D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Hussar]

Perhaps but they were still optional we rarely used psionics for example. 3.x and 4E are the odd ones out in terms of optional rules.

Odd or simply recognising how the game was being played? I'm not really convinced that labelling these things "optional" in earlier editions meant a whole lot. To be fair, 3e did label a number of mechanics optional, such as random AC's in the DMG, which, because they were optional, were never used too widely. OTOH, something like Action Points, while purely optional, seemed to show up pretty commonly IME. So, I guess it depends on the rule.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

I am about as likely to include or exclude something from my game that is marked optional, as I am something that is not. I have removed races and classes I didn't like for various reasons, but include feats (I am still not quite sure about multiclassing). I do agree that it is important to inform players before character creation, what stuff is in and what is out and it really isn't that much of a bother to mention multiclassing and feats along with the rest.

The added bonus is, that players don't automatically assume, that new rules included in future books are automatically included in my game.

 

[Mephista]

Odd or simply recognising how the game was being played?

I'm going to have to question if its "how the game is played" or just what you thought it was. No offense, but personal opinion and highly fallible human memory don't make for reliable evidence. At best, you have what happened in your personal experience. Someone across the pond may have had a vastly different experience.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm going to have to question if its "how the game is played" or just what you thought it was. No offense, but personal opinion and highly fallible human memory don't make for reliable evidence. At best, you have what happened in your personal experience. Someone across the pond may have had a vastly different experience.

Yup in 2E we used weapon specialization, proficiencies and speed factor and it seems most groups did not use speed factor. We never really had huge problems with spell caster because with speed factor players would try and interrupt spells by beating the spellcaster to initiative and pelt them with darts or daggers in 2E.

That 1 rule kept spell casters in check to an extent. Other people allowed critical hits in the game we generally did not use those rules in AD&D core.

 

[Hussar]

Yup in 2E we used weapon specialization, proficiencies and speed factor and it seems most groups did not use speed factor. We never really had huge problems with spell caster because with speed factor players would try and interrupt spells by beating the spellcaster to initiative and pelt them with darts or daggers in 2E.

That 1 rule kept spell casters in check to an extent. Other people allowed critical hits in the game we generally did not use those rules in AD&D core.

I'd largely agree with this. I was thinking more about various publications. If you looked at supplements and modules, things like weapon specs and NWP's were pretty commonly assumed.

I never found that weapon speed factors worked very well to keep casters in check, mostly because I used monsters, which meant a speed factor of 3 or more for natural attacks, and many attack spells had a casting time of 3 or less. The odds tended to favour the casters pretty well.

 

[Greg K]

2E PHB was full of optional rules,

Yep including any class not specifically called Cleric, Fighter, Thief, Wizard. Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Specialty Priests were all optional classes.

 

[wedgeski]

I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s current signature is particularly apt in light of all these "Why should I allow.." threads.

"The rules don't give the DM their authority. The consent of the players does. - Mallus"

 

[Wulfang]

Personally I just don't think multi-classing is needed anymore.

In previous editions (2nd and particularly 3rd), you almost had to multiclass because of the way skills worked. But with skills being universal and feats covering 'mini' multiclassing options. I think you can have a very satisfying combinations by using Feats, Backgrounds and Sub-classes.

 

[Greg K]

In previous editions (2nd and particularly 3rd), you almost had to multiclass because of the way skills worked. But with skills being universal and feats covering 'mini' multiclassing options. I think you can have a very satisfying combinations by using Feats, Backgrounds and Sub-classes.

While backgrounds are one of my favorite things about 5el, 3e did discuss swapping class skills, gaining additional class skills, and alternative class skill lists:
1. customizing a character (PHB)
2. Class variants (Unearthed Arcana style (although their were a few in earlier examples in earlier supplementts)
3. Feats granting additional class skills
4. The Urban/Wilderness skills swaps in the Cityscape I web enhancement by Ari (Mouseferatu).

 

[txshusker]

I guess I'm not understanding what could be wrong with multi classing after all of this. I don't see any proof that it overpowers a character or breaks the combat or makes something that a DM cannot deal with. When MC happens, it's at the expense of powers gained if single classed and the benefits of a second class just don't really seem all that huge - as often as it helps, MCing is a detriment to character power. These are superheroes being created and MC and feats help create uniqueness. After 31 pages, I still do not see any evidence/proof of problems within the metrics. So, IMO it appears that ultimately, it comes down to the DM not wanting it because it doesn't fit in with the theme of their campaign.