D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Dannyalcatraz]

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...

RPGs are also one of the few game types in which there are no hard set rules on how many or few can play at one time. So what happens when your group is bigger or smaller than normal?

Let's take the second scenario first: If you're running a store bought adventure- we're all trying to learn the game, right? so the commercial adventure lightens the DM's load- and it presumes a party of 6 and you have 4 players, MCing might be necessary simply to ensure the party can do everything it needs.

Or if you're running a homebrew for 3, and you have a single classed wizard, rogue and cleric, who steps up when you need the warrior's not-so-gentle touch? Absent MCing, the party is going to be paying mercenaries a princely sum on a regular basis.

In the case of a large group (like the one I've been in since 1998), it is impossible to have 100% niche protection even without MCing. Sure, a party may only have one Fighter, but I bet it will have multiple characters with some kind of "warrior" aspect to them.

Now, I will say that doesn't mean there won't be flare-ups. As I have recounted in the past, in a 2Ed Player's option campaign, another player and I both decided to play priests. They had mechanical similarities: both subbed out some clerical power for some warrior aspects. Mine also subbed for a single school of Wizardry...and had more clerical domains than his. The other player complained loudly about my PC being "superman."

Here's the thing: our PCs were night and day. While mine could wear armor and use martial weapons, his had bigger HD and used the warrior attack chart. And as for spells? 99% of the spells my PC could have access to were buffs, with only 3 direct-damage dealing spells in the lot. His were more about wiping out foes directly. Most of my domains were minor access- topping out at 3rd level, which is why I had so many. My wizard school was Abjuration (which included Blade Barrier, one of my 3 potential damage dealers).

I explained that to him, but it made no difference. I tore that PC up in front of him- inches from his face- and ran something entirely different. And his priest wasn't as good a healer as mine would have been...

That disagreement happened more than 12 years ago, and hasn't been repeated. Nobody gives a damn anymore what someone else plays, as long as all the bases are reasonably covered.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Well, look at the potential for "Awesome!" instead of just the possibility of "Awwww..."

Having a Ftr/Rog in the party with Joe's single classed Rogue means that the 2 of them can have a good chance of doing serious successful scouting with the chances of being discovered, captured or killed being minimized since everyone in the scouting party has a good understanding of exactly what "move silently" and "hide in shadows" really means. It means that Joe has a silent assassin with real skill watching his back. It means the party has 2 chances of bypassing a tough challenge with stealth...and probably better odds of avoiding ambushes.

 

[Ahrimon]

Well, here's a personal anecdote that belies that. I'm talkign about Star Wars Saga Edition, but it shares enough with the 3.x rules core that I think folks will still get the idea.

I was playing a game in which *everyone* was expected to be a force user. The campaign was pitched as beign just after the Jedi Civil War (some 5000 years before the movies), and the PCs would be key to rebuilding the Jedi Order... if they survived.

It started as a 5 player game. Three players took strong combat builds (either Jedi or Soldier classes). One took the "face" role (Scoundrel, multiclassign into Jedi), which we discovered grew into "Massively effective Jedi Sorceress" without any extra effort. And them me. With the major combat, social, and Force-use covered, what was a good opening?

Car guy*. I took the guy with the pilot skill (scout, multiclassing to Jedi). In order to be effective in covering the skills the rest of the party didn't take, I would up having to dump a 10 into Charisma. Use the Force is a Charisma skill. I had a decent number of hit points, but compared to the others, I stank at combat. I was very concerned about pulling my weight - I took a bunch of skills to make sure the party wouldn't get screwed for not having them, but with everyone else so combat capable, much of the game's focus was combat. I sat on my hands a lot, unable to contribute. My time in that game would have been sad indeed, if not for some role-playing considerations not based in the stats.


*Bonus points to those who get the reference.

I'm really sorry that you had a bad game experience. But it doesn't sound like it was because you chose a multi-class character. It sounds like you purposefully spread yourself very thin to cover numerous roles that the others ignored while they made combat monsters (see: highly tuned characters). And to make matters worse the DM catered to their style and didn't include enough story material for you to feel like you were contributing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What is it you're looking for people to say?

I don't know... I guess I am just totally not understanding why anyone would tell someone that in there home game "No you can't play X because I said so"

Everyone wants to have a fun character. I, as DM, want you to have a fun character.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

because this idea the player is pitching is using an optional set of rules (and in the real part of this it doesn't matter witch optional rule we just use multi class as the example) to create this character they want to play... I can't imagine why the default answer isn't "OK" unless you have a good reason to say otherwise...

Since the debate was the use or not of MCing, I still want to know why you need multiclassing in the game to "have a fun character"? Why is a single classed character not possible for a fun not too powerful/too weak PC?

because that is what I want to play...

This, originally very large fonted, statement does not answer that.

but it does, it answers really easily... because that idea, my pitch... you on the other hand say no out of hand just because you say so..

Why do you need me, as the DM, to have MCing in the game? Your [and others] answer, essentially: Because I want it to build this character this particular way (whether that's for the additional abilities, the story reasons, whatever, we will hopefully not have to revisit. Whatever the reason is!).

that's it... any optional rule "I want to use X rule, because it sounds like fun" that's the whole reason...

When I ask again. The answer, worded differently/with more words, is still "Because I want it." This time "it" being "a fun character that the game supports, etc... etc..."

yes because I could understand if you said "Here is a reason why you can't" but instead it keeps coming off as "Because I said so" and since this whole post is about why to allow things, my point of view is to allow anything that will make your game more fun for the players unless you have a good reason to stop it...

It is not, as I said several times yesterday, a sufficient answer for me to say yes. Continuing to answer "Why?" with "Because I want it" does not get us anywhere.

just like your "Because I have the power as a DM to make arbatray discions for the whole group" isn't a good answer to me...

Coming up with corner case after individual story of why a specific character needs a particular concession [using MC] does not change or disprove this. We can all come up with stories that can use it...Why is it impossible or so awful a prospect to imagine coming up with a character that doesn't need it?...and have that character still be considered "fun" and no more restricted in-game/story wise [other than by their array of class abilities] than one that does [multiclass]?

once again, as a player someone approaches you with ANY optional rule... it is a rule that will not harm your game but will increase this players enjoyment... that is it.

To, possibly, sway the conversation into a different direction [as to "productive", one can only hope], I pose this:
What is so wrong/unfun/threatening/inconceivable with that style of play? No new classes at every level up. Non-existent or, as [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] posted last night, severe or arbitrarily limited MCing parameters. How is that such a terrible burden for people's characters and/or on the players, themselves?

if applied for a reason that can be descused, not at all. If the group agrees no problem. If people disagree at the table a compromise must be meet.








to try to get this back into a discussion, lets talk about the issue at one of my old tables... now I have very few hard coded boundaries, as a player or dm. most of my rules change from game to game when I DM and I am used to that with others as well. Often the answer in my experience to "No multi classing" (or any optional rule) is "Hey just this campaign, next time you can do that concept." One of my few hard and fast rules is NO KENDERS... not in a game I run not at a table I play at. My friend Ross likes kenders (one of the very few in our group that defends the little... never mind this board doesn't like those words) He once wanted to run a game, and his then girlfriend was playing a kender. I very politely said I would bow out. However, every other player said the same thing... his 7 PC party became just him and his girlfriend. He begged us to reconsider, and we explained the problem. His girlfriend and my best friend came up with a comprmise the rest of us could live with... rewriting the fluff of "Everyone loves Kenders" to "No one trusts kenders, and there are big signs at towns and shopping establishments saying they wont serve kenders" But Ross would not go for it... finaly the girlfriend switched to being a half elf.

I can list you a few times I have bent the kender rule (2 times as a DM and 4 as a player) 5 out of the 6 of them where in the 90's in 2e...

I tell you that to explain that I understand limits. I understand there are points of no retun I just don't understand something like multi classing being it.

 

[trentonjoe]

No I stated my reasoning earlier in the thread, I want the base game to be understood reasonably well before adding complexity. I think there's something to being informed when it comes to multi-classing.... understanding what a 20th level ability is like before you decide it's worth giving up to multi-class... or the fact that you won't have higher level spells, feats or that extra attack until later than the single classed characters and what that actually means in play. It's not that I don't like multi-classing or won't eventually allow it, but I do want my players to have a good grasp on the game and what their choices mean before making them... but that's just me.

I hear you....I just think that multiclassing isn't that hard. In the "new" group I am running one girl is running a thief and wants to be a "ninja". She asked me to be better in combat and I said you could take a level or two in fighter and she said to me "but then I don't get these cool thief features right?" When I told her you could go back to thief later she was like, "nah I want those as soon as possible!"

 

[Psikerlord#]

Just FYI, you should probably assume that most posters here, and especially someone with a post history like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], are DM's, and have run a lot of games, for a lot of different people, across a range of systems.

well then i am highly surprised by his comments

 

[Psikerlord#]

Careful with those presumptions there. I've been gaming since the early 80's and DMing most of that.

But, your last sentence makes sense. Not everyone is going to want to multiples their character, so, you will never get a group where everyone wants to MC. If there is a large power disparity because of MCing, that's a mechanical issue. Does that actually exist in 5e? If so, it would be a huge step backward, considering 3e and 4e both largely nipped that in the bud. Outside of some very specialised builds in 3e where you MC'd for power, MCing was almost always the weaker choice.

The difference here is, I don't care. Let the players sort that out. I refuse to tell players what they should and shouldn't play. It's not my job to treat my players like they were a bunch of spoiled children incapable of taking responsibility for the game. Treat the players as if they were responsible people and they will act like responsible people.

I've ascribed by your theory for many years myself, and frankly have always ended up regretting it. So this time, with 5e, I am going to try a more proactive approach, and remove the temptation from my minmaxers altogether. I think it will work better overall, but time will tell. I think there are enough classes and subclasses and feats for a wealth of PC concepts.

If down the track players are bored, and want MCing options, I can always revisit it.

 

[pemerton]

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 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)?

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.

As Dannyalcatraz says, if a Fighter/Thief is as good at thieving as a single-classed thief of the same total character level, then that suggests that the thief class is badly under-powered.

 

[wedgeski]

well then i am highly surprised by his comments

It just goes to show how different every table can be from the next, and occasionally, how little our own experience aligns with everyone else's. The cause of many a flame war on these boards, I'm sure (not that this thread qualifies as a flame-war; it's barely warming my cheeks).

 

[Imaro]

I hear you....I just think that multiclassing isn't that hard. In the "new" group I am running one girl is running a thief and wants to be a "ninja". She asked me to be better in combat and I said you could take a level or two in fighter and she said to me "but then I don't get these cool thief features right?" When I told her you could go back to thief later she was like, "nah I want those as soon as possible!"

But see this is kind of misleading because depending on how many levels of fighter she takes there are certain thief abilities she won't ever get and can't go back too. Anyway, I'm not claiming the high level concept of multi-classing is difficult, I'm saying the specifics like interactions with feat/ability score attainment, multi-attacks, ability attainment, spells (invocations vs. spell slots), etc. should be understood (at least on a basic level) so that decisions are informed.