D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Mallus]

The one issue that can break a game is a large power disparity between PCs, which MCing can lead to, if you have a mix of powergamers and others, like I do.

Power disparity within a group can be a serious problem... but multiclassing is seldom the main culprit. Want to see some gnarly power disparity in a 3e group? Have one player choose "fighter" and another choose "druid".

So unless you're game for banning several base classes, the trick to look at group power disparity as a problem of behavior, and not one of mechanics. Because that's what it is.

Running a PC that mechanically overshadows the rest of the group is a chosen behavior. Like talking too loudly at the table, or swearing in front of the host's children (not that I have any personal experience with either of those).

You don't fix problem behaviors with game mechanics. You fix them by talking things out & reaching a compromise.

Like I've said a hundred times here, it's everyone's job to keep a campaign running smoothly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

I didn't miss any of that, and do not wish to sound binary. However, the counterpoints of "group dynamics" and "politics" are so vague as to give me no choice.

Usually, when I see those terms thrown around, it refers to a group with a mix of power gamers & amateur thespians that is not gelling well...but problems like that don't get solved by excising MCing, so it must be something else.

So please, enlighten.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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?

Speaking from personal experience as a player, I use MCing as a way to model a PC concept. End of story. (If you wish to see the kinds of builds I make, just ask, and I'll supply links or files.)

In contrast, I see people asserting a lack of trust in at least these ways:

1) players will make characters that overshadow the others ("too powerful")
2) players will make characters that drag the party down ("too weak")

But these are issues that can be alleviated/rectified by communication with those players. It is a goal less likely to be achieved merely by doing away with multiclassing. Powergamers will game the system, MC rules or no. People who design lousy PCs do so even with single classed characters.

 

[steeldragons]

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")

In my homebrew? MCing is restricted to various classes and class combinations. Mostly this is to maintain a pre-3e feel to the characters, the campaign setting and game world. It works well for us.

When I get around to a real/strictly 5e game, I fully expect I will maintain those parameters for folks that want to MC. I would not incorporate 3e+ style MC into any game I run.

My argument against using the 5e MC rules at all, are simply from the OP who didn't want to use them...and the PHB saying they don't have to...and trying to establish some level of comprehension that 3e+ style MCing is not a necessary part of the 5e game to create fun, diverse, or otherwise interesting characters.

I really have no concern at all if someone uses them or not at their table. Several posters seem dead set on "convincing" me to use it at mine...for some reason they can not explain beyond "cuz I want it: here's this character idea...so ya see = you have to put MC in the game."

Saying the OP didn't need to include them (1: cuz he's the DM and 2: cuz the game explicitly says he doesn't) and agreeing [if stating somewhat more strongly] with his assertion that he would hope to avoid min-maxing via not including it resulted in a great and terrible storm of A) "But the DM has to because..." and, both as a part/subset of "A" and a separate B) "Not everyone MCs to powergame..."

The latter, fine. I grant that and accept the anecdotal evidence to that assertion, though it does not match my own.

The former, no dice. And I've yet to receive an answer to "But the DM has to [include this optional rule]" beyond, "because I [the player] wants it...".

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There is virtually no limit to "fun character that the game supports...won't break the game being too powerful or too weak and is well within the fluff..." that you can make without including the optional subsystem needing DM approval of Multiclassing.

Coming up with corner case after individual story of why a specific character needs a particular concession [using MC] does not change or disprove this. We can all come up with stories that can use it...Why is it impossible or so awful a prospect to imagine coming up with a character that doesn't need it?...and have that character still be considered "fun" and no more restricted in-game/story wise [other than by their array of class abilities] than one that does [multiclass]?

I agree with this sentiment (even though I allow multiclassing).

I guess I just can't relate to the idea of players fixating on a certain character, and not being interested in trying a different one if it doesn't fit the campaign.

When I'm going to enter a new campaign as a player I want the DM to tell me what he is going for in this campaign. I want to build a character that is perfectly suitable to that campaign--and since the DM is designing the campaign only he can tell me what that is. He might not understand my character concept at first, so I have no problem discussing it with him to see if he will reconsider once he understands the concept. But at the end of the day, he knows his campaign concept a lot better than I do.

If this is just the argument over whether players should have input into the nature of a campaign or not all over again, there is no answer. It's a matter of playstyle. I can enjoy either. But once you have that established for a specific campaign everything else needs to be based on that assumption. If players don't define the campaign then they make a character that fits or sit it out. Maybe they aren't mature enough as a role-player to get over a fixation with a certain character they want to play. Hopefully the DM or other players can help them brainstorm. If they really insist that they must play a certain character in a DM-creation style campaign, and the DM says it doesn't fit, they are being completely unreasonable, and I am leery of having them in the group at all--even if I'm not the DM. (We have had this experience once. The DM conceded. It didn't make a positive contribution to the campaign.) My DM runs campaigns that are definitely DM-creation campaigns with a clear goal and image in mind of what that campaign is, and that are not about player campaign design input. Then he is often over-accommodating in allowing characters that aren't really good fits, and which he has to bend his concept to try to fit in. While allowing them hasn't ruined a campaign, it has never enhanced the play experience. They would have been better campaigns had he simply said, "look, that isn't what I'm running here, so let's do one of your other fun character ideas." I'll say further--I myself have played characters that haven't really fit a campaign all that well, because my DM was over-accomodating, and those characters have been much less fun than if I just picked something that fit. This is just now inspiring me to have a talk with him about setting more guidelines and restrictions for his next campaign to better preserve what he is going for.

So, if this is just an argument over a decision where the appropriateness is based entirely on playstyle (and I'm thinking it has become that for some of the sub-arguments), that is a completely invalid argument and a waste of time.

 

[trentonjoe]

And I've yet to receive an answer to "But the DM has to [include this optional rule]" beyond, "because I [the player] wants it...".

to create fun, diverse, or otherwise interesting characters?

I don't think anyone is saying YOU HAVE to include it, I think the majority are saying we use it and really like it.

I asked a bunch of questions because I wanted to know your thought process. I found it rigid.

 

[steeldragons]

to create fun, diverse, or otherwise interesting characters?

I don't think anyone is saying YOU HAVE to include it, I think the majority are saying we use it and really like it.

I asked a bunch of questions because I wanted to know your thought process. I found it rigid.

If that's what was being said, it is certainly not what I was hearing. Seems there were several posts stating the gods' given right of the players to have [or demand] MC in their games, the general level of impotence DMs should be expecting and accepting [and thankful for it! damned dirty DMs.], and the general mistake of not including it/why 5e made it optional in the first place.
*shrug*
As to my thought process, I imagine you would [find them rigid]. If you require 8 levels of compiling Warlock, Paladin & Sorcerer to get to "fun, diverse and interesting character" then it is a very safe bet you would find everything about my table "rigid" indeed.

Thankfully, this is all fun hypothetical discussion and noone is going to be forced to sit down and play with anyone else they might have..."creative differences"...with.

 

[Imaro]

Speaking from personal experience as a player, I use MCing as a way to model a PC concept. End of story. (If you wish to see the kinds of builds I make, just ask, and I'll supply links or files.)

Do you think that is the reason every player does it? I'm going to assume not since you were careful to only speak for yourself in the above post... and if not then why assume all DM's do it for the same reason?

In contrast, I see people asserting a lack of trust in at least these ways:

1) players will make characters that overshadow the others ("too powerful")
2) players will make characters that drag the party down ("too weak")

I don't see these necessarily as issues of "trust"... you're choosing to interpret it this way. Why do you assume the DM doesn't trust the players? If I am learning a new ruleset and have to run the game as opposed to just one character... what is wrong with not wanting added complexity, at least until I get more experience?

But these are issues that can be alleviated/rectified by communication with those players.

Perhaps, perhaps not I think it's kind of arrogant to assume you know best about the players in someone else's group.

Putting aside the trust reason you keep focusing on... I said earlier in the thread, I am not allowing multi-classing at this point in my game because I feel the group needs more experience in actually playing and learning the game before adding more layers of complexity... and multi-classing is added complexity. It is not only complexity for the players but also for the DM who has to rule on abilities, how they interact with each other when something is unclear. Is this a valid enough reason for no multi-classing?

It is a goal less likely to be achieved merely by doing away with multiclassing. Powergamers will game the system, MC rules or no. People who design lousy PCs do so even with single classed characters.

Again you're focusing on one reason to the exclusion of others that have been offered and honestly I think if the DM isn't comfortable with certain rules, and is upfront about it before play begins... then really it shouldn't be an issue once you agree to join the game. Regardless of whether multi-classing can be used to powergame or not, the DM doesn't know and thus would rather not deal with the possibility... that doesn't seem unreasonable to me given that the PHB has only been out for 4 months...

 

[Hussar]

For abundant clarity: the reasoning behind not allowing the optional MCing is to make the game more fun for the table as a whole. I suspect you have never DM'd, or at least never DM'd for a mixed bag of players. The one issue that can break a game is a large power disparity between PCs, which MCing can lead to, if you have a mix of powergamers and others, like I do. There is no "DM v Players" agenda.

If only some of your players want MCing, then allowing it is a bad plan overall, imo.

Careful with those presumptions there. I've been gaming since the early 80's and DMing most of that.

But, your last sentence makes sense. Not everyone is going to want to multiples their character, so, you will never get a group where everyone wants to MC. If there is a large power disparity because of MCing, that's a mechanical issue. Does that actually exist in 5e? If so, it would be a huge step backward, considering 3e and 4e both largely nipped that in the bud. Outside of some very specialised builds in 3e where you MC'd for power, MCing was almost always the weaker choice.

The difference here is, I don't care. Let the players sort that out. I refuse to tell players what they should and shouldn't play. It's not my job to treat my players like they were a bunch of spoiled children incapable of taking responsibility for the game. Treat the players as if they were responsible people and they will act like responsible people.

 

[Imaro]

The difference here is, I don't care. Let the players sort that out. I refuse to tell players what they should and shouldn't play. It's not my job to treat my players like they were a bunch of spoiled children incapable of taking responsibility for the game. Treat the players as if they were responsible people and they will act like responsible people.

What if you are playing with younger players (pre-teens)... or even new players? I'm honestly curious since my situation is that my son and nephew sometimes play in our game and my other niece and nephew play when they come into town...