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

[Salthorae]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.