D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[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?