D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Imaro]

What are the odds that your group is going to see 20th level? Do you honestly think that these young people that you are playing with will still be playing the same campaign two years from now? I'd say that's pretty unlikely. Far more likely, the group will see, maybe, 12th level before the campaign ends.

You're assuming I won't be with the same group in 2 years... why? The young one's are my family (son, 2 nephews and a niece) I run a sandbox 5e game and my players can join in on a game whenever they want, and unlike 4e we all actually like this edition alot. Do I expect the kids (or even the adults) to play in every game, no... will we eventually reach 20th level...I'm not sure why I should assume we won't. the fact that you presume to tell me where my campaign will end without any knowledge about me, my group, or our game lets me know you aren't looking to discuss, but instead presuming to dictate. Sorry not interested.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Now this is my question to you, what if at 5th level the majority of the group just wanted to keep playing without multi-classing... would you be okay with that? In other words if it's not just the DM that doesn't want it but also the majority of the group would you be ok with no multi-classing in this particular campaign?

Depends on the starting point, but in general, I don't walk away from campaigns midway over rules issues. So it is highly probable that I'd keep playing.

If, OTOH, the campaign started out with the tempban with the implication that it WOULD be included at level 5 and then wasn't...AND I had come up with a concept that I felt required MCing but could delay 'till 5th?

In that case, I'd be a bit more cantankerous. I'd either leave the campaign or- far more likely- dust that PC and ask to start another.

 

[Hussar]

You're assuming I won't be with the same group in 2 years... why? The young one's are my family (son, 2 nephews and a niece) I run a sandbox 5e game and my players can join in on a game whenever they want, and unlike 4e we all actually like this edition alot. Do I expect the kids (or even the adults) to play in every game, no... will we eventually reach 20th level...I'm not sure why I should assume we won't. the fact that you presume to tell me where my campaign will end without any knowledge about me, my group, or our game lets me know you aren't looking to discuss, but instead presuming to dictate. Sorry not interested.

Just basing this on experience. Do you regularly make it to 20th level in campaigns? I sure don't. IIRC, you were/are a Pathfinder player, so, do those campaigns routinely hit 20th level?

Look, I wasn't trying to dictate anything, just being realistic. The odds that 4 pre-teens will still be sitting down to the same campaign two years from now, without real life jumping in, is pretty rare, IME. Again, IME, it's far more likely that games tend to end around 10-12th level, give or take. If it's perfectly reasonable for you to assume 20th level, I stand in awe, to be honest, I wish I could have groups that stable.

 

[Imaro]

Sorry, but, what do you mean by majority? I know that sounds stupid, but, are you saying that if 4 of the 5 players are content not using the MC rules, then the 5th guy should not be allowed to MC? How would that majority have the information to know whether the rules are fine or not without actually playing them? Isn't your stated goal to give the players the feel for the rules before allowing more complicated rules? How can they get that feel if they are never allowed to actually use those rules?

Yes that is what I'm saying if 4 out of 5 people, after playing up to level 5, say hey let's not multi-class in this campaign then would you be ok with that. For a reason let's say the majority decide they like the niche protection eliminating multi-classing offers... is that a good enough reason? As to getting a feel for the multi-classing rules there will be other campaigns and I could even run a side group or one off if we want to explore multiclassing so it could still be done.

Now, if no one wants to MC, then fine, who cares? But, why should the other players get to tell one player what he can or cannot play, especially considering they have no direct experience with which to base their opinion because you aren't allowing MCing in the first place.

Because Joe really likes being the Rogue in the group and he's carved that niche out for himself and really doesn't want his toes getting stepped on by Eic's archer fighter multi-class rogue who not only fights but does the stuff Joe's character does as well... Is Joe's fun a valid enough reason?

Then again, I've never seen a player, uncoached, tell the group, "Hey, I don't want this rule in the game".

I've definitely seen players not want to play a particular class they were excited about or become disappointed when someone else picks the same class to play as them... multi-classing does tend to exacerbate the issue...

 

[Hussar]

I suppose Imaro. It's not something I've particularly run across, so, I'm not sure how I'd handle it. Then again, I started playing in Basic D&D, where you had all sorts of commonalities - 3 fighter types were pretty standard in most groups with a cleric, wizard and usually a multiclass thief rounding out the group. Maybe it's because I started with Basic, where you really only had 4 classes - halfling, dwarf, and fighter were all fighters, elf was a fighter/wizard. We didn't use class to differentiate our characters quite so much.

Thing is, in your specific example, I'm not sure it would be true. Joe's single classed Rogue is going to do all the Rogue stuff better than any multiclass rogue. Eric's multiclass fighter/rogue isn't going to be stealing a whole lot of thunder is he? Yup, he can do rogue stuff, but, Joe will do it a lot better. I guess I'm just not seeing the problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because Joe really likes being the Rogue in the group and he's carved that niche out for himself and really doesn't want his toes getting stepped on by Eic's archer fighter multi-class rogue who not only fights but does the stuff Joe's character does as well... Is Joe's fun a valid enough reason?

in all probability, the Ftr/Rog will not do any of Joe's schtick anywhere near as well as Joe's PC...nor a caster in the party who has access to certain magics. The multiclassed PC or the well-prepared caster steps up when Joe fails. Or when he can't be in 2 places at once.

And if Joe is the only one in the party who can do roguish things and is incapacitated or otherwise not available to do that voodoo that he do so well when the party needs it? The party is then SOL because Joe's fun demanded absolute niche protection.

So I'm inclined to say no.

I've definitely seen players not want to play a particular class they were excited about or become disappointed when someone else picks the same class to play as them... multi-classing does tend to exacerbate the issue...

Again, this is a personality issue. You'll see it when someone gets the same purse, the same car, the same ________ that someone else has.

You can't fix this with rules changes.

 

[Imaro]

in all probability, the Ftr/Rog will not do any of Joe's schtick anywhere near as well as Joe's PC...nor a caster in the party who has access to certain magics. The multiclassed PC or the well-prepared caster steps up when Joe fails. Or when he can't be in 2 places at once.

And if Joe is the only one in the party who can do roguish things and is incapacitated or otherwise not available to do that voodoo that he do so well when the party needs it? The party is then SOL because Joe's fun demanded absolute niche protection.

So I'm inclined to say no.

Is that true in 5e though? I'm curious as to your reasoning why he wouldn't be as good as Joe (especially being a Dex-based archer and with the way Prof Bonus and bounded accuracy works)?

 

[Imaro]

Again, this is a personality issue. You'll see it when someone gets the same purse, the same car, the same ________ that someone else has.

You can't fix this with rules changes.

I'm not so sure about this... RPG's are one of the few types of games where customization and the ability to create a unique character are touted as it's big selling points... after hearing that and then having someone step into the same space you wanted to play in... I think a little disappointment is understandable for any personality type... but hey you might be right...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is that true in 5e though? I'm curious as to your reasoning why he wouldn't be as good as Joe (especially being a Dex-based archer and with the way Prof Bonus works)?

As I have freely and repeatedly admitted, I don't know- feel free to discount my opinion based on that admission.

Still, I have a sense that designers who have worked on and played the prior 2 editions probably have taken that possibility into account, and have taken steps to prevent it. If not, then the 5Ed MCing rules would be more like 3.X gestalting, and would be a significant power up, and not what I would want in MY game.

 

[Imaro]

As I have freely and repeatedly admitted, I don't know- feel free to discount my opinion based on that admission,

Still, I have a sense that designers who have worked on and played the prior 2 editions probably have taken that possibility into account, and have taken steps to prevent it. If not, then the 5Ed MCing rules would be more like 3.X gestalting, and would be a significant power up, and not what I would want in MY game.

Well no, I'm not saying he would be as good or the best at everything but as far as the basic capabilities of the rogue go (outside of subclasses and special abilities) I don't think the disparity would be that great even with 2 or 3 levels differentiation. Of course admittedly I could be way off base