D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Umbran]

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

"I'm sorry, that particular build is too powerful. Please choose something else," is an entirely reasonable thing for a GM to say. So, I'm fine with having the a list of known offender combinations, or case-by-case decisions on particular characters.

I would not be so keen on, "I will only allow one multiclass character at all, you may choose who gets it," mostly because I don't see how this kind of restriction really prevents whatever problems might arise.

 

[seebs]

There are some specific short term benefits which are fairly powerful with some combinations. In one of my campaigns we have a cleric/warlock. Being able to have healing spells available on a short rest cycle is a huge boost.

Hmm. If I've understood the interactions correctly, you'd be capped at two recovered per short rest until at least 11 warlock levels in, and 2 healing spells per short rest doesn't sound like a huge boost to me. I mean, it's not awful or anything, but if you have enough of a dip into warlock to get very much of that, your cleric abilities are completely gutted. I guess a small dip (2 levels) would get you two first level spells per short rest. If you do a larger dip, you can get second or higher level slots, but anything over three and you've lost ninth level spells.

I wouldn't be particularly worried about that breaking anything.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Hmm. If I've understood the interactions correctly, you'd be capped at two recovered per short rest until at least 11 warlock levels in, and 2 healing spells per short rest doesn't sound like a huge boost to me. I mean, it's not awful or anything, but if you have enough of a dip into warlock to get very much of that, your cleric abilities are completely gutted. I guess a small dip (2 levels) would get you two first level spells per short rest. If you do a larger dip, you can get second or higher level slots, but anything over three and you've lost ninth level spells.

I wouldn't be particularly worried about that breaking anything.

Indeed nothing is broken over the long term. It is certainly a major benefit only at the lowest levels.

 

[trentonjoe]

Quote Originally Posted by steeldragons View Post
It's still NOT "story reasons." It's NOT "concept." The WHY of the argument to allow it is "so I can get X."
____________________________________________________________________

I don't see that as a "bad" reason to multiclass. A lot of times I multiclass to play with a mechanic.

Some people think that is "Cherry-Picking" others see it as fun!

There are some new mechanics I do want to try out in. These characters include:

Wizard/Cleric - I want to see how well the spell list works out. A Wizard 3/Cleric 3 that cast spells as a 6th level character with no 3rd level spells? I am interested in seeing how this plays out.

Abjurer/Fighter- I am really interested in seeing how that abjurer shield plays out.

1/2 Caster/Full Caster- Pretty much the same reasons as the Cleric/Wizard

Rogue/Illusionist- My favorite 1E combo. I want to see if it plays similar (distract and backstab).

 

[seebs]

I think my objection to the "so I can get X" objection is... well, I mean. Why not ban single-classing too? I mean, people pick a class so they can get its powers, most of the time. I play a wizard so I can get spellbooks and learn lots of spells. Since in most editions a min-maxed wizard has run rings around any multiclass build, shouldn't the argument that it can make powerful characters and people are picking it because they want the powers they get from the build option also result in categorically banning wizards? Should we also ban fighters, because some people pick fighter because they want to get four attacks from an attack action?

 

[Boarstorm]

We should absolutely ban fighters.

Fighters are OP.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"I'm sorry, that particular build is too powerful. Please choose something else," is an entirely reasonable thing for a GM to say. So, I'm fine with having the a list of known offender combinations, or case-by-case decisions on particular characters.

Again, since I can't speak to 5th, I'll stick to what I know- 3.X

While I agree in principle that banning something for being too powerful is 100% justified, I don't know of any base-class MC combinations that are more powerful than a single-class Cleric, Druid, Psion, Sorcerer or Wizard.

Now, if those classes are banned for being too powerful, or are absent because of campaign-specific substitutions, I might concede that point. But the banning still begs the question, "Too powerful in comparison to what?"

 

[billd91]

Again, since I can't speak to 5th, I'll stick to what I know- 3.X

While I agree in principle that banning something for being too powerful is 100% justified, I don't know of any base-class MC combinations that are more powerful than a single-class Cleric, Druid, Psion, Sorcerer or Wizard.

Now, if those classes are banned for being too powerful, or are absent because of campaign-specific substitutions, I might concede that point. But the banning still begs the question, "Too powerful in comparison to what?"

I think a more common issue would be "That build idea's pretty weak. You're giving up a lot of effectiveness and I'm not sure you're going to see much benefit." A DM has to watch out for PCs that are too weak as well as too powerful.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I want to know what anyone says about my comment 8 pages ago..

whats wrong with that... I say again:

I want to have a fun character that the game supports and here it is, it wont break the game being too powerful or too weak and is well within the fluff...

 

[Skyscraper]

I haven't read beyond page 1 of this thread, and in answer to the OP's question, I'd suggest that min-maxing isnt about multiclassing. Min-maxing is a state of mind, a way to approach the game. If you remove one option from the game (multiclassing), min-maxers will look to other alternatives to achieve the best PC they can within the constraints imposed to them.

I think that the best way to avoid min-maxing is to have a group that doesn't play that way. If you like playing with your group but they like min-maxing, then discuss this topic with them.

I think it's too bad to ban some portions of the game on what seems to me like the wrong target.