D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Mouseferatu]

But if I do for one, I have to do for all. That's what's fair.

And this, right here, is the origin of a lot of people's opposing views on multi-classing.

You don't have to "do for all." It is entirely possible and acceptable to say certain multiclass combos are acceptable and some aren't. You can have a pre-written list or even (horrors! ) decide case-by-case.

Or "I don't care for multi-class, and it's rare in my setting, so I'm only allowing one. You guys can decide who it is, or I can pick randomly from those who want it."

As long as you're not playing favorites with players, these are no more unreasonable--and in many cases more so--than banning MCing completely.

 

[steeldragons]

And this, right here, is the origin of a lot of people's opposing views on multi-classing.

You don't have to "do for all." It is entirely possible and acceptable to say certain multiclass combos are acceptable and some aren't. You can have a pre-written list or even (horrors! ) decide case-by-case.

Or "I don't care for multi-class, and it's rare in my setting, so I'm only allowing one. You guys can decide who it is, or I can pick randomly from those who want it."

As long as you're not playing favorites with players, these are no more unreasonable--and in many cases more so--than banning MCing completely.

Well, yes and no. I'd be more than happy to make unilateral case-by-case decisions. But I've found, over the years, that it avoids a lot of argument and bad feeling when everyone is on the same page and knows what to expect...and new people can be told by any/everyone else in the group "Yeah that's cool." or "No that's not how we do."...for pretty much any type of mechanics/rules question.

I agree with all of the above and in my homebrew game there is a very clear laundry list of what MC is permissible and what isn't, available and applicable to everyone [and NPCs], to maintain a pre-3e flavor. I imagine when I get to a "5e" game, we will keep the same parameters.

Since the OP was asking about the general 5e rule, in a kind of "yes or no/use 'em or don't" way, I didn't really think any of that kind of house rule consideration was needed. But sure, there are all sorts of limitations one can reasonably ascribe to the mechanics.

In terms of the on/off switch for the 5e MC rules, I meant the "do for one, do for all" as the players. If I allow the Warlock/Paladin/Sorcerer, then I have to allow the next guy who wants their Monk/Wizard/Ranger and the other who wants a basic Cleric/Fighter and so on...if they come to me with those. If all you have is the one crackpot, that you know will always come to you with some off the wall thing just because, then fine. But you can't allow one player to MC anything and then tell another player they can't MC however they want into their PC, too.

I mean, sure you can. But it's not really nice or fair. So I wouldn't.

At the same time, I would think the best way to avoid any kind of confusion or even the appearance of favoritism, especially when dealing with strangers or new players to an established group or, I would guess, "organized play" is to make sure everyone is held to the same standard, i.e. allow/disallow, all classes, across the board, for everyone.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Man, so much controversy over an optional rule. Good thing I didn't mention that I am disallowing the monk class in my games as well...

 

[Mouseferatu]

I meant the "do for one, do for all" as the players. If I allow the Warlock/Paladin/Sorcerer, then I have to allow the next guy who wants their Monk/Wizard/Ranger and the other who wants a basic Cleric/Fighter and so on...if they come to me with those. If all you have is the one crackpot, that you know will always come to you with some off the wall thing just because, then fine. But you can't allow one player to MC anything and then tell another player they can't MC however they want into their PC, too.

I mean, sure you can. But it's not really nice or fair. So I wouldn't.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. You don't have to. "In my campaign, monk and wizard both require too much background education for me to be comfortable with anyone being both." Or even just, "Sorry, Bob asked if he could multi-class first, and I really don't want more than one in the party for [flavor- or preference-related explanation]."

I profoundly reject the idea that rules consistency trumps everything else. If someone comes up with a character concept that absolutely violates some precept of the campaign setting as I've described it, and someone else comes up with a concept that fits it perfectly, I'm going to allow the latter and not the former, even if they're mechanically similar.

(Of course, by this point, I've already explained what kind of campaign I'd like to run, and my group as a whole is either on-board--in which case they trust my reasoning/restrictions--or they're not, in which case we try a different campaign concept.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Man, so much controversy over an optional rule. Good thing I didn't mention that I am disallowing the monk class in my games as well...

Personally, I have much less of a problem with disallowing a class or classes, a race or races, etc. Multiclassing, OTOH, is an option I always want available in D&D, even if I don't plan on using it when I start the campaign.

 

[steeldragons]

Man, so much controversy over an optional rule. Good thing I didn't mention that I am disallowing the monk class in my games as well...

HA!

I've never used the sorcerer class at all. See no reason to start now. Good half dozen races that don't exist in the campaign setting, either. Shh.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And this, right here, is the origin of a lot of people's opposing views on multi-classing.

You don't have to "do for all." It is entirely possible and acceptable to say certain multiclass combos are acceptable and some aren't. You can have a pre-written list or even (horrors! ) decide case-by-case.

Or "I don't care for multi-class, and it's rare in my setting, so I'm only allowing one. You guys can decide who it is, or I can pick randomly from those who want it."

As long as you're not playing favorites with players, these are no more unreasonable--and in many cases more so--than banning MCing completely.

Unusually, I'm not with you on this one.

About as close as I could get to this is making the ability to multiclass available to all, assuming the PC meets certain prerequisites. Think: AD&D stat requirements for dual-classed humans. To dual-class, you had to have an extraordinary primary stat (17+, as I recall) for the class they seek to enter.

Or perhaps, a die roll to see if the PC has "the spark" to do so, based on a percentage. 25%, 10%, 1%? Whatever it is, everybody has the option to make that roll.

Rarity of multiclassing is established, but without damaging fairness.

 

[Mouseferatu]

No! You must agree with me at all times!!!!!



That's a perfectly acceptable way of doing it, but then it ceases to be a theme/aesthetic issue. It's no longer about what fits or doesn't fit the campaign setting.

Which is fine. But doesn't address the specific issues I was bring up.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But doesn't address the specific issues I was bring up.

It specifically DOES address the rarity of multiclassing issue.

If you must have a 17 (or higher) in an ability score crucial to the secondary/tertiary/N-ary class, there aren't going to be many characters in the game world with that kind of stat in what will presumably be a stat de-emphasized in their primary class. Put differently, someone with an Int that high is probably going to start life as a Wizard; a Fighter with smarts like that will be a relative rarity. And this is true regardless of stat generation methods. Likewise, guys with 18 Str are more likely by far to swing a sword than sift through stacks of heavy arcane tomes searching for enlightenment.

Similarly, that straight-up percentile roll will make multiclassed PCs rare. Even if you set the bar as generously as a 25% threshold, in a 4 PC group, that averages out to just one potential multiclasser in the party.

 

[Hussar]

I still don't quite understand why it's better to bring in house rules like switching out spell lists instead of using perfectly workable rules that are right there.

Not that house ruling is bad, but it seems like a lot of unnecessary work just to get the same results.