D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Hussar]

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!

Note, that would be "disingenuous", sorry, English teacher, I can't help myself sometimes.

If your players are more focused on their character sheets instead of their characters, MC'ing isn't the culprit. I would hazard a guess that it would be the exact same for single classed characters. They need to be shown that there is more to the game, but, "You can't play with these toys until you eat your broccoli" is not going to get the results you want.

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?

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ld-I-allow-Multiclassing/page21#ixzz3LRbkbZLt

You need a valid reason? Really? For including a purely optional rule that is called out as being purely optional? I mean, if you don't want to include it, fine and dandy, don't.

The question put forth was WHY should it be included. Well, there are many reasons - exploring a specific concept, it's fun for some players, it fills a need. If those reasons don't work for you, then fine. Cool. No problem. That's certainly your prerogative. But, don't come into a thread that is specifically asking why we should include multi classing and then bitch about people giving reasons for including mutliclassing.
[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] came out with guns blazing, flatly stating that the only reason to MC was for pure power gaming and only power gamers would multiclass. He's then softened that stance to say that he follows a more traditional path of multi classing that models earlier editions of D&D - I'm assuming combos based on race. Although, I guess my question would be, since AD&D allowed humans to dual class in any combination, so long as they met the requirements, what's the issue with doing it in later editions? But, be that as it may, the rather serious amount of Big Daddy Pants Dming advice, telling all and sundry that anyone who allows MC'ing is doing it wrong is very prevalent in the early part of the thread and the majority of push back was the result of that.

 

[trentonjoe]

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...

I let the kids I DM (12-14), multiclass. I honestly don't know what the big deal is. If you have these setting specific guidelines, or want a different feel to the game , or you just hate the mechanic I guess I get it, but the fears of creating unbalanced characters seems unfounded to me.

 

[Imaro]

You need a valid reason? Really? For including a purely optional rule that is called out as being purely optional? I mean, if you don't want to include it, fine and dandy, don't.

I was asking whether a particular poster thought it was valid... context is key.

The question put forth was WHY should it be included. Well, there are many reasons - exploring a specific concept, it's fun for some players, it fills a need. If those reasons don't work for you, then fine. Cool. No problem. That's certainly your prerogative. But, don't come into a thread that is specifically asking why we should include multi classing and then bitch about people giving reasons for including mutliclassing.

I know what the original question was, but like usual in these threads the discussion has gone beyond answering that and into further discussion of the issue... again context is key... but you keep on telling me what not to "bitch" about and I might actually care when you've got a moderator tag to back it up. You don't want to talk about what I'm discussing that's great... don't quote me, especially when I'm not even addressing you. That way we're both happy.

@steeldragons came out with guns blazing, flatly stating that the only reason to MC was for pure power gaming and only power gamers would multiclass. He's then softened that stance to say that he follows a more traditional path of multi classing that models earlier editions of D&D - I'm assuming combos based on race. Although, I guess my question would be, since AD&D allowed humans to dual class in any combination, so long as they met the requirements, what's the issue with doing it in later editions? But, be that as it may, the rather serious amount of Big Daddy Pants Dming advice, telling all and sundry that anyone who allows MC'ing is doing it wrong is very prevalent in the early part of the thread and the majority of push back was the result of that.

Yeah it's always the other sides fault, but I wasn't part of that discussion and I'm not @steeldragons, you want to talk about him then quote him otherwise I'm going to assume you are talking about what I actually posted... not things I wasn't a part of multiple posts back. Thanks.

 

[Imaro]

I let the kids I DM (12-14), multiclass. I honestly don't know what the big deal is. If you have these setting specific guidelines, or want a different feel to the game , or you just hate the mechanic I guess I get it, but the fears of creating unbalanced characters seems unfounded to me.

No I stated my reasoning earlier in the thread, I want the base game to be understood reasonably well before adding complexity. I think there's something to being informed when it comes to multi-classing.... understanding what a 20th level ability is like before you decide it's worth giving up to multi-class... or the fact that you won't have higher level spells, feats or that extra attack until later than the single classed characters and what that actually means in play. It's not that I don't like multi-classing or won't eventually allow it, but I do want my players to have a good grasp on the game and what their choices mean before making them... but that's just me.

 

[Hussar]

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...

Why tell them anything? They cannot multi class at first level anyway, so, you're going to get at least one or two sessions before MCing comes up as an option regardless of anything else. It's not unreasonable to think that people will figure out the basics of MCing after six or eight hours of play. It's not like 5e is that complicated. And, let's not forget, that anyone with even a modicum of experience in video games will get MC'ing right out of the box. Lots of games allow that sort of hybridization.

It's not like MCing is going to massively overpower or gibble a character by and large. It might be a bit more situationally powerful or weaker, but, overall, it shouldn't be a big deal. With younger players, you're not going to see the twink builds that are an issue, I wouldn't think. So, again, where's the problem? We had multiclass characters when we were tweens playing AD&D and didn't have a major issue with it. Why think that it will be such a huge problem now?

 

[Hussar]

No I stated my reasoning earlier in the thread, I want the base game to be understood reasonably well before adding complexity. I think there's something to being informed when it comes to multi-classing.... understanding what a 20th level ability is like before you decide it's worth giving up to multi-class... or the fact that you won't have higher level spells, feats or that extra attack until later than the single classed characters and what that actually means in play. It's not that I don't like multi-classing or won't eventually allow it, but I do want my players to have a good grasp on the game and what their choices mean before making them... but that's just me.

What are the odds that your group is going to see 20th level? Do you honestly think that these young people that you are playing with will still be playing the same campaign two years from now? I'd say that's pretty unlikely. Far more likely, the group will see, maybe, 12th level before the campaign ends.

Then again, I'm a big fan of retraining rules (are they in 5e?) which means that all these issues that you bring up go away.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Do you think that is the reason every player does it?

No, and I know that some don't- see the CharOp boards for simple & ample evidence of that.

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?

So far, the evidence offered in this thread has mainly been of the 2 kinds I spelled out. But you have helpfully supplied a third...

(See below)

Why do you assume the DM doesn't trust the players?

What else would you call it? People have said they want to disallow MCing in general for their campaigns or particular combos because overpowered/underpowered PCs are almost inevitable; or claimed group-specific but nebulous justifications of "group dynamics"/"politics".

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?

This is a third reason, and one I actually find valid...up to a point. I've GMed about 20 RPG systems and played in another 80 or so. Learning a system takes time and effort. So I'm cool with initially limiting complexity in the beginning, and ramping it up over time.

But maintaining a ban on MCing- a rules element nearly as old as the game itself- over an entire campaign sees excessive to me. It limits both players and the DM alike in customizing characters. And that desire for customization arises out of a host of desires and needs.

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

I don't know what's best, but I know about humans.

Among other things, I am a professional mediator and an arbitrator in training. What my work and training hinge upon is applied psychology. And what that training and experience says is that rules take a back seat to relationships when solving problems long-term.

IOW, when there is a problem with rules, it usually arises out of a problem with personalities. With that as a starting point, changing the rules doesn't solve the problem, just one manifestation of it. It treats a symptom, not the disease.

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?

Like I said above, if your concern is the learning curve, yeah. But that just begs the questions: when the players have enough experience, will you allow it? How will you know when that is? Will you change the rule in that campaign, or will you allow them only in subsequent ones?

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...

As I said upthread, a ban on MCing would be "a nonstarter" for me. By that, I mean if the ban were temporary "until we have a better grasp on the system", I'd be cool with that. I find that to be eminently reasonable and valid.

But a permanent ban would result in me not joining the game.

 

[steeldragons]

The question put forth was WHY should it be included. Well, there are many reasons - exploring a specific concept, it's fun for some players, it fills a need. If those reasons don't work for you, then fine. Cool. No problem. That's certainly your prerogative. But, don't come into a thread that is specifically asking why we should include multi classing and then bitch about people giving reasons for including mutliclassing.

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] came out with guns blazing, flatly stating that the only reason to MC was for pure power gaming and only power gamers would multiclass. He's then softened that stance to say that he follows a more traditional path of multi classing that models earlier editions of D&D - I'm assuming combos based on race. Although, I guess my question would be, since AD&D allowed humans to dual class in any combination, so long as they met the requirements, what's the issue with doing it in later editions? But, be that as it may, the rather serious amount of Big Daddy Pants Dming advice, telling all and sundry that anyone who allows MC'ing is doing it wrong is very prevalent in the early part of the thread and the majority of push back was the result of that.

Yeah it's always the other sides fault, but I wasn't part of that discussion and I'm not @steeldragons, you want to talk about him then quote him otherwise I'm going to assume you are talking about what I actually posted... not things I wasn't a part of multiple posts back. Thanks.

Who's asking me what now? Mentions aplenty and I feel kinda lost.

For the record, as a-blazing as I was , I didn't once say folks using the 5e MC option were "doing it wrong."

What I was trying to convey [and continue to fail, apparently] was that a DM [any DM of any playstyle] has no reason to use it if they don't want to...for any or no reason. I, personally, don't like the style. I do see it as powergamey. That's been my experience. It's not ALL experience in the cosmos. It's not EVERYbody who makes a MC'd character. But it was my pov...which,yes, has been "softened"/adjusted. The OP, it seemed, wanted to remove some powergaming temptations for his "min-maxing" players. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s point about added complexity is an excellent one that I haven't even considered, but would certainly agree with. There are likely other reasons not to use the 5e MC option.

But as a DM, I know you hate this [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], sorry, one can adjust things in one's games as one sees fit. The OP should not feel pressure to include it, since if read, the OP actually is saying he didn't want to use it and was asking people why they would/do.

Yes, discussion is great. I am not advocating tyranny. I'm not telling people to screw their players or be adversarial. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an inherent trust/understanding/expectations of style and aesthetics between DMs and players (particularly at longer, more experienced tables) that make these kinds of decisions complete non-issues. I am not saying never talk to your players about what they want or, as my further posts should have made clear, not work with them to get them what they want - suitable to your table/campaign/setting.

But at the end of the day, after talking things out and making whatever compromises [or not] and in-/excluding whatever "rules" you want, the final call belongs to the DM and they can make their decision (even if it's the same one from before you talked) any which way they like.

Then, obviously, as these things do, other various and sundry tangents and side conversations pop in/up almost without noticing -related certainly, but not really the initial point or conversation.

 

[Imaro]

First let me say thanks for answering the questions I asked since I'm interested in your answers (otherwise I wouldn't have asked)... I'm going to skip over the parts I think are just us talking past each other, since I believe we've got our own views there and going round in circles isn't going to change much there... and address what I think are the interesting parts...

Like I said above, if your concern is the learning curve, yeah. But that just begs the questions: when the players have enough experience, will you allow it? How will you know when that is? Will you change the rule in that campaign, or will you allow them only in subsequent ones?

Well I let everyone in the group know that we will re-address the issue at 5th level (we're 3rd now). I did this mainly because I wanted everyone to get their first feat/ability increase at the same time and to put an emphasis on the fact that they will be sacrificing something to multi-class (since at 5th level the martial characters have a chance to get their second attack and the magicals have a chance to learn 3rd level spells) before making the choice to or not to multi-class. Now honestly I think there are some in our group I will strongly recommend against multi-classing, mainly the most casual players(about 5 people out of our total group of 12 who play irregularly) and our youngest player (He's 10 and has some trouble focusing and navigating his abilities for a single class)... that said I won't outright stop them from multi-classing if they really want to. Finally since I play with the same group after this initial campaign, unless there was another reason, I would open multi-classing up in any subsequent campaign.

As I said upthread, a ban on MCing would be "a nonstarter" for me. By that, I mean if the ban were temporary "until we have a better grasp on the system", I'd be cool with that. I find that to be eminently reasonable and valid. But a permanent ban would result in me not joining the game.

Now this is my question to you, what if at 5th level the majority of the group just wanted to keep playing without multi-classing... would you be okay with that? In other words if it's not just the DM that doesn't want it but also the majority of the group would you be ok with no multi-classing in this particular campaign?

 

[Hussar]

But as a DM, I know you hate this @Hussar, sorry, one can adjust things in one's games as one sees fit. The OP should not feel pressure to include it, since if read, the OP actually is saying he didn't want to use it and was asking people why they would/do.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ld-I-allow-Multiclassing/page22#ixzz3LRzUDGOK

Why would you think I hate that. I stated multiple times that it's perfectly fine to not use the MC rules. Good grief, of course it is. But, OTOH, when asked, "why should I use these rules" is it unreasonable for people to give reasons for using those rules? Personally, I find the reason, "Well, I don't want to use the rules because people might make over powered characters" to be a very weak reason. It smacks of distrust for the players, to use an earlier phrase from DannyA.

Now this is my question to you, what if at 5th level the majority of the group just wanted to keep playing without multi-classing... would you be okay with that? In other words if it's not just the DM that doesn't want it but also the majority of the group would you be ok with no multi-classing in this particular campaign?


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ld-I-allow-Multiclassing/page22#ixzz3LS0JUEEh

Sorry, but, what do you mean by majority? I know that sounds stupid, but, are you saying that if 4 of the 5 players are content not using the MC rules, then the 5th guy should not be allowed to MC? How would that majority have the information to know whether the rules are fine or not without actually playing them? Isn't your stated goal to give the players the feel for the rules before allowing more complicated rules? How can they get that feel if they are never allowed to actually use those rules?

Now, if no one wants to MC, then fine, who cares? But, why should the other players get to tell one player what he can or cannot play, especially considering they have no direct experience with which to base their opinion because you aren't allowing MCing in the first place.

Then again, I've never seen a player, uncoached, tell the group, "Hey, I don't want this rule in the game".