D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?
Truthfully, I'm of the opinion that multiclassing, outside of rare instances, generally makes a character weaker... Unless its done after hitting key milestones and your game never reaches the next tier.
I don't like it because I feel that its a trap option for those that don't understand the game design, but does benefit those who have a good level of system mastery down. And, even then, its often arguable if the power increase is really worth the drawbacks, and the character still wants to act like one class primarily.
To me, this means that multi-class rules come down to meta-game concerns over combining mechanics, not really something I'm fond of. I know its something some players enjoy, but not something I want to encourage at my games.
Truly... but i don't see any evidence of mechanics that combine to make a character Superman and immune to the effects of kryptonite. No reason to say - "hey, Darren, I think you should multi-class,... but a "Mind if I multi-class?" question from a player isn't that big of a deal. Perhaps a "I guess... but why do you want to? You'll lose out on X." reply is a good enough deterrent in most cases.
(I remember in 2e when I played a MC character, F/MU which I thought would be cool. Talking about limiting... holy cow. And once I made F/MU/Th.... do you know how long it took to move up in levels!)
See, here's the problem I have with this discussion.
"But I want to have XYZ mechanics." "But you lose out on TUV mechanics!"
The mechanics have nothing to do with why I dislike the rule system. I dislike them for setting/story reasons (same reasoning why some people ban monks from their table), and I dislike it for metagame concerns at the table. And, as the DM, its my job to set the story, the setting, the theme and mood of the game.
I don't have a single qualm about multiclassing from the mechanical perspective. Is the SorcererX/Warlock2 overpoweredly broken? Not really. I actually consider it to be worse than a pure sorcerer at higher levels. Its for a host of non-mechanical reasons that I'm disillusioned with it.
Last edited:
Well, that's my point, too. As I said in my first post, if it does not fit into your theme, thats the only problem I see. But a lot of other DMs are concerned about the mechanics. And a lot of players are min/maxers... welcome to game theory 101, really. The sabermatricianing of DnD happened in 3e and I'd bet it's a factor at the majority of tables. So there is a valid point to the discussion.
MechaPilot
Explorer
I don't particularly care for the 3e style of multiclassing that 5e adopted. I think they did a decent job discouraging the 3e tactic of dipping one level into a class, but I vastly prefer the 2e-style of multiclassing where you begin at first level in all your classes and level all your classes at the same time. I plan to use that method when I DM 5e.
I also plan to vastly expand the training options in 5e to include skills, feats, ability increases, and even special things like class features, so training may end up largely replacing multiclassing.
I also plan to vastly expand the training options in 5e to include skills, feats, ability increases, and even special things like class features, so training may end up largely replacing multiclassing.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I think the 2e style mixed with the 4e idea of feats that let you dip would have been far better then the 3e way
aramis erak
Legend
Instead of 4e's feat-based-multi-class system, we have two classes with multi-class-equivalent subclasses, and can easily (outside of Organized Play) reskin those for other classes and to other caster flavors.
The best reason to allow multi-classing is just to let your players make whatever characters they want. They may minmax, but as long as they are satisfied with the rules I'd say go ahead.
aramis erak
Legend
And even if they do minmax, MC isn't going to get them much, and since you can only have 20 class levels total, it's going to deprive them of some serious power gains later...
