D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Uchawi]

MC does add complexity to the game, but as a DM, you can adjust monsters. And since gauging things by CR is more of an art, based on experience, versus being somewhat reliable, then there should be no reason to disallow it if the players want it. If you want to get anywhere close to a 3E or 4E feel, then a game probably needs it.

 

[airwalkrr]

2E PHB was full of optional rules, same with the BECMI rules cyclopaedia. 1E had some as well like psionics, bards etc.

I just realized I used terrible syntax in the text you quoted. I apologize for that. I know AD&D 1e and 2e had PHB because I played them extensively. What I meant was that BECMI and OD&D were not systems I ever played (not in their heyday anyway; I have since played a few pick-up or one-shot games). And to your point about the 2e optional rules it was my experience not only that most players expected they were in play unless the DM said otherwise, but that most DMs did, in fact, use them as well. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] pointed this out some of the reasons why quite well; the so-called "optional" rules were used in DM tools like the MM and adventure modules which quite a few players had encountered, and this reinforced the idea that these rules were only optional if the DM said he was not using them.

I went back over the holidays and re-read the section on these optional rules. There are two very brief paragraphs in the 5e PH in Chapter 6 the say (paraphrasing) that the DM must allow these rules. The rest of the chapter (which, let us be honest, is likely used as a reference tool by most players rather than a "read from front to back") does not really mention the DM at all. For players converting to 5e or coming back to D&D from 3e or later, they will likely look at these rules and say "ok, so they kept feats," and assume that is all there is to it.

IMHO, WotC dropped the ball on this one. They should have called this chapter "Optional Rules Modules," it should have been larger, and it should have included all of those little "optional" sidebars found throughout the PH, e.g. the optional subrace options. Furthermore, they really ought to have included chapter titles in the margins on ALL pages, not just for easier reference (this is a big complaint I have with the PH, but that is another discussion), but to remind players each time they visit this chapter that all of these rules are indeed optional. As written, the WotC writer usage of the term "optional" in the PH reminds me of the Pirate's Code from Pirates of the Caribbean. "They're really more like guidelines."

Sidebar: I played 5e a couple times with friends from my hometown over Christmas vacation, and to no surprise of mine it appeared we were all under the assumption that the Chapter 6 rules, including multiclassing, were allowed unless otherwise stated. I created a human cleric and chose the option of +1/+1 stat bonus, skill bonus, and feat, and the DM didn't say a thing. When one player leveled up his 2nd-level fighter to 3rd, he said "my next level will be wizard," and the DM didn't say a thing. I also noted that in Adventure League play (although I realize the majority of D&D groups are most likely NOT Adventure League games) these rules are being used as well. Rather the Adventure League rules tend to explain which optional rules are NOT in use for Adventure League play.

But I think I have beaten this dead horse enough. That is my opinion, my experience, and that is how I intend to proceed. As I have said from the beginning, YMMV. Your experience and opinion of the rules may differ greatly from my own, and it may even be a regional difference in the perception of the rules. Whatever the case, it is not really worth arguing further about. Feel free to make your closing arguments. That was mine.

 

[Zardnaar]

I just realized I used terrible syntax in the text you quoted. I apologize for that. I know AD&D 1e and 2e had PHB because I played them extensively. What I meant was that BECMI and OD&D were not systems I ever played (not in their heyday anyway; I have since played a few pick-up or one-shot games). And to your point about the 2e optional rules it was my experience not only that most players expected they were in play unless the DM said otherwise, but that most DMs did, in fact, use them as well. [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] pointed this out some of the reasons why quite well; the so-called "optional" rules were used in DM tools like the MM and adventure modules which quite a few players had encountered, and this reinforced the idea that these rules were only optional if the DM said he was not using them.

I went back over the holidays and re-read the section on these optional rules. There are two very brief paragraphs in the 5e PH in Chapter 6 the say (paraphrasing) that the DM must allow these rules. The rest of the chapter (which, let us be honest, is likely used as a reference tool by most players rather than a "read from front to back") does not really mention the DM at all. For players converting to 5e or coming back to D&D from 3e or later, they will likely look at these rules and say "ok, so they kept feats," and assume that is all there is to it.

IMHO, WotC dropped the ball on this one. They should have called this chapter "Optional Rules Modules," it should have been larger, and it should have included all of those little "optional" sidebars found throughout the PH, e.g. the optional subrace options. Furthermore, they really ought to have included chapter titles in the margins on ALL pages, not just for easier reference (this is a big complaint I have with the PH, but that is another discussion), but to remind players each time they visit this chapter that all of these rules are indeed optional. As written, the WotC writer usage of the term "optional" in the PH reminds me of the Pirate's Code from Pirates of the Caribbean. "They're really more like guidelines."

Sidebar: I played 5e a couple times with friends from my hometown over Christmas vacation, and to no surprise of mine it appeared we were all under the assumption that the Chapter 6 rules, including multiclassing, were allowed unless otherwise stated. I created a human cleric and chose the option of +1/+1 stat bonus, skill bonus, and feat, and the DM didn't say a thing. When one player leveled up his 2nd-level fighter to 3rd, he said "my next level will be wizard," and the DM didn't say a thing. I also noted that in Adventure League play (although I realize the majority of D&D groups are most likely NOT Adventure League games) these rules are being used as well. Rather the Adventure League rules tend to explain which optional rules are NOT in use for Adventure League play.

But I think I have beaten this dead horse enough. That is my opinion, my experience, and that is how I intend to proceed. As I have said from the beginning, YMMV. Your experience and opinion of the rules may differ greatly from my own, and it may even be a regional difference in the perception of the rules. Whatever the case, it is not really worth arguing further about. Feel free to make your closing arguments. That was mine.

Feats are optional along with several races and classes RAW. Assume and play the game however you want but it seems you are projecting your expectations into what the rules actually say. We picked and chose what optional rules to use in AD&D.

 

[Hereticus]

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?

I am currently playing a single class character in HotDQ, and will be DMing the next module which is PotA. I have noticed that multi-classing is used mostly for maximizing, and has little to do with character development (with one exception I have seen). Unless I have a player revolt, I do not plan on allowing MCing. But what I will do is be pretty liberal in allowing ability substitutions in races and classes, and will allow for player-written backgrounds, feats, spells, etc.

 

[airwalkrr]

Incidentally, I do plan to allow multiclassing when I get around to DMing 5e. But I require significant downtime for training in addition to ability prerequisites. I do not have the 5e DMG yet, but if it has downtime suggestions for such an event I may use them if they look appropriate. Otherwise I will use the suggestions for training downtime in 1e AD&D as my guidelines. I plan to make my players aware of this from the beginning FYI.

 

[SirAntoine]

Multiclassing has been broken since 3e, but it's also part of the heart and soul of d20 D&D. More than anything, it's what lets players feel they can make whatever characters they want.

 

[Rhenny]

Honestly, I think that the opportunity cost to mc (having to wait longer to get attribute bumps or higher level spells or extra attacks) makes the choice to mc more difficult for a pc that travels with a party. For me, I'd only mc to develop a character concept.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I am currently playing a single class character in HotDQ, and will be DMing the next module which is PotA. I have noticed that multi-classing is used mostly for maximizing, and has little to do with character development (with one exception I have seen). Unless I have a player revolt, I do not plan on allowing MCing. But what I will do is be pretty liberal in allowing ability substitutions in races and classes, and will allow for player-written backgrounds, feats, spells, etc.

Yeah I really prefer this approach myself. No MCing, but I'll willing to work with players to make custom feats, or substitute class abilities, etc. Obviously it all gets playtested/tweaked as we go.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Incidentally, I do plan to allow multiclassing when I get around to DMing 5e. But I require significant downtime for training in addition to ability prerequisites. I do not have the 5e DMG yet, but if it has downtime suggestions for such an event I may use them if they look appropriate. Otherwise I will use the suggestions for training downtime in 1e AD&D as my guidelines. I plan to make my players aware of this from the beginning FYI.

If I did allow Mcing I would use either the training rules, or the "learn a new tool" rule (250 days, or something?). I would definitely not allow a no training downtime instant class switch in the middle of an adventure.

 

[MoonSong]

If I did allow Mcing I would use either the training rules, or the "learn a new tool" rule (250 days, or something?). I would definitely not allow a no training downtime instant class switch in the middle of an adventure.

Not even the "I just spontaneously awakened magic in my blood" from teh sorcerer?