trentonjoe
Explorer
I think this sums it up:
For:
More options for players
Against:
Don't like the mechanic.
For:
More options for players
Against:
Don't like the mechanic.
D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?
- Thread starter Psikerlord#
- Start date
Certainly. But there is a world of difference between "Let's see if we can't make your concept work better by doing things differently." and flat-out saying "No, you can't play that combo."
Sometimes, players have valid reasons for utilizing oddball, non-optimized combinations of rules. Sometimes, playing on "hard mode" is what they want.
IME, that only goes so far.* Eventually, if the PC is truly a drag on the party, either the players themselves hash it out, or the PC gets pushed to the outside edge of the herd, as it were. He's the last to get healed, the first name suggested for hazardous tasks, etc., and the odds take care of it from there.
(Side note: did you ever play AD&D? Because that was kinda what happened with low-level MUs. You dragged them along, protecting them as best you could because, eventually, they'd contribute their 1-3 spells to a fight. And further down the road, they'd be helpful on a regular basis...)
Weigh in, sure. But on matters of PC design and advancement, they should tread lightly.
It is one thing to excise Paladins or Monks or other classes (or races, fears, spells, etc.) from a campaign because you (the GM) don't think they belong. It is another thing entirely to ban a particular combination of classes because you think it is overpowered (again, compared to what?), or don't like its flavor.
Don't get me wrong- there can be entirely valid campaign world reasons why a particular MC combination might not exist. A Pal/Warlock might not work because of the issue of whether the class vows and oaths are mutually exclusive. A Monk/Brb combo might not work because the monasteries have been ransacked by hordes too often for them to trust anyone with that kind of background.
OTOH, what if the Pal/Warlock oaths are to the same being? Or the barbarian was from a land across the seas...or had gone to a monastery beyond the horizon of the empire?
IOW, just banning combos at the meta level smacks of a lack of trust in your players.
* I know because I am often "that guy". I've been playing since 1977, and after trying all the "normal" stuff, I currently trend more towards paths not taken. My fringey-est PCs are often barely tolerated or disliked...until the other players see why I did what I did. Then they don't care, and even welcome them.
Last edited:
Audrik
Explorer
I liked that way, too. Starting at the very end of 1e and really getting into role-playing in 2e, I learned quickly to adapt, modify, and create rules. If I wanted a multi-classing system like 2e in my 5e game, I would simply use Monopoly house-building rules. Every new level has to be spent on a class whose level is lowest, and no two classes can be more than one level apart.
For example, a Fighter 2/Cleric 1/Wizard 1 would have to put a new level in either Cleric or Wizard, and the next level would have to go into the class not chosen this time. Once the character was a Fighter 2/Cleric 2/Wizard 2, the next level could go in any of the three. As for starting at 1st level, I'd have any players who intend to multi-class state the intention at character creation, and then treat the above character as a Fighter 1/Cleric 0/Wizard 0.
Of course, this is only how I would handle it if I wanted 2e style multi-classing. Personally, I think I'll be allowing multi-classing as written in my 5e games until I see a need to change.
Nentir Vale tieflings have the Crimson Knights as part of their history/background. They were Asmodaus paladin / warlocks, who eventually evolved into other gods' paladins, but retained the fiendish lore from the Turathi empire, which was passed down as a form of arcane lore bound to their race's history, instead of requiring an extraplanar Patron.
Anyways, the point is - there is a cultural precedence with tieflings for combining paladin and warlock
Sometimes, that very much happens. Its all well and good to say to keep someone out of a group, or find a new one, but when your table involves a group of friends that do more than just game together... politics come into play. And there are times when you may very well have a lack of trust in one player in just this particular respect, but not others. I've seen it happen more than once.
There are lots of reasons, though, and trust isn't always it. Its unfair to suggest it is always that. I don't personally care for the mind set it engenders in some of my players. Its removal as an option had a positive effect on their role playing, I feel. Less worry about the sheet, more about character immersion.
Trust has nothing to do with drinking in front of a recovering alcoholic, for instance. Its a temptation, an addiction. They can't help themselves. Not bringing drinks to the party is the smarter move so everyone can have a good time.
Last edited:
Not drinking in front of a recovering alcoholic is hardly in the same behavioral spectrum as excising multiclassing options... They're not even in the same room.
One shows respect and concern for the health & wellbeing of another in the face of struggling with a dangerous and destructive addiction. The other shows, well, a lack of trust that someone can play a game at some level. And if your players need that kind of policing, perhaps someone needs to learn some basic manners. Or get kicked out of a group.
One shows respect and concern for the health & wellbeing of another in the face of struggling with a dangerous and destructive addiction. The other shows, well, a lack of trust that someone can play a game at some level. And if your players need that kind of policing, perhaps someone needs to learn some basic manners. Or get kicked out of a group.
Which is why I raised up that specter as an exception to reasons for disallowing Pal/Warlock combos.
Just as a GM can posit reasons why a particular MC combo shouldn't exist in his campaign world, players can posit reasons why they might. And, IMHO, those player-derived reasons at least deserve a hearing, not an absolute rejection.
There may well still be a campaign reason why a combo is denied- maybe even an absolute one that the players know nothing about- but a rejection before a discussion will not foster happiness at the table. You really want to give the players a reason (if you can do so without spoilers), not an out-of-hand rejection.
Last edited:
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.
Imaro
Legend
Ok so now a DM not wanting to use MC'ing in his game is attributed to a lack of trust... So what exactly are we attributing a player demanding MC'ing be in the game to?
The world isn't so black and white, Danny. There are other factors in play. Its frankly ingenuous for you to suggest that lack of trust is the only motive. Or did you miss the part of group dynamics and politics? Psychological effects on the players, who found they focused more on their characters instead of sheets?
Trying to treat everything as binary, or such a simple reduction, misses the point by a mile. My boyfriend used to be like that. Everything came down to "Oh, so you don't trust me?" Trust had nothing to do with it! That's just an attempt to reduce other arguments to the absurd!
I'll take a shot at this... but let me ask you a question first (so I don't assume anything, and no, it's not "WHY?"
)What are you trying to accomplish by restricting or removing multiclassing?
What "style of play" are you after?
(other than "single-classed")
Similar Threads
