D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[sidonunspa]

I was going to post something but realized, like politics.. there's no point to it

 

[steeldragons]

Mr. Dragons:

YES! Who's next? AH, very good, Mr. Joe. C'mon in.

Sorry for the delay. I swear I don't think I have EVER had so many post quotes for any thread I've made or commented on, ever. [Nor seen so lil' XP for the effort. ]

How would you respond to this Warlock/Paladin/Sorcerer build "rationale":

I mean, in my world setting, this whole concept is a nonstarter, but you have no way of knowing that. So assuming things like Bahamut, arcane caster dwarves, sorcerers, dragons making pacts, etc... existed and just working on the actual multiclass aspects, let's see...

This is my story:

I am dwarf that has connected with the spirit of Bahumut. In exchange for my devotion to him he grants me powers, as I am not truly a priest, my powers manifest as a dragon's would. I don't "cast" spells I gain a breath weapon. For example, I don't cast Burning Hands, I breathe it (exact same mechanics, just looks different). When I fly, I grow wings.

You are a dwarf connected with the spirit of Bahumut. So you're a cleric? Paladin? Yeah sure.

If you want to fluff your [cleric/paladin] spells as "breath weapon", I'm cool with that. Fluff a fly spell with wings? *shrug* ok.

Why/where is the warlock coming from at all?

As I gain in power, Bahumut gives me the ability to channel his strength (Divine Smite).

So Paladin, then. Since War domain Clerics don't get Divine Strike until 8th, I'm guessing you want the Divine Smite at 2nd level instead. War Cleric gets Guided Strike at 2nd...? But that helps to hit not damage. So Paladin it is, I guess.

Later on my breath weapon become more flexible (Sorcerer spells) and can do different things (you, know just like him) or I can choose to channel the breath weapon into my attacks charging them with the power of the Great Dragon.

Sure. That's a fluffy way to explain the Sorcerer class. But that's not telling me why is it there/part of this creation in the first place? Besides the fact that you're at...what level by your original thing 8th level before you're doing anything Sorcerer? Why do you need Sorcerer spells to make your "breath weapon" more flexible? Why not just use your paladin spells?

What about that is needed for this Holy Warrior of Bahamut? If you want to breathe fire and fly, why not just play a Dragonborn Paladin? Or a [any race] Dragon Origin Sorcerer, fluffing your spells as dragon breath. Play the dwarf [Sorcerer] for the armor and just use the feats for weapons. But all/none of this is really as direct, if you want to be the front line holy warrior guy, seems to me, as just starting and sticking with Paladin.

Would you still rather me a straight Paladin after that discussion?

Well...yeah, I think so. I see nothing here that needs Warlock at all. And the story-issues [independent of setting] of beginning as a Warlock who is then called to be a Paladin...is just....weird. It's redundant. Why aren't you just staying a Blade Pact Warlock? OR, why weren't you a Paladin in the first place?

What about the fact that you [the general you, "the player"] don't control what/how your Patron acts or feels or decides on. At 5 levels of Warlock, Bahamut is gonna make you a paladin? Oh really? Is he now? If you're a paladin, how is your patron-turned-deity reacting to you just kinda dropping your training for their causes [your paladinic power] to work on some selfish innate power like sorcerer?

I see nothing in this story that requires the Sorcerer either. Other than "I want Sorcerer spells/metamagic/Draconic resilience", what is the purpose of Sorcerer levels are in this mix?

Warlock was first, right? 5 levels so you get something. Then 2 levels of Paladin "to get smite" and then sorcerer. That was your "build", right? Were you going to go back to Paladin...after 1 level of sorcerer? 5? 10? Since, the concept was for a Holy Warrior, was it not? More than 2 levels of paladin would seem to be appropriate.

See, painting the fluffy picture over top of a "I need these levels for these powers and then I want this other stuff" core does not change what the core is.

If I may be so bold...You seem to be leaving bits n' pieces out of this story. It's obviously not because you think this is the best way to make "concept = a Holy Warrior of Bahamut." Or you'd just be a paladin and call it a day. Maybe a Dragonborn Paladin, for the breath weapon. Or a dwarf paladin of some dwarf god who wouldn't do/have a pact/warlock.

It seems to me, I don't know for sure since I'm not telling other people what they're thinking, you want to "build" this particular character...to get you the most "something" [damage output, blasty spells, weirdo/fringe powers, wrapped up in the coolest looking package charging into battle, etc...], it doesn't matter what the "something" is.

That's all great. That's a style a lot of people like. And a style that 3e basically created and enforced to the nth degree. Put a nice story on it to have it seem to make [some level of] sense. It's all good. I don't play that way. No sweat off my back that you do.

From where I'm sitting, assuming a game starting at 1st level, you have 1 level of class to work with. Where that character goes from there in story is certainly a result of the player's choices and the character's actions. But can the character can't really say "I'm a cleric/paladin/warlock [or even sorcerer] now" if they weren't before. You worked the dragon origin into your backstory....unknown until...ok fine. But what the gods are doing/going to do...not really your call.

But, this hypothetical is taking place with me as DM, right? So, from my perspective, I see nothing here that is an argument for "DMs have to let us Multiclass" when you can get something comparable -not exact, no. But comparable-to what your concept is without it. Why can't you do this character as a straight Paladin? Blade Pact Warlock? Eldritch Knight? Sorcerer with some Weapon feats? Fighter with some Magic feats? Or a dozen other things?

Would you say, play a human Paladin, take the magic iniatiate feats at 1st, 4th and 8th and you have just what you want?

If what you're looking for is a Paladin with Sorcerer spells? I probably would. OR, if you were dead set on/reeeeally wanted/dwarves are your favorite race...I might just let you be a dwarf and take the [human variant] feat instead of your armor prof. It's kinda redundant as a paladin.
Or I could probably work a bunch of different other things out with a little research and thought...but there's really not a lot here to make me inclined to say "multiclass is the way to go." The elaborateness or detail of the character's story is kind of irrelevant, since you are talking about taking these levels over time...and who is to say the game story goes that way?

The answer, as I've been trying to get across [and pissing off a lot of people in the process, apparently], "Cuz I want..." is not a valid reason for me to say "Yes. Go right ahead and Multiclass any combination you can come up with/justify. We'll find some way to fit it in."

Can I do that? Yes. Of course I can. Undoubtedly, some combinations would be more easily introduced into the game setting than others.

But if I do for one, I have to do for all. That's what's fair. It's just a can of worms I feel, at this time and having not seen MC in action, unwilling to open....precisely to avoid the kinds of characters you are presenting.

But the OP was "what reasons can I use to not have it" and my feeling on that is "You're the DM. You don't need one...and it's optional anyway." It is, when all's said and done, a matter of trust with your table/DM and your game/table's expectations and preferences. There is no "right/wrong" way to do it.

--Steel the Big Meaniest Dragon

 

[Moorcrys]

I mean, honestly, I'd love to play in any game where the DM and players aren't d-bags.

I think we're all creative people able to come up with dozens of fun character ideas in 20 minutes that we'd enjoy playing if we were asked to jump in on a game. I would just pick one that fits the campaign and run with it. If it's a great DM who has specific limits for their campaign spelled out at character creation, great. If it's a great DM who says everything is open and allowed, awesome. If it's a lousy DM telling me what I can and can't do, that sucks. And if it's an open DM who can't run a game, well that equally sucks.

I've played with strict DMs and loose DMs and had great times and lousy times with both kinds. It doesn't have to be a souffle for me to like the dessert... I just wanna eat something tasty.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Many of the NO-MC comments I've seen thus far have a substantial 'anti-player' bias to them. Players are power-hungry madmen running amok in the DM's carefully planned story with their min-maxed, power-gaming monstrosities. Things would be so much more orderly if players just stayed in their lane with the reasonable class options provided in the PHB.

The DM runs the game, but its' up to them to make an enjoyable game. Players like their PCs, they want them to do well and want to have fun during the many hours they spend with them. Wanting their PCs to succeed, and working to grow them into indominable heroes, is a big part of why many people enjoy the game. Saying 'yes' doesn't mean abdicating (much) power, as a DM, but it may cause you to make a few adjustments to your game in doing so.

I know there are some PITA players out there who love to come up with strange, rule-twisting creations that make you shake your head with disgust. Okay, that certainly exists. But deal with them in a way that doesn't penalize the players who want to try a new twist in how they play the game. Be fair and open. If you want to eliminate MCs, check with your players and see if that's okay with them. Even bargain to allow your agreement for MC choices, if you feel you need to. Acknowledging that your players aren't the enemy and that the success of their PCs is important to them is something every DM should strive to remember.

 

[steeldragons]

OOC: In all seriousness, I am totally cool with this approach, as it is the sort of thing I tend to do all the time. Thing is, it won't work for every single situation. And, honestly, probably adds significantly more imbalance than actually using the multi-classing rules themselves.

-snippity snip-

I'm all for finding creative ways to build interesting characters, or modding the classes to help customize them for a game. But again - you seemed insistent that there could never be a build that is supported by multiclassing and that a character could desire for RP reasons. That just isn't the case.

Well, that's my bad I guess. I was just trying to make clear that the OP has no reason to allow MCing if they don't want to. And in my experience, most folks who MC in this 3e fashion are "dipping" and looking for powers before, or in conjunction with, their story reasons.

Edited To Add: Look, my goal here isn't to force you to 'change your mind' and allow Multiclassing in your game. That's your call to make. There are plenty of reasons to make it - if a DM just doesn't want to deal with the possible character capabilities it could open up and how they could affect encounter balance, if a DM just wants to avoid giving PCs the temptation of trying to min/max their builds and backgrounds, etc. I mainly just wanted to try and get across that yes, there are builds and ideas that multiclassing is the best way to deal with, and that those builds can easily be rooted in RP and story as much - or more - than specific powers and features.

If you don't want to go down the multiclassing route, but are willing to work with a player to build them a new class archetype or other features that help them realize their character, then that can be all for the best. -snip-

-snip- That seemed to be how you were portraying anyone who wanted to multiclass, and I think it is a far, far cry from the reasons most players are interested in it.

Again, my bad. It's not "anyone."

Enjoying what your character can do is part of the game. That doesn't mean you need to allow it in your game, sure. But I think it is important to understand why players might want such things, without just dismissing it as them wanting to break the system.

I am more than willing to concede that it is possible for people can make MC characters that are NOT for powergamey reasons.

How we all got 15 pages in is really anyone's guess.

 

[Moorcrys]

Many of the NO-MC comments I've seen thus far have a substantial 'anti-player' bias to them. Players are power-hungry madmen running amok in the DM's carefully planned story with their min-maxed, power-gaming monstrosities. Things would be so much more orderly if players just stayed in their lane with the reasonable class options provided in the PHB.

I actually think there's a fair amount of hyperbole being thrown back and forth that tends to inflame an otherwise interesting and reasonable discussion. ;-)

In most games I've been in, and certainly those I've run, the rules are made clear before character creation. That way you know the guidelines before you create your character. I haven't been around many DMs who wait for you work your way through the character creation process and then say 'nah'. They don't tend to DM for very long.

And really, all of the talk on message boards aside, it's usually a dialogue when you're playing a game like this, isn't it? In my games I say in general no multiclassing, but if someone has an interesting character concept involving multiclassing that works in the campaign world and we worked out something fun with the character story, I'd certainly be willing to entertain that idea.

 

[Hussar]

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?

Thread has ballooned too long for me to catch up right now, but, to answer the first question - the right answer is, because one or more of your players want to. That's the long and the short of it.

Given the advice you're getting about anyone wanting to MC is obviously trying to break the game, is it any wonder I have such a poor opinion of DM's? Are you playing the character? Is it your character? No? Then why do you give the slightest damn what your players are playing? It's no more your job as the DM to tell the players what they should play than it is their job to tell you how your game world should run.

Here's a good idea. Trust your players and make it very clear that you are placing the responsibility for the game on their shoulders. It works wonders.

 

[steeldragons]

Ok, I just need to try.

I started as sorcerer -from first level- but I went for a roguish character with some shades of thug, I was playful and conspiring, and unpredictable. I was very good at bluffing and improvising, but also took a liking for dualwielding a dagger and a sickle, and went out of the way to get a halberd and some proficiency with it -A weapon I always found very pretty and elegant-. From day 1 I was always over my head getting into constant danger, charging straight into melee. Whenever I found someone strong I always asked to spar with that person. Despite my chaotic neutral tendencies and being BFFs with the party halfling rogue I idolized the party paladin, who always turned me down when I asked him to spar with me.

Eventually things got bad, the paladin fell death in the frontline, I wished to recover his body to bury him, and I had to be dragged out of there by force because it wasn't possible. Then on the way back I lost my little pal on a horrible way and war erupted around us. Since I was helpless to help both of them I swore to not rest until peace and order were restored, and that I was going to behave and keep the quest of the paladin alive in me. All of this actual roleplay on the table. Now we go up a level and I decide that the best way to proceed is to start taking levels in paladin, to keep the quest alive and get to a point so I can start going into the frontline without needing rescue every five minutes. Not to rebuild as a full pally, because what I did with lights and sparks was very iconic to my character and couldn't just stop doing them, not to mention my pet talking raven, to multiclass into paladin, probably for keeps, but retaining what made my character iconic at the beginning. Would you allow Multiclassing for this? [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]?

Well...no. If I'm not having MC in the game, then you already know that..from level 1. Because you do some cool RP stuff is great! I'm sure there would be some in game consequences/benefits by this path the character is on...maybe some paladin feature-turned-feat available fo ryour pc to take after a few levels of consistent rp. But you're asking if I would say "Yeah, ok, start multiclassing everybody!" in the middle of a campaign. And that answer is No. I have no reason to believe I would do that.

Point is, it doesn't matter what I would do. It matters what your DM does...and obviously, they would let you MC...which you already know/knew before taking your character on this in-story cross-class journey. So you're already thinking of where to take your PC next as you level up.

I don't have that in my games.

As we've thoroughly established, I'm a terrible DM. No one would enjoy gaming with me so count your blessings and bring your DMs offerings of gratitude aplenty.

--Steel the Big Meaniest Dragons

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Well...no. If I'm not having MC in the game, then you already know that..from level 1. Because you do some cool RP stuff is great! I'm sure there would be some in game consequences/benefits by this path the character is on...maybe some paladin feature-turned-feat available fo ryour pc to take after a few levels of consistent rp. But you're asking if I would say "Yeah, ok, start multiclassing everybody!" in the middle of a campaign. And that answer is No. I have no reason to believe I would do that.

Point is, it doesn't matter what I would do. It matters what your DM does...and obviously, they would let you MC...which you already know/knew before taking your character on this in-story cross-class journey. So you're already thinking of where to take your PC next as you level up.

I don't have that in my games.

As we've thoroughly established, I'm a terrible DM. No one would enjoy gaming with me so count your blessings and bring your DMs offerings of gratitude aplenty.

--Steel the Big Meaniest Dragons

I don't doubt you run a fun game, Steel. I like to think we all learn from spirited discussions like these!

 

[pkt77242]

How we all got 15 pages in is really anyone's guess.