke and says to the character "Sure. Just sign here on the dotted line".
but then they'd get mad about you interfering with their character.
 


Fanaelialae

Legend
My players only occasionally multiclass. I have a house rule to the effect that, barring special exceptions, you cannot multiclass unless it is with a class you took your first 3 levels in. So a pure fighter 3 is likely to be all fighter for the rest of the campaign. Whereas someone who starts as Bard 1/Sorcerer 1/Warlock 1 could level in any of those 3 classes on leveling.

We usually start at level 3, so in those games you have to decide on your multiclassing at the start. This minimizes dips, since, unlike the case where you wait for a lull in your primary class to dip, you're paying the cost upfront, delaying the acquisition of higher level abilities in exchange for the opportunity. I also prefer this from an in-world perspective, since I never liked that an 18 Int wizard had to study magic for years to reach 1st level, but the 13 Int fighter can do it in a few days (even with tutoring that doesn't make sense).

Special exceptions are events that unlock an opportunity to multiclass due to campaign events. For example, fulfilling a quest for a particular god might grant you the blessing to become a cleric of that deity without requiring the training. Being ressurected by an angel might allow you to make a pact to become a celestial pact warlock. If a great repository of knowledge were "downloaded" into a character's brain, I'd probably allow that PC to take levels of wizard. So on and so forth.
 

Horwath

Adventurer
Multiclassing for Demi-humans in AD&D worked so much better from an optimization standpoint. Not necessarily a narrative one. And it didn't work for humans.

I like the modern version of it because it allows my character to grow and explore things in the fiction of the world and have it meaningfully represented on the sheet.

I'm playing a Fighter (EK) in a game right now. I never planned on multiclassing into warlock, but in our game, we've traveled to the fey courts, and my character has been noticed and contacted by the Raven Queen, or maybe her agents. If I decide to pursue those threads, I can very easily see multiclassing into Warlock because of the story.

Certainly, I couldn't have done that in AD&D without DM fiat or something.
I find multiclassing both over and underpowered.
depending how you do it.

1-2 level dips can be problematic if you count lets say levels 10-12.

2/9 split can be more powerfull than single class 11.

I would only allow equal split MC. that is 2 classes must be within 1 level of each other.

but 6/5 split is usually a lot weaker that single 11 or 2/9 split.

so solution is that MC should have more "effective" class levels that single class, but only with even split of levels.

In my variant dual classing, you can MC only with 2 classes, and you must keep classes within 1 level of each other.

But, you get extra class level on character levels 5,8,11,14,17 and 20.

that is if you are 4th level MC fighter/wizard you are fighter2/wizard2, but on 5th level you are fighter3/wizard3. On those dual levels you take average HPs and average HD for healing.
In case of fighter/wizard you would get 5 HPs (6+4)/2 and one d8 HD(middle of d10 and d6).
and for all other mechanics you would be counted as 5th level character, not 6th

then at 8th level you would be 5/5 split, 11th level would be 7/7, 14th level 9/9, 17th level 11/11 and 20th level is 13/13 split.

on average 13/13 dual class gives same number of HPs and standard 10/10 fighter/wizard split, same proficiency bonus, same number of HD healing, same weapon/armor/save proficiencies. It just gives extra 3 class level feature of each class.

you also get your features at much slower rate, 8d6 fireball at 8th level is a lot weaker than at 5th level and fighter 3rd attack at 17th level is also very late.
 

I think a lot of problems that people have with multiclassing is not inherently based on the power of the combinations but the fact alot of classes have dead levels and practically non-existent capstones.
Combined with the fact that a lot of tables never see high-level play you can't blame them for going for the faster return provided by a front loaded class.
 


Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
I don't like 'optimizers'. I could care less if a character is optimized or not, I just don't like players who are obsessed with DPR or having the absolute 'best' character.
min/maxing to eek out DPR is different than making your character good at the things their supposed to be good at doing (optimizing). Sometime people do both, but they are squares and rectangles.

Multiclassing for me is usually about story. That said there are other games that I play in that are just crazy Monty-Haul. For those, multiclassing is about keeping up with everyone else at the table.

Different groups, different styles, they both have their place and fun aspects.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I allow multi classing, BUT: the DM is allowed to nerf any unforeseeable overpowered multiclass combination at a moment's notice.
An example: in my game, eldritch blast scales on warlock levels, not character levels.
This statement troubles me. DM's shouldn't be nerfing things at a moments notice. They should carefully observe and when something is too overpowered they should have a conversation with the player group about toning it back.
 

Vael

Adventurer
I've yet to see it ever banned, I allow multiclassing when I run games, but I also rarely see it chosen.

I'll admit, I don't. It comes from liking caster classes and starting in 3.5, surrendering even a single level of a caster class is something I view as a major cost, so I've yet to do it.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think a lot of problems that people have with multiclassing is not inherently based on the power of the combinations but the fact alot of classes have dead levels and practically non-existent capstones.
Combined with the fact that a lot of tables never see high-level play you can't blame them for going for the faster return provided by a front loaded class.
I think the bigger problem people have with multiclassing is story based concerns. That is they dislike when a decision is made without any thought of the story. It's basically an extension of metagaming concerns.

There's some concern about multiclassing allowing overpower combo's but I've not seen any multiclass combo I've been concerned about yet.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I've yet to see it ever banned, I allow multiclassing when I run games, but I also rarely see it chosen.

I'll admit, I don't. It comes from liking caster classes and starting in 3.5, surrendering even a single level of a caster class is something I view as a major cost, so I've yet to do it.
Yep. It's typically best for non full caster classes and most often if done before level 6 will make a character weaker than he otherwise would have been.

I wouldn't ban multiclassing because some classes just stop getting very much after level 5 and especially after level 11. For many of them staying the course will result in a powerful level 20 ability but you can achieve the same power typically much sooner if you multiclass around level 12+.

The reasons people don't see multiclassing is because
1. Half the party is a full caster
2. Non-full casters get little mechanical benefit from it until way later.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I don't like 'optimizers'. I could care less if a character is optimized or not, I just don't like players who are obsessed with DPR or having the absolute 'best' character.

Fortunately, no one I have had join my games or other players at games I have joined have been that way in a few decades. So, I pretty much let players play anything they want, with the understanding that if it impacts the fun of the other players changes will be made.
Does that also go for people who optimize their characters to not be overly powerful? Inquiring minds want to know.
 

Olrox17

Hero
This statement troubles me. DM's shouldn't be nerfing things at a moments notice. They should carefully observe and when something is too overpowered they should have a conversation with the player group about toning it back.
While I agree with your general sentiment, I believe it's better to lay down a strict rule well in advance and applying it very sparingly than having no rules and arguing afterwards.
For the record, I never received any complaints about this rule of mine. After all, MCing is optional, a DM could just veto it entirely. I don't want to do that, because I recognize that MCing can be essential to realize some particular character concepts. The rule is just there to avoid excessive power gaming.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
While I agree with your general sentiment, I believe it's better to lay down a strict rule well in advance and applying it very sparingly than having no rules and arguing afterwards.
For the record, I never received any complaints about this rule of mine. After all, MCing is entirely optional, a DM could just veto it entirely. I don't want to do that, because I recognize that MCing can be essential to realize some particular character concepts. The rule is just there to avoid excessive power gaming.
I tend to agree with everything else said but still have a problem with that rule.

I have no problem with ruling no multiclassing at all.
I have no problem taking something away after the fact.
I have a problem when you nerf something you allowed without reaching a compromise with your player about how to appropriately nerf the ability in question without overly nerfing his character and character concept.
 

Olrox17

Hero
I tend to agree with everything else said but still have a problem with that rule.

I have no problem with ruling no multiclassing at all.
I have no problem taking something away after the fact.
I have a problem when you nerf something you allowed without reaching a compromise with your player about how to appropriately nerf the ability in question without overly nerfing his character and character concept.
Yes, of course, reaching a compromise through civilized discussion is the best and most desirable outcome. Such discussions shouldn't happen AT the gaming table though, they are better handled after the game. The rule is there to say "hey player, if something particularly absurd and unexpected happens as a result of you using this optional rule, I reserve the right of changing some RAW. We can talk about it after the session".
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Yes, of course, reaching a compromise through civilized discussion is the best and most desirable outcome. Such discussions shouldn't happen AT the gaming table though, they are better handled after the game. The rule is there to say "hey player, if something particularly absurd and unexpected happens as a result of you using this optional rule, I reserve the right of changing some RAW. We can talk about it after the session".
Or an even better way - allow it to be played as is until the session is over and then talk about it and reach a compromise after.
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top