D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Psikerlord#]

So I hope to kick off DMing a new 5e campaign shortly and am wondering why I should allow multiclassing?

From what I can tell, allowing MCing just encourages minmaxing, and that isnt something I want to promote in this campaign. Historically I'm a big minmaxer myself ... but I think I'm growing out of it.

If you want to play a fightery/arcane type.... play an Eldritch knight. Or an arcane trickster. Or a blade sorceror. Or a bard. Or a high elf fighter with arcane initiate.

Want a divine caster fighter: paladin or war cleric.

Why do I need MCing in my game at all? If I dont allow MCing, I cut down on a lot of potential minmaxing problems, like 1 level dips into war cleric for full plate & shield mages.

Is there any good reason why I should allow MCing?

 

[Meliath1742]

I just had a similar discussion on G+. I've already told my group that we won't be using the MC "option" for our new 5E campaign. Like many others I feel that MC is too meta-gamey. And like you posted there are other good ways to get the character you want to play without resorting to MC. Also, I think part of playing a class is accepting its limitations as part of the experience.

 

[Leatherhead]

If you can't handle or don't want it, you shouldn't. But you should probably disallow feats too if you are worried about min-maxing of that degree.

As for myself, I find tinkering with the parts of the rules to be more engaging that simply running them bog-standard. Currently I am working on running a gestalt campaign that features using the MC rules as the basis for which powers you get for picking one of the classes. So far it has been surprisingly tame.

 

[AmerginLiath]

I'd say that, in the absence of multiclassing, feats become more important to certain concepts. To be fair, I say this as a player with a decades' long history of being yelled at by optimizers for my choices of flavor-multiclassing and such (just because one person is a "min-maxer," it does not follow that all or even most are: the online D&D community isn't a good sample, for example, in this regard). Where feats shine is in allowing tiny dips of flavor in things like picking up a tiny bit of spellcasting (in case someone wants to only be slightly magical, the equivalent of a few levels in a class or one of a few races' abilities, without being in the particular narrative space of something like an Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster).

I don't know your players, but the question remains is whether they're going to be using multiclassing (or feats) as a "min-maxing" or powergaming tool, or rather a way of freely exploring their character concept and the world (even to the detriment of their power-on-paper). I'm not saying necessarily to allow multiclassing – in DMing a game with large groups or new players, I'd use the logic in the second half of your post precisely (although I'd likely work with them regarding feats, races, and backgrounds for customizing some of the things that would otherwise come from having an additional class). But it's probably premature to assume that all players would be approaching mechanics from one certain angle (indeed, given the odd math of multiclassing in 5e, many players may steer away from it for the sake of simple ease)...

 

[Warmaster Horus]

My first question would be ... Do my players want to multiclass?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My first question would be ... Do my players want to multiclass?

that may be the most important question... followed by:

"IF your players DO want to multi class do you have a GOOD reason to step on there fun?"

 

[Umbran]

that may be the most important question... followed by:

"IF your players DO want to multi class do you have a GOOD reason to step on there fun?"

And a way to get at the answer is to ask, "WHY do they want to multi-class?"

The fear that it *might* be for min-max reasons doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason to ban it. By my reading, while it is possible on occasion, in general multiclassing works the other way - it is trading strength in a focus for generalization, which is usually not terribly problematic. Ban it because it *is* an issue, demonstrable and provable, not because it *might be* an issue.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

And a way to get at the answer is to ask, "WHY do they want to multi-class?"

The fear that it *might* be for min-max reasons doesn't seem to me to be sufficient reason to ban it. By my reading, while it is possible on occasion, in general multiclassing works the other way - it is trading strength in a focus for generalization, which is usually not terribly problematic. Ban it because it *is* an issue, demonstrable and provable, not because it *might be* an issue.

Why? Because it would be cool? Because the system supports it. Because that's the character I want to play?

I agree that multiclassing has its' drawbacks, too, especially if single-classed characters use Feats correctly and only have to worry about primary stat improvement.

My advise would be to let your players play the game within the rules (first), the way they want to (second) and the way the DM wants to (third). Remember, as DM you have ultimate power - you want to have a dragon with the powers of a 20th level anti-paladin? Sure thing!

Players on the other hand have limited power to shape their PC and takes many game hours to earn. Let them hope, dream and achieve (while you try to kill them... :>)! It's why they play the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

I do not know about multiclassing between two classes that are not spell casters. For example, between a Rogue and a Monk.

I do know that we have a Ranger 2 / Wizard 2 in the group and he is starting to become less effective as time goes on, not more. Yes, he can heal a lot of times per day. But, everyone else gained either an ability score change or a feat at level 4. He did not. The melee types are one level away from getting an additional melee attack, if he continues with wizard, he will not gain that. Compared to the straight wizard, he is a level behind on wizard spells (which is substantial).

He's a jack of all trades, master of none.

The other PCs are more specialized, he is more generalized. He is not more powerful than any other PC. He does have more options, but they are generally weaker than the options of other PCs.

 

[Umbran]

Why? Because it would be cool? Because the system supports it. Because that's the character I want to play?

The first and last in that trio are okay. But, "Because the system supports it," isn't a terribly good reason to do it. I would prefer to see some purpose being served other than, "because I can," you know what I mean?

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

To me it isn't as much a question of whether or not multiclassing is OP, that decides if I would allow it in my campaigns. It is more a question of whether it makes sense for a wizard to suddenly pick up fighter abilities or for a rogue to suddenly make a pact with a fey to become a warlock. I would probably allow it in some cases, but I would find it hard to explain without some serious downtime for the party, which they might not have the time for.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Having the next 19 levels chosen for you once you pick the first isn't exactly exciting for a lot of people. Getting locked on to that railroad removes a lot of sense of character growth. Having to make a decision you need to stick with months later in the campaign also isn't great. MC is also one of the only ways to customize a character and make it feel like your own rather than "a" wizard or "a" fighter.

Although the MC rules are pretty kludgey, the game needs more ability to customize characters, not less.

 

[steeldragons]

It sounds like you've already answered this for yourself...and I agree with it.

TO answer the actual thread question, "There is no reason to allow Multiclassing [in your game] unless you want to." As the DM, whatever your reasons, if you don't want to in your games, then don't.

I agree, the options exist for types of characters that simulate what used to be multiclassed characters. Granted in a more 1-2e way [thank gods] than a 3e way. But a LOT, if not all, of character options are there/doable.

As you astutely note, there is no "character" reason to permit it other than for "min-maxing" or, really, and more accurately, "power-gaming." The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to cherry-pick their character abilities and they can't do that without an MC level of having access [eventually] to alllll of a class' features.

The assertion that there might be "story" reasons to allow it...that's kinda...well, bogus. There would only be an "in story" reason for it if the DM has such a story to take place. There are a million OTHER ways to handle some story situation/reason then "sure, go ahead and start up a whole second class."

From the player side, the argument from a player/background "story" perspective, e.g. "I've got this GREAT idea! So, she was a born Sorcerer and then joined up this knightly order and took an Oath of Vengence against the demon that killed her brother & sister-knights. She's the last of her order. So I'm a full Pal/Sor [with all of the bells and whistles, thereof]." So you have to allow MCing, because the player has come up with this story? *shrug* And, it's simple, no you don't.

It's sort of backwards. "I need multiclassing because I already came up with this story..." That's just nonsense. We're not doing MCing. So, no. You don't. Come up with a different story. If you say "no MCing" that player can try to work with the framework you have set for the game you are running, i.e. get as close to their "important/creative concept/story", or play something else. My guess? In most cases, they will come up with something else right quick.

Whatever other bs floats around, the only reason a player that wants to play a "fighter/mage" can't or won't be satisfied in playing an Eldritch Knight (or any of the other ways to get there that you give in the OP) is because they want ALL of the fighter stuff and ALL of the mage stuff. There is nothing to it but entitlement, "wanting their cake and eating it too", and powergaming.

Don't want to encourage that? [And I do applaud that you do NOT want to!] Don't allow multiclassing.

 

[Gargoyle]

To me it isn't as much a question of whether or not multiclassing is OP, that decides if I would allow it in my campaigns. It is more a question of whether it makes sense for a wizard to suddenly pick up fighter abilities or for a rogue to suddenly make a pact with a fey to become a warlock. I would probably allow it in some cases, but I would find it hard to explain without some serious downtime for the party, which they might not have the time for.

Some would question whether it makes sense that a character who levels up in their existing class can suddenly do new things like cast spells. The best answer is indeed downtime especially for classes that "study" to develop their abilities like wizards. But it could make sense that they pick up new abilities in the middle of an adventurer in some cases. A sorcerer's abilities could manifest at any time. A wizard could pick up a fallen fighter's sword in desperation and discover that he has natural talent with it. A rogue might have an epiphany and discover faith in a god that he didn't know he had, and suddenly heal a dying companion. A wizard might tutor a party member in basic spellcasting, or a rogue might spar with a fighter to show him some less than honorable techniques.

I allow multiclassing when it's interesting and makes sense. "Dipping into a level of wizard" while in the middle of an adventure without someone to teach you, or grabbing a level of druid or ranger while adventuring in town doesn't make sense to me and I wouldn't allow it, and that's probably why it's optional, to let the DM decide what works for his or her table. Banning it altogether is certainly fine, but I think one might miss out on some very interesting characters that way.

 

[ExploderWizard]

To me it isn't as much a question of whether or not multiclassing is OP, that decides if I would allow it in my campaigns. It is more a question of whether it makes sense for a wizard to suddenly pick up fighter abilities or for a rogue to suddenly make a pact with a fey to become a warlock. I would probably allow it in some cases, but I would find it hard to explain without some serious downtime for the party, which they might not have the time for.

For this very reason I am allowing multiclassing in my new campaign but taking the first level in a new class requires 250 days and 250gp as if you were learning anything else brand new. I am also allowing skills to be learned this way, same as for tools & languages. I am planning to have some downtime periods available in the game every so often. Those that want to multiclass can use the time to do so and the others can get other downtime benefits instead.

 

[wedgeski]

As you astutely note, there is no "character" reason to permit it other than for "min-maxing" or, really, and more accurately, "power-gaming." The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to.

Really?

You can't imagine a grizzled veteran who finds god? Or a guard captain shunned by scandal who has to live on the streets?

What about the tinker in my Dragonlance campaign who thought his inventions could only be improved by learning about this "high sorcery" thing he kept hearing about?

Multi-classing permits and supports these kinds of ideas. You might be surprised what the players come up with.

 

[keterys]

They pretty much chose the worst implementation of multi-classing that D&D has done. Not that any of them were tremendously good options. Seems reasonable to just say you're unhappy with it until someone provides a better option.

 

[am181d]

As you astutely note, there is no "character" reason to permit it other than for "min-maxing" or, really, and more accurately, "power-gaming." The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to cherry-pick their character abilities and they can't do that without an MC level of having access [eventually] to alllll of a class' features.

The assertion that there might be "story" reasons to allow it...that's kinda...well, bogus. There would only be an "in story" reason for it if the DM has such a story to take place. There are a million OTHER ways to handle some story situation/reason then "sure, go ahead and start up a whole second class."

From the player side, the argument from a player/background "story" perspective, e.g. "I've got this GREAT idea! So, she was a born Sorcerer and then joined up this knightly order and took an Oath of Vengence against the demon that killed her brother & sister-knights. She's the last of her order. So I'm a full Pal/Sor [with all of the bells and whistles, thereof]." So you have to allow MCing, because the player has come up with this story? *shrug* And, it's simple, no you don't.

Huh?

So to clarify, your position is that no player in the history of D&D has ever wanted to create a multi-class character for story reasons? There's never been anyone who's ever played a fighter who later becomes a cleric because he thought that would be an interesting thing to play?

You are technically correct that the DM has control over her own table and can set the rules accordingly. But "complete disregard for what the players enjoy or look for in a roleplaying game" is a pretty quick route to being a bad DM with no players.

A tip for would-be DMs. Start by finding out what your players enjoy and build your campaign around that.

 

[steeldragons]

Really?

You can't imagine a grizzled veteran who finds god? Or a guard captain shunned by scandal who has to live on the streets?

What about the tinker in my Dragonlance campaign who thought his inventions could only be improved by learning about this "high sorcery" thing he kept hearing about?

Multi-classing permits and supports these kinds of ideas. You might be surprised what the players come up with.

Sure I can imagine any of those things...why do any of these examples mandate Multiclassing?...other than to get the bells and whistles.

"I found god, so now I get cleric spells, right?" No. Now you're a grizzled veteran with a new found devotion and faith. That's great! Cool character idea/development. Run with it. I need to grant you divine spells for you to play a faithful PC? No, sir, I do not. Maybe, if you do it for a while, I might bring that in waaaay down the line. But if every faithful peasant praying to a deity was granted spells...? Well, might be an interesting world...but not one I would run.

Your "tinker" in DL...same thing. So learn some stuff about high sorcery. Maybe you get some bonus to arcana checks...or magical history, recognizing/deciphering magic writings or whatever...but I see no reason this idea equates "the DM has to allow me to function as a member of this different class" because someone has a thought for their character.

If you're doing it for "character" reasons, and I fully endorse and support those that do, then play the character. Otherwise, as I state above, anything like this is just justifications for "gimme these other/moar powers."

So, no. Your examples, while I am sure make for interesting characters, do not say anything that leads me to "ergo, allow multi-classing."

 

[wedgeski]

So, no. Your examples, while I am sure make for interesting characters, do not say anything that leads me to "ergo, allow multi-classing."

Well...bad luck for your table, I guess?