Multiclassing, should I allow it?

[DwarvenGM]

Alright so ever since 3.X multiclassing has left a very bad taste in my mouth I grew tired of "I'm lvl 1 X, lvl 3 Y, and lvl 6 Z" mostly because of the power gamer aspect but the lack of realistic progression also bothered me.

So I quickly banned it from my table and most players accept it and move on a few fight but when I ask why they need each class I usually can find some way to handle it with avoiding multiclassing. Yes I've lost a few players but their reasons were always more mechanical and less roleplay so I wasn't concerned with losing them.

In 5e I've heard it is more balanced and in my own reading it does seem so. But I still dislike the thought of a fighter suddenly learning to cast spells mid campaign or a rogue suddenly learning how to use any armor or weapon.

In my next campaign my players will start at level 3 and one of my players has flat out stated he is multi classing whether I like it or not. My knee jerk reaction was to say tell him I will treat his pc as the lowest level class he has taken thus making him a level 1.

But I'm starting to reconsider this, I see almost everyone allows it. In my mind pc classes take years of dedication to acquire even 1 level so it is odd, in my mind at least, that some can simultaneously train for multiple classes.

I want to sit down and talk it out with this player but before i do I'm hoping I could hear other dms opinion on multiclassing.


Thanks in advance.

[rudy]

I recommend allowing it, because it is quite balanced now, BUT there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring that players actually roleplay the multiclassing.

For an example, I had a character who I planned to start as Rogue 1, but then multiclass to monk. The background was that they were a highway robber (Outlander) who was mortally wounded but nursed back to health by a monk of the such-and-such order, who taught the character the error of his ways, etc. During first level he is frequently meditating, practicing his martial arts forms, and reading from his prayer books, while still using his Rogue skills and archery during actual combat.

Then, level 2 comes, and he finds he's finally ready to put his monk training to the test, throwing aside his leather armor.

Other classes it may be more plausible to just spontaneously become, such as a sorcerer's blood suddenly awakening. Or with a Ranger dipping into Fighter, that's just a Ranger focusing more on the martial side of his ability, rather than an entirely different way of life.

[Coffee_Dragon]

the lack of realistic progression also bothered me.

If you want a different view of classes, I suggest regarding them not as in-game professions with strict progressions but as pure abstractions that model the evolution of a character's strengths and abilities. There will be discontinuities when certain abilities are gained that may seem unorganic... either treat it as just a normal effect of rules abstraction or try to smooth the progression in-game with flavour elements and gradual changes.

About your exchange with your player, I strongly suggest you talk this over more and work out how you both view the game and want to play it.

[Belac93]

As long as they are not just using it for power gaming, I would allow it.

So, say I want to make a character who was a wizard, but she decided that magic was useless quite quickly, and instead turned to weapons. That would justify my fighter 1/wizard 2.

But, what if I was a sorcerer, and suddenly decided that I wanted 2 levels of warlock for agonizing blast? Then it is power gaming.

Let them explain to you why they want to take these levels. Allow them to multiclass if they put flavour first.

[smcmike]

Allow it.

Power gaming is not a significant concern in 5e, so that's not a reason to oppose it.

Your primary reason for opposing it seems to be based upon narrative, not power gaming. This isn't a very good reason either. I fall into the camp that sees classes mostly as game structures rather than in-world castes, which largely obliterates any narrative problems. I can't imagine an in-world reason that an individual would not be able to both sneak attack and rage, or learn wizard spells but also make a deal with an eldritch horror. These things should probably be explained within the narrative, but making them impossible seems like more of an artificial imposition upon the world than allowing them. Also, anti-multiclassers always ask "how did you learn X mid-campaign," while ignoring the fact that single class characters gain all sorts of inexplicable abilities as well.

I recognize that the above argument may not convince you, since you have a different conception of class from me. There is a pretty easy comprimise, though: you are starting the campaign at level 3. That means the characters can come in with your "years of training" in multiple classes with absolutely no problem! The compromise position is therefore to allow them to come in with any mix, but advance only the classes they start with. I really don't see how you can object to this from a role playing perspective.

Finally, I don't think that asking whether a player decision is based upon power gaming is useful. Better to just demand a role play explanation, whether or not the reason is power gaming. Two levels of warlock are fine, so long as you've got a good pact story.

[BiPolar]

as long as they are not just using it for power gaming, i would allow it.

So, say i want to make a character who was a wizard, but she decided that magic was useless quite quickly, and instead turned to weapons. That would justify my fighter 1/wizard 2.

But, what if i was a sorcerer, and suddenly decided that i wanted 2 levels of warlock for agonizing blast? Then it is power gaming.

Let them explain to you why they want to take these levels. Allow them to multiclass if they put flavour first.

yes yes yes.

[RickAllison]

Some of my multi-classing reasons (and why I picked them):

Swashbuckler/Bladesinger. Originally going to be a straight Swashbuckler, this was a multi-class that happened due to table events. The rogue found out that the man who had orchestrated the massacre of his unit was actually the BBEG. Simultaneously, he realized that the party were rather bad at this job and were slowing him down. He left the party because he needed an advantage, a way to counteract the divination of the evildoer while pulling out some tricks of his own. He needed magic. So he abandoned the party to find a hidden enclave of elves so he could convince them to teach him the art of the Bladesong. Became an NPC, but I keep his character sheet in case my PC ever dies and it would make sense for Salleek to come back. This multiclass is an example of treating the two classes as separate disciplines, rather like the OP considers them.

Sun Soul Monk/Undying Light Warlock/Shadow Sorcerer. Trained as a servant of Amaunator, died in battle against the legions of the earth plane (Shadow Sorcerer), but was mysteriously brought back to life by an unknown entity (Undying Light, actually the BBEG's boss...). Powergamed character, and I didn't like him. Didn't like the personality I made for him, didn't like how powergamed he was, didn't like the lack of utility and support. Ended up talking it over with the DM and we got him removed (into the Earth plane, ironically) while making a heroic sacrifice. Ended up more than doubling the wealth of the party because he was a little bit of a thief... This is a character who used the example of separate disciplines, but focused on the powergamed aspect of it all.

Knowledge Cleric 1/Artificer X, now Life Cleric 1/Knowledge Theurge X. This was the character that came in as a multiclass. He was a servant of the Raven Queen, but he served her using his own learned power with her guidance rather than relying on power given him. This multiclass treated the separate classes as just an extension of the same progression. He didn't decide "I'm going to study to be a cleric," he decided "I'm going to focus on the divine side of the magic to learn what She really wants from me." As far as Tmave is concerned, he has just taken levels in the Arcane Arm of the Raven Queen class.

[Falcon X]

I would ban the Warlock dip and put heavy restrictions on a Cleric dip. Those two are difficult to justify in a backstory and can give a big boost of power. Otherwise (except for a fighter or rogue dip), single classing is the best way to go.

I'm not a fan of outright bans. For example, I'm playing a game where my sorcerer turned his back on his sorcery. Thus, he has to find something new or die. He has gained the mentality of a paladin, knows how to fight, and has the charisma for it. In-game it just makes sense to allow that multi-class to happen.

Or say I wanted to be a cleric of Boccob? Multiclassing was very appropriate before we got the Arcane domain cleric or the Theurgy Wizard.

[MrFahrenheit]

As long as they are not just using it for power gaming, I would allow it.

So, say I want to make a character who was a wizard, but she decided that magic was useless quite quickly, and instead turned to weapons. That would justify my fighter 1/wizard 2.

But, what if I was a sorcerer, and suddenly decided that I wanted 2 levels of warlock for agonizing blast? Then it is power gaming.

Let them explain to you why they want to take these levels. Allow them to multiclass if they put flavour first.

Even in the power gaming example, most (though not all) classes' capstone abilities are pretty "meh." So a sor X/war 2 for EB + AB would probably MC somewhere else if not allowed. Note that sor X/war 3 can effectively duplicate the sor 20 feature.

I implemented a couple MC house rules in my campaign:
1. A player has to have more levels in one class than total classes (basically, they can't take their first MC level until CL 4 at earliest at X 3/Y 1. If they wanted another class after that, either X or Y would have to be at 4 first).
2. I allow players to basically roll new hd with "advantage" for the class they have the most levels in. If they roll double max (i.e., two 8s for Druids, 10s for rangers, etc.), the second roll is carried over to the next level they take in that class as an auto-max.

On the martial side, fighter 2/fill in the blank X can be common for action surge outside of these house rules.

But even with all that, after having DMed 5e for a year and a half (and having DMed other editions and settings for over a decade prior), I came to the conclusion that these house rules were largely unnecessary. That's because I realized that 5e (at least core + SCAG) is incredibly well balanced. Those levels in warlock mean the sorcerer's spell progression is jacked for a while. Don't fall in the trap of only looking at a character from a 20th level lens when said character is only second level.

[NNescio]

Alright so ever since 3.X multiclassing has left a very bad taste in my mouth I grew tired of "I'm lvl 1 X, lvl 3 Y, and lvl 6 Z" mostly because of the power gamer aspect but the lack of realistic progression also bothered me.

Generally, this penalizes martials moreso than casters. Casters didn't really want to multiclass out anyway (except into Prestige Classes, where the flavor writes itself anyway), since they would lose spell progression.

(And Martials back then had a lot of dead levels where they effectively got nothing aside from a point of BAB and save progression or so. Also Rogue 20 was a joke. Error class feature not found indeed.)

The 3.5 Fighter will usually multiclass, because he gets no class features anyway aside from "more feats". From a flavor perspective, the generic Fighter was also well, kinda boring.




In 5e I've heard it is more balanced and in my own reading it does seem so. But I still dislike the thought of a fighter suddenly learning to cast spells mid campaign or a rogue suddenly learning how to use any armor or weapon.

Eldritch Knights are a Fighter Archetype (subclass) now. They don't even need to multiclass out. Weapon and armor proficiencies can also be picked up via feats, and any non-caster can learn to cast spells by taking Magic Initiate.

This can be handled in-character as well. The Fighter learns magic from the party Wizard, while the Fighter trains the Rogue in weapons and armor. More roleplaying opportunities, really.


In my next campaign my players will start at level 3 and one of my players has flat out stated he is multi classing whether I like it or not. My knee jerk reaction was to say tell him I will treat his pc as the lowest level class he has taken thus making him a level 1.

But I'm starting to reconsider this, I see almost everyone allows it. In my mind pc classes take years of dedication to acquire even 1 level so it is odd, in my mind at least, that some can simultaneously train for multiple classes.

I want to sit down and talk it out with this player but before i do I'm hoping I could hear other dms opinion on multiclassing.


Thanks in advance.

There are a lot of drawbacks to multiclassing in 5e. Minimum stat points are required to both multiclass out of a class and into another one, so they can potentially be more MAD (i.e. need to spread their stats around more). ASIs (attribute score increases)/feats are also now tied to class level, not character level. Multiclassing also delays access to upper-level class features, which is a major sticking point for spellcasters (delaying spell progression is PAINFUL).

Generally, I believe multiclassing is balanced in 5e, even with EE and SCAG on the table. Multiclassing with Unearthed Arcana classes, however, can potentially have unexpected interactions. Multiclassing with Mercer's homebrew classes is outright broken (e.g. Gunslinger Assassin with Alert).

[MrFahrenheit]

Generally, this penalizes martials moreso than casters. Casters didn't really want to multiclass out anyway (except into Prestige Classes, where the flavor writes itself anyway), since they would lose spell progression.

(And Martials back then had a lot of dead levels where they effectively got nothing aside from a point of BAB and save progression or so. Also Rogue 20 was a joke. Error class feature not found indeed.)

The 3.5 Fighter will usually multiclass, because he gets no class features anyway aside from "more feats". From a flavor perspective, the generic Fighter was also well, kinda boring.



Eldritch Knights are a Fighter Archetype (subclass) now. They don't even need to multiclass out. Weapon and armor proficiencies can also be picked up via feats, and any non-caster can learn to cast spells by taking Magic Initiate.

This can be handled in-character as well. The Fighter learns magic from the party Wizard, while the Fighter trains the Rogue in weapons and armor. More roleplaying opportunities, really.



There are a lot of drawbacks to multiclassing in 5e. Minimum stat points are required to both multiclass out of a class and into another one, so they can potentially be more MAD (i.e. need to spread their stats around more). ASIs (attribute score increases)/feats are also now tied to class level, not character level. Multiclassing also delays access to upper-level class features, which is a major sticking point for spellcasters (delaying spell progression is PAINFUL).

Generally, I believe multiclassing is balanced in 5e, even with EE and SCAG on the table. Multiclassing with Unearthed Arcana classes, however, can potentially have unexpected interactions. Multiclassing with Mercer's homebrew classes is outright broken (e.g. Gunslinger Assassin with Alert).

^This. Basically, MCing with printed options = fine. With everything published only online too = overpowered. With a full caster, and as long as you're not taking warlock, sure the spell slots progress the same, but your spells known get held back. With warlock, the slots revert back to level 1, just with the short rest mechanic. It's not bad or good; it's balanced.

[Pex]

Obligatory mention that a player liking a combination of class abilities for the fun of playing them has nothing to do with the capability and desire of the player to roleplay. If your players really aren't getting into the roleplay aspect of their character which you would like to enhance the gameplay, multiclassing has nothing to do with it. If all a player cares about is blasting, he's just has happy playing a single class dragon sorcerer quickening Firebolt and then casting it again or a Fireball as he would be with two levels of warlock to quicken an Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast then cast it again or cast Fireball.

Your personal taste does matter, but I would suggest don't be so quick to judge dismissively those who enjoy the game mechanics of the game.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Multiclassing doesn't really break 5e, but some feats are very imbalanced. I would think about banning feats instead of banning multiclassing. 5e was constructed in such a way to make multiclassing a little bit difficult and even yield diminishing returns the more you did it with a character. Other than the ubiquitous Warlock 2 dip, there's nothing egregious or exploitable about 5e multiclassing.

[RickAllison]

Obligatory mention that a player liking a combination of class abilities for the fun of playing them has nothing to do with the capability and desire of the player to roleplay. If your players really aren't getting into the roleplay aspect of their character which you would like to enhance the gameplay, multiclassing has nothing to do with it. If all a player cares about is blasting, he's just has happy playing a single class dragon sorcerer twinning and quickening firebolt and then casting it again or a Fireball as he would be with two levels of warlock to quicken an Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blast then cast it again or cast Fireball.

Your personal taste does matter, but I would suggest don't be so quick to judge dismissively those who enjoy the game mechanics of the game.

Well technically he would have to regular-cast Firebolt/EB and then Quicken either the cantrip or Fireball. Bonus action spells prevent main action spells aside from cantrips. If he Quickens the cantrip, he can only main-cast a cantrip.

[gfishfunk]

Most multi-classers plan it out in advance. If your guy wants to multiclass, ask him to RP the growth.

Some classes really do require in game set up: cleric, druid (I just suddenly learn druidic!), Wizard (spell books), etc.

Also, some folks enjoy the power-gaming or enjoy the mechanics aspect. That is not bad, its just a different flavor of fun than your fun. I doubt this guy is trying to break your game, probably just trying to build something interesting.

When I multiclass, I simultaneously build a persona as I build the mechanics - the two are not separated.

[MrFahrenheit]

Multiclassing doesn't really break 5e, but some feats are very imbalanced. I would think about banning feats instead of banning multiclassing. 5e was constructed in such a way to make multiclassing a little bit difficult and even yield diminishing returns the more you did it with a character. Other than the ubiquitous Warlock 2 dip, there's nothing egregious or exploitable about 5e multiclassing.

Feats are imbalanced only when compared to other feats. Why blow an ASI on something like weapon mastery when you can just take a level of fighter?

The only thing that I feel breaks the game in terms of feats is the variant human - STARTING with one is huge. Problem is the standard human is weak in comparison to other races IMO. That's why I disallowed vhumans from my game, but modified the standard human to allow my players the opportunity of swapping out any ability +1 for a skill proficiency.

[RickAllison]

Most multi-classers plan it out in advance. If your guy wants to multiclass, ask him to RP the growth.

Some classes really do require in game set up: cleric, druid (I just suddenly learn druidic!), Wizard (spell books), etc.

Also, some folks enjoy the power-gaming or enjoy the mechanics aspect. That is not bad, its just a different flavor of fun than your fun. I doubt this guy is trying to break your game, probably just trying to build something interesting.

When I multiclass, I simultaneously build a persona as I build the mechanics - the two are not separated.

Well put.

In 5e, multiclassing should be answered with "Okay, why is this change occurring?" rather than a negative reply. There are numerous reasons why someone might multiclass IC. And actually, cleric and warlock seems like two paths that could have the least set-up of all the options. Clerics are not necessarily the devout clergy who were picked for something greater, they can simply be the chosen of their god. This goes all the way back to the Torah and potentially even further; Moses was not raised to be a follower of the Jewish god, he was chosen and then later was told and received instruction from there. The same thing can occur with Warlocks where they can be imbued with their power by this strange being.

Wizard can be explained fairly easily by having them find a spellbook (with their chosen first-level spells and maybe a few extras) and self-studying from there. Sorcerer power can pop out of nowhere, paladins can find their dedication and go from there to focus on the same, and barbarians can tap into an inner well of rage.

The ones who it would be more difficult to justify on the fly to me are Druid, Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, and Bard.

[Sir cryosin]

A wizard PC spends a month on the road traveling going through Dungeons and killing monsters he levels up and then suddenly knows the new spell and has it written down and his spell book where does he have time to figure out this spell practice the spell and then able to use it it takes time to look at a different Wizards Spellbook decipher the Spells and then time to write them down in his own spell book just for that one spell from a different Spellbook but yet he magically knows new spells when he levels up. By your standards that's okay but if somebody magically also start trying to throw spells when there a fighter that's against progression allow multiclassing in your games would just ask your players to provide you with a little bit of backstory to why their character is getting these levels like if the father wants to take a few levels and wizard ask him the go and buy a Spellbook or go to the library to look up different spells that are available and stuff like that and actually have him study on down times or in between like a few hours at night here and there ask your players if they can't come up with a good RP reason to why they're taking a level then they can take the level but otherwise if they can then let them

[Zman]

5e is much better balanced than 3.5 and there really are not very many Multiclass combinations that are overly powerful compared to their single classed counterparts. Sure, there are some dips that are awfully good say Fighter 2 for Action Surge, or Warlock 2 for Agonizing Eldritch Blast, etc. If you kept an eye open for such combinations you could ask your players not to power game them etc.

[Easy_Lee]

If you don't like multiclassing, but a player wants to do it, may I suggest an alternative?

The RP reason to multiclass is because your character concept isn't covered by an existing class or archetype. The thing to do for that player is work with them to create a new archetype or hybrid class. One can imagine, for example, a rogue-monk by creating a rogue archetype with finesse fists, martial arts, and monk unarmed strike progression.

[RickAllison]

A wizard PC spends a month on the road traveling going through Dungeons and killing monsters he levels up and then suddenly knows the new spell and has it written down and his spell book where does he have time to figure out this spell practice the spell and then able to use it it takes time to look at a different Wizards Spellbook decipher the Spells and then time to write them down in his own spell book just for that one spell from a different Spellbook but yet he magically knows new spells when he levels up. By your standards that's okay but if somebody magically also start trying to throw spells when there a fighter that's against progression allow multiclassing in your games would just ask your players to provide you with a little bit of backstory to why their character is getting these levels like if the father wants to take a few levels and wizard ask him the go and buy a Spellbook or go to the library to look up different spells that are available and stuff like that and actually have him study on down times or in between like a few hours at night here and there ask your players if they can't come up with a good RP reason to why they're taking a level then they can take the level but otherwise if they can then let them

SirCryosin, you bring up very valid points. You also made cry a little by the butchering of grammar and the lack of punctuation. It hurt me.

[NNescio]

Well put.

In 5e, multiclassing should be answered with "Okay, why is this change occurring?" rather than a negative reply. There are numerous reasons why someone might multiclass IC. And actually, cleric and warlock seems like two paths that could have the least set-up of all the options. Clerics are not necessarily the devout clergy who were picked for something greater, they can simply be the chosen of their god. This goes all the way back to the Torah and potentially even further; Moses was not raised to be a follower of the Jewish god, he was chosen and then later was told and received instruction from there. The same thing can occur with Warlocks where they can be imbued with their power by this strange being.

There's also the old "sell my soul for greater power" trope. Especially if they go Fiendlock. Vengeance Paladin/Fiendlock even moreso.



The ones who it would be more difficult to justify on the fly to me are Druid, Ranger, Rogue, Fighter, and Bard.

Druid is probably the hardest because of the secret language. Maybe something along the lines of getting selected as the champion of the land or nature and getting kidna... err. a visit from a coven of druids. Works even better with a Folk Hero background. Not too different from joining a secret society, in a sense.

Ranger is similar to Druid, but for characters with a more martial background.

Rogue, well, it's not something you train for anyway, so anyone who decides to learn a few skills and fight dirty can reflect this change in their character mechanically by picking up a few levels in Rogue. Alternatively, just join a Guild of Assassins.

MCing into Fighter is easily justified by picking up training in weapons (and armor), which isn't that out of place for adventurers. War Cleric MCing into Fighter practically writes itself.

Bard, well, maybe your character just likes music. Works better with an Entertainer Background. Or maybe, well, he wanted to be a pop star all this while, but had to do something else to make ends meet (heh, familiar story). Or maybe he's another caster who discovered that music can enhance his magic.

[RickAllison]

There's also the old "sell my soul for greater power" trope. Especially if they go Fiendlock. Vengeance Paladin/Fiendlock even moreso.



Druid is probably the hardest because of the secret language. Maybe something along the lines of getting selected as the champion of the land or nature and getting kidna... err. a visit from a coven of druids. Works even better with a Folk Hero background. Not too different from joining a secret society, in a sense.

Ranger is similar to Druid, but for characters with a more martial background.

Rogue, well, it's not something you train for anyway, so anyone who decides to learn a few skills and fight dirty can reflect this change in their character mechanically by picking up a few levels in Rogue. Alternatively, just join a Guild of Assassins.

MCing into Fighter is easily justified by picking up training in weapons (and armor), which isn't that out of place for adventurers. War Cleric MCing into Fighter practically writes itself.

Bard, well, maybe your character just likes music. Works better with an Entertainer Background. Or maybe, well, he wanted to be a pop star all this while, but had to do something else to make ends meet (heh, familiar story). Or maybe he's another caster who discovered that music can enhance his magic.

For all of those, the barrier I see to entry is the idea that many of those abilities are from training. I can definitely see all of those classes giving reasons for multiclass, but it takes more involvement than divine/demonic intervention or finding a tome of knowledge.

[DwarvenGM]

You guys bring up some valid points. And it's good to hear that it's not as overpowered. I usually try to work with the players making up new backgrounds, allowing different proficiencies to fit concepts and other things like that.

Still I can't argue with the solid points I'm seeing here. I may put a soft ban on it. Unless they can give me a solid background to explain it, if they start the game with it. Or plenty of in game reason if they pick start mid campaign.

Thanks for the insight. Having the advice of people who've seen it in action was very helpful.

I'm still a little worried and one of the level dipping multiclassing. But will have talk with players that want that before I allow it.

[Tanarii]

Given it's a level 3 starting campaign, I don't see any reason not to allow it. Just slap on a "must have all levels within 1 level of each other" restriction, and go for it. (Edit: Obviously "must start multi-classed" as well. Just in case that isn't obvious.)

[RickAllison]

You guys bring up some valid points. And it's good to hear that it's not as overpowered. I usually try to work with the players making up new backgrounds, allowing different proficiencies to fit concepts and other things like that.

Still I can't argue with the solid points I'm seeing here. I may put a soft ban on it. Unless they can give me a solid background to explain it, if they start the game with it. Or plenty of in game reason if they pick start mid campaign.

Thanks for the insight. Having the advice of people who've seen it in action was very helpful.

I'm still a little worried and one of the level dipping multiclassing. But will have talk with players that want that before I allow it.

The one thing you might have to put into effect is a limitation on Repelling Blast, like 1/target/turn. Otherwise a Sorclock can prove very effective in keeping melee creatures too far away to attack...

[Hudsonian]

I see one of the biggest deterrents to multiclassing being in world consequences. Almost like a high school movie when one of the jocks start hanging out with the chess club... All of a sudden everybody treats them weird. They no longer fit into one of the neatly defined categories in peoples heads. Then you could deter some of the more off the wall multiclasses while definitely allowing others, rogue fighter? sure! Paladin Warlock? "who do you really belong to?".

And that would allow for you to look at the current in game situation, the players reason for multiclassing, and make decisions on the fly. Or simply have more flavor in the setting. Where one of the characters makes trouble or blessings for the others. And it doesn't always have to be a present disadvantage.

[gfishfunk]

You guys bring up some valid points. And it's good to hear that it's not as overpowered. I usually try to work with the players making up new backgrounds, allowing different proficiencies to fit concepts and other things like that.

Still I can't argue with the solid points I'm seeing here. I may put a soft ban on it. Unless they can give me a solid background to explain it, if they start the game with it. Or plenty of in game reason if they pick start mid campaign.

Thanks for the insight. Having the advice of people who've seen it in action was very helpful.

I'm still a little worried and one of the level dipping multiclassing. But will have talk with players that want that before I allow it.

One final thought, and then I'll bow out.

Classes are really mostly flavor in 5e. A barbarian does not need to be an illiterate savage, but can easily be someone that simply looses their cool and lets their anger overcome their better sense. Warlocks could be someone that has a pact with a foreign power - or could easily be someone that has developed quasi-magical powers and are constantly struggling with some kind of dark ideal. Rangers can be the classic outdoorsmen-connected-to-nature fighters, or simply someone that is a bit outdoorsy for a level and then begins actively pursuing it. Druids are difficult, but it could just be a sorcerer or wizard that focused on nature magic.

As the GM, you can work with the player to adjust the flavor and you really don't have to touch the actual abilities. Make the Players' Handbook fit into your world, not the other way around (imo).

[GorogIrongut]

Or, if you want to give your characters some choice, while limiting the cheddar. YOu tell them that they're allowed to MC... or use feats. They can have one of them but not both of them. That way they can tweak their character a bit, without worrying about a paladin barbarian with Great Weapon Master.

[RickAllison]

One final thought, and then I'll bow out.

Classes are really mostly flavor in 5e. A barbarian does not need to be an illiterate savage, but can easily be someone that simply looses their cool and lets their anger overcome their better sense. Warlocks could be someone that has a pact with a foreign power - or could easily be someone that has developed quasi-magical powers and are constantly struggling with some kind of dark ideal. Rangers can be the classic outdoorsmen-connected-to-nature fighters, or simply someone that is a bit outdoorsy for a level and then begins actively pursuing it. Druids are difficult, but it could just be a sorcerer or wizard that focused on nature magic.

As the GM, you can work with the player to adjust the flavor and you really don't have to touch the actual abilities. Make the Players' Handbook fit into your world, not the other way around (imo).

Heck, one of my favorite representations of the Barbarian is that instead of Raging, he Meditates. Re-flavoring it to be a warrior who occasionally enters an icy-cold calm fits everything in the barbarian chassis rather well.

[Sir cryosin]

SirCryosin, you bring up very valid points. You also made cry a little by the butchering of grammar and the lack of punctuation. It hurt me.

I'm am so sorry my good sir. I was talking in to my phone for that. I have a habit about long text block and forgetting to add proper punctuation and grammar.

[R.Shackleford]

Multiclassing is not balanced at all.

Allow it though. Most of the power classes aren't going to get all that much more powerful but the classes that are one dimensional can gain quite a bit from MC.

I hate how 5e does it, would have preferred a hybrid or Subclass MC system.

[Sir cryosin]

You guys bring up some valid points. And it's good to hear that it's not as overpowered. I usually try to work with the players making up new backgrounds, allowing different proficiencies to fit concepts and other things like that.

Still I can't argue with the solid points I'm seeing here. I may put a soft ban on it. Unless they can give me a solid background to explain it, if they start the game with it. Or plenty of in game reason if they pick start mid campaign.

Thanks for the insight. Having the advice of people who've seen it in action was very helpful.

I'm still a little worried and one of the level dipping multiclassing. But will have talk with players that want that before I allow it.

Another way I see it is that. There new lv dip is them trying and learning just like a mono class progressing in leveling.

[Rusvul]

I've seen two primary ways people build characters. Some find an interesting archetype or theme and build the mechanics around that. Others find an interesting set of mechanics and build a theme around them. Neither is right or wrong.

People of the first group think "I want to be this sort of character!" and then try to model that in the game. Let's suppose that one of these people wants to build a 'hell knight', a powerful armored soldier who calls upon the power of blazing fiends to bolster themself and smite their foes. This player might find an Oathbreaker paladin fits their vision- Or they might be disappointed by the lack of fire-based spells. Perhaps multiclassing with Sorcerer, Warlock, or Wizard brings them closer to their concept. Alternately, the Eldritch Knight or a Fighter multiclass might fit their 'hell-knight' better. Regardless, they have plenty of options, many of which are likely to satisfy them.

Consider a player of the second group. They see how well Paladin and Fiendlock combine, and this sparks an idea for an interesting 'hell-knight' type character. They write up a build- A few levels of Paladin, a few levels of Warlock, perhaps even a splash of Sorcerer. They end up with a powerful 'Lockadin specialized in wading into melee combat, wreathed in unholy flame and carrying a blade granted by their fiendish patron. Regardless of the powergaming motivation, this player is roleplaying no less than the first one. Telling this player they must play a single-classed character is not only likely to frustrate them (I can't play this interesting character that I built!) but it also hinders their now fleshed-out concept.

I am of the latter group. I get more invested in a character the more options I have, and the more invested I am, the more interesting all of the facets of the character end up. Allowing powergame-y options =/= discouraging roleplaying. For me, at least, it's quite the opposite.

In terms of classes- The easiest way to view classes in 5e is as mechanical packages rather than in-universe entities. I think any two (perhaps three or four) classes can be combined to make a cohesive character roleplay-wise. Sure, the Druid/Barbarian/Paladin might seem unfocused and silly mechanically, but the Knight of the Wild who fights furiously to defend their home? Perfectly valid character archetype. If your players can describe their multiclassed character as a cohesive whole, then by all means, let them multiclass. Trying to keep powergamers from powergaming is an exercise in futility anyway- giving them the options to multiclass is very unlikely to break the game, especially at 3rd level. (Be careful with UA, though. Some of that stuff is quite broken.)

[BurgerBeast]

I would lean toward disallowing it, because (1) as a DM things need to make sense for you in order to run the world, (2) it's optional. People seem to forget that. Nothing wrong with reminding them.

If you are considering trying it out, it has to be your decision. Otherwise it may lead to increased resentment. If you want to make that decision, do it and accept that the consequences are your fault. Don't do it because a player wanted it, because then you'll blame him if you don't like it.


In my next campaign my players will start at level 3 and one of my players has flat out stated he is multi classing whether I like it or not.

I'm a bit confused by this. Is there something I'm missing? You decide when the game starts and you decide who plays and who doesn't. If a player said this to me I'd tell him to have fun with his new DM. The game doesn't start until he follows the rules or f**ks off.


My knee jerk reaction was to say tell him I will treat his pc as the lowest level class he has taken thus making him a level 1.

This is just adversarial and leads to a ****ty time for everyone. He plays by your rules or finds a new DM. Maybe he'd like to DM and you can play.


But I'm starting to reconsider this, I see almost everyone allows it.

Don't let this be the reason.

[R.Shackleford]

I would lean toward disallowing it, because (1) as a DM things need to make sense for you in order to run the world, (2) it's optional. People seem to forget that. Nothing wrong with reminding them.

If you are considering trying it out, it has to be your decision. Otherwise it may lead to increased resentment. If you want to make that decision, do it and accept that the consequences are your fault. Don't do it because a player wanted it, because then you'll blame him if you don't like it.



I'm a bit confused by this. Is there something I'm missing? You decide when the game starts and you decide who plays and who doesn't. If a player said this to me I'd tell him to have fun with his new DM. The game doesn't start until he follows the rules or f**ks off.



This is just adversarial and leads to a ****ty time for everyone. He plays by your rules or finds a new DM. Maybe he'd like to DM and you can play.



Don't let this be the reason.

Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, while the player may not be in the right, you went from 0 to 100 really fast.

[DwarvenGM]

This is just adversarial and leads to a ****ty time for everyone. He plays by your rules or finds a new DM. Maybe he'd like to DM and you can play.

Yeah I admit I was out of line. I was frustrated with his aggressive tone and I acted foolishly. Though I've apologized to him and told him I'd reconsider multiclassing after I gave it some thought.

That's why I decided to see what other game masters thought on the issue and so far I'm glad I did.

And yeah I did offer to let him run a game but he is unable to.

[RickAllison]

Yeah I admit I was out of line. I was frustrated with his aggressive tone and I acted foolishly. Though I've apologized to him and told him I'd reconsider multiclassing after I gave it some thought.

That's why I decided to see what other game masters thought on the issue and so far I'm glad I did.

And yeah I did offer to let him run a game but he is unable to.

Despite the extremely aggressive way BurgerBeast put it, he does have some good points. Namely you should most consider how you feel about it and how it fits into your world. I think the best compromise is always that you have final say-so in whether the player's explanation makes sense.

Remember that while it is the player's character, it is your world that it has to fit into. Blocking a multiclass (IMO) should not be done because it is optional or because it could be used to powergame, but solely because the explanation doesn't make sense with how your world works. At that point, the best option is to sit down with the player and explain why the world doesn't function like that, and thus what has to be changed.

Take the Disney approach. Don't say "No", but instead "Yes, if..." with the if-statement establishing what changes need to made to fit it into the world. When I wanted to do the Undying Light, I worked with my DM to weave it into the story he was trying to create. I'm sure that if you talk it out with your player, she will be more than happy enough to work with you.

[Sir cryosin]

It's a game the player pictures what his character looks like, acts like, and what he can do, that why we love playing rpg's. Yes the DM is the god of his creation but. The player has free will and will have there own opions and wants. Everyone tells dm if they have a problem with a player to tell the player it's my way or the highway. And that just wrong they come to the table wanting to play. And in a lot of cases that might be the only table to play at. I play with a big group and that group has 3 other DM's in it that has other groups of there own. The smallest group out of are 3 DM's is a 4 player. We deal with a lot of MC. Hell I only have had one mono class so far. My point is stop bring fears from pass editions to 5e. Step out of your comfort zone and try letting your players mc. A dm's work is not easy at all and even if the mc player it a tad bit strong adjust the encounters a bit. Let the player build there characters that one of the most fun about rpg's. That's why as DM's become DM's it to create and tell a epic story. There arnt overly op MC options out there for 5e. If a player stats to get a little bit to powerful just play to there weakness. There's not a one build rules them all in this edition. Well not that I have come across. Now I'm not telling you to let your player run your game I'm just want you to work with them. If I want a nightblade character but the arcane trickster don't have the right abilitys or spells for what I in vision. But a rogue warlock dip does why can't I play that character.

[Draco4472]

I've always found multiclassing to better allow a player to build a specific type of character, especially in this edition where it's been better done (in my opinion) then in some of the previous. I have and always will allow it at groups I'm DMing as I find it better lets one be creative in character building. If your players want to multiclass, I heartily recommend you let them.

[Corran]

In 5e I've heard it is more balanced and in my own reading it does seem so. But I still dislike the thought of a fighter suddenly learning to cast spells mid campaign or a rogue suddenly learning how to use any armor or weapon.

Even with strict singleclass progression, you can still face the same problems, such as how does a rogue start casting spells when he chooses arcane trickster as his archtype at level 3. Sames holds true with the EK fighter. What about a paladin and his oath, how do you justify it kicking in exactly when the campaign hits 3 level? In short, if you start paying that close attention to such things, you will find that multiclassing is not the main problem. Sure, it might allow combinations that are more tricky to justify, but that is not always the case. For example, I cannot see how it is different to justufy a rogue multiclassing into some sort of caster, than justifying a single class arcane trickster rogue. Just because arcane trickster is a default option, that doesnt mean that it is more easily justified or roleplayed than any other martial/caster multiclass. And that is just one example.

My point is, justifying it roleplaying-wise, takes combined effort between the DM and the player himself. Perhaps it will take a special quest, or a peculiar incident (a blast of weird magical energy hits the rogue and boom, his next level is wild sorcerer), or even some downtime. And since it is you who wants these little details to make sense, it is kind of your job to help the player realise his build in a logical and explainable way (to the extent that this is possible ofc). You can always ban multiclassing or anything that does not sit well with you, but imo this is not classy. You have to recognize that it is you who has issues with this style of play, and thus it would be more appropriate if you work with the player who wants to multiclass so his multiclassing makes sense, than just denying options so that you dont hurt your preferences. And who knows, if both you and the player create a nice scenario under which the PC multiclasses (eg have a patron contact and use rp to possibly make a deal with the PC, and thus warlock multiclassing, instead of for example just having the player decide to take a warlock level out of the blue without any explanation and justification), even the player will be much more invested in his character now, so that is a double win!

ps: All of the above is a mixture of advice and criticism, please dont take the criticism in the wrong way, I didnt mean to offend you and I hope that I didnt.

[RickAllison]

I've always found multiclassing to better allow a player to build a specific type of character, especially in this edition where it's been better done (in my opinion) then in some of the previous. I have and always will allow it at groups I'm DMing as I find it better lets one be creative in character building. If your players want to multiclass, I heartily recommend you let them.

Indeed. Even with just using two classes (the most common), that takes us from 12 to 132 combinations (some of which are more viable than others, but each have a theoretical place). With subclasses added in, it gets even more diverse!

[BurgerBeast]

Pot, meet kettle.

Seriously, while the player may not be in the right, you went from 0 to 100 really fast.

I guess tone doesn't come off very well through text. Let's put it this way, if someone is going to play in a 5e campaign, they should not assume that any of the optional rules are in play unless they consult the DM first. In fact, they sound;t even assume all of the core rules are in place unless they consult the DM first, because there might campaign-specific exceptions and new rules.

If a player asks his DM if a certain rule is in place, and the DM says no, and then the player say "I'm doing it anyway," in my opinion that's being a ****. No, that's really not my opinion. He is objectively being a ****. At that point, the DM should handle it by dismissing the player. If you think that's a problem, then you have no idea how much more of a problem it is when you give in to someone like this. If the player wants different rules, then someone else can DM.

Saying "no" isn't rude. Telling the DM that you are going to show up at his game and actively and intentionally disrespect it is pretty much the height of rude. It should be met appropriately.


At that point, the best option is to sit down with the player and explain why the world doesn't function like that, and thus what has to be changed.

I agree. I just think it's a bit different when the player has already said, in essence, "I don't care what the rules are, I'm going to play in your game without following them."


Take the Disney approach. Don't say "No", but instead "Yes, if..."

I personally disagree with this. I think over time this eventually leads to less DM control and more player control, which is not bad in itself. It's bad because eventually the DM runs a worse game because the DM loses his grasp on the internal consistencies of his world.


It's a game the player pictures what his character looks like, acts like, and what he can do, that why we love playing rpg's. Yes the DM is the god of his creation but. The player has free will and will have there own opions and wants. Everyone tells dm if they have a problem with a player to tell the player it's my way or the highway. And that just wrong they come to the table wanting to play. And in a lot of cases that might be the only table to play at.

So how far do you take this? What if the player wants to play a class from the DMG? What if the player wants to use fears in a no-feat campaign. Those don't seem to bad. What if the player wants to play a gunslinger in a gun-less world, or play in a sci-fi campaign campaign set in the present when the campaign is typical D&D, what if the player wants to be a bugbear or a dragon?

Everyone has a line. The line is arbitrary.


Now I'm not telling you to let your player run your game I'm just want you to work with them.

It's his game and the player is quite literally telling him how to run it. Actually it's worse. The player is saying: I don't care how you want to run it, I'm going to play it the way I want. Also, offering to let him run the game, or let someone else run a game that they can both play in, is working with him. Working with someone does not mean doing what they want or being their doormat.

Everyone put on your big-boy or big-girl pants and understand that saying "no" is okay. It's not rude. And if someone disrespects you, being rude back is just fine. It might even win you some respect.

[Corran]

snip
Saying ''no'' is ok. I agree. But the topic here is not a matter of ''yes'' or ''no''. There is always the scenario where the DM and the player work together (with mutual understanding to one another's ''wants'', and with the DM possibly drawing the line where he thinks he should in respect to what multiclassing combos can be justified - although that has to be subject of a big discussion between the player and the DM), to create the conditions under which the requested multiclass makes sense. And that can also be the case when a player wants his multiclass combo to make sense, even if the DM doesnt mind but the player does. If a DM is refusing to do that, that implies that said DM is not interested at all at the player characters, and possibly all he cares about is to tell a story to an audience. So what good such a DM is?

[Malifice]

Multiclassing is perfectly balanced in 5E. There is no mechanical reason to disallow it.

And to those calling a Warlock dip of 2 levels broken, lol.

Who on earth wants to delay higher level spells, extra attack, ASI/ Feats and your 11th level class feature by two whole levels (several sessions of play) for a decent at will ranged attack, probably only marginally better than what you can do with a cantrip or a bow anyway?

[RickAllison]

I guess tone doesn't come off very well through text. Let's put it this way, if someone is going to play in a 5e campaign, they should not assume that any of the optional rules are in play unless they consult the DM first. In fact, they sound;t even assume all of the core rules are in place unless they consult the DM first, because there might campaign-specific exceptions and new rules.

If a player asks his DM if a certain rule is in place, and the DM says no, and then the player say "I'm doing it anyway," in my opinion that's being a ****. No, that's really not my opinion. He is objectively being a ****. At that point, the DM should handle it by dismissing the player. If you think that's a problem, then you have no idea how much more of a problem it is when you give in to someone like this. If the player wants different rules, then someone else can DM.

Saying "no" isn't rude. Telling the DM that you are going to show up at his game and actively and intentionally disrespect it is pretty much the height of rude. It should be met appropriately.



I agree. I just think it's a bit different when the player has already said, in essence, "I don't care what the rules are, I'm going to play in your game without following them."



I personally disagree with this. I think over time this eventually leads to less DM control and more player control, which is not bad in itself. It's bad because eventually the DM runs a worse game because the DM loses his grasp on the internal consistencies of his world.



So how far do you take this? What if the player wants to play a class from the DMG? What if the player wants to use fears in a no-feat campaign. Those don't seem to bad. What if the player wants to play a gunslinger in a gun-less world, or play in a sci-fi campaign campaign set in the present when the campaign is typical D&D, what if the player wants to be a bugbear or a dragon?

Everyone has a line. The line is arbitrary.



It's his game and the player is quite literally telling him how to run it. Actually it's worse. The player is saying: I don't care how you want to run it, I'm going to play it the way I want. Also, offering to let him run the game, or let someone else run a game that they can both play in, is working with him. Working with someone does not mean doing what they want or being their doormat.

Everyone put on your big-boy or big-girl pants and understand that saying "no" is okay. It's not rude. And if someone disrespects you, being rude back is just fine. It might even win you some respect.

Actually, putting on the big-boy/girl pants is opening oneself up to compromise. Anyone can say "No, it works this way." Really. Kids are more than capable of doing it. What is difficult for DMs (and anyone else, for that matter) is being able to work out the differences to find the solution that makes everyone happy. Sure, if you have a petulant player that refuses to merge their concept into how your world works, then even a mature DM has to go "Sorry, no go." But defaulting to it? Bad DMing and bad interpersonal skills.

Really, I think you are reading more out of what the OP said of the player than is there. It doesn't seem like a case of a petulant human-child refusing to merge the character with the world, but instead someone whose concept doesn't work with the single-class concept. Just as a player needs to be willing to immerse the PC within the setting, the DM should reciprocate by ensuring that the player's concept (so long as the player shows how it does make sense) can come to fruition.

If someone explains to me how their priest of Bhaal was non-Evil because they committed grisly murders in his name against evil-doers in order to keep him content and not raising cultists, I would be inclined to listen. The Oathbreaker/Warlock who has adopted every raiment of Evil in order to fight the same for the sake of Good is a compelling and flawed character. If someone wants to play a gunslinger in a gun-free setting, I would work with them to create a way to realize that concept within the universe (somewhere on this sub-forum, I think I actually have a homebrew on hand crossbows that used the automatic modifications from the Derro to replicate that actually). If someone wants it to be a different setting, then they can play a crazy person; I believe in incorporating concepts into the world, but I won't change the world to fit a concept. If the player wants to be a bugbear, then I would suggest a re-fluffed half-orc. If they want to be a dragon, I would suggest having them either be a dragon cursed into their current form (a metallic that tried to use his abilities to conquer humanity from within, perhaps?) or someone like a dragonborn who aspired to be a dragon, which either way would be recommended to take a class that got True Polymorph so they can really become a dragon.

There are lots of ways to incorporate character concepts into worlds without compromising the lore of the world. A DM just has to be mature and willing to step outside his/her comfort zone and really examine what makes their setting tick.

[Malifice]

If someone explains to me how their priest of Bhaal was non-Evil because they committed grisly murders in his name against evil-doers in order to keep him content and not raising cultists, I would be inclined to listen. .

Never change GiTP, never change.

If a player said that to me, I'd shrug and write an E on their character sheet. In ink.

[Isidorios]

People with the burning need to play a Special Snowflake character concept just need a DM willing to assist them with finding a background and crafting/modifying an archetype to better realize their snowflakiness.

The majority of players wanting to multiclass so they can optimize combat effectiveness need to go find someone to run 3.Pleasebuymysplatbooks for them.

That's my opinion of multi-classing.

[RickAllison]

Never change GiTP, never change.

If a player said that to me, I'd shrug and write an E on their character sheet. In ink.

Considering that the priest is seeing the options of "Go murder some kobolds in their den [standard adventurer fare]" or "Let him bring out other cultists that murder gobs of innocents," I would say he has a pretty damn good reasoning. In D&D, supposedly Good gods endorse genocide, while the followers of Evil deities can find ways to keep their gods placated so Good people don't suffer. The world of D&D is not as black-and-white as you believe it to be, and in fact probably has more grey in it than reality does. Good does awful things, while Evil can advance the best parts of civilization.

[Prakriti]

I allowed multiclassing and feats in my campaign and I now regret it. They are not balanced. Take, for example, our Paladin/Fighter with Greater Weapon Master, Precision Attack, Divine Smite, and Action Surge. He out-performs every pure-class character in the game. By a lot.

If you allow feats and multiclassing in your campaign, you can expect two things to happen:
- The other players will feel compelled to multiclass in order keep up.
- You will have to re-design every encounter in a published adventure, because published adventures are too easy for multiclass characters.

Personally, I don't plan to allow feats or multiclassing in my next campaign. I've learned my lesson.

[Isidorios]

Actually, putting on the big-boy/girl pants is opening oneself up to compromise. Anyone can say "No, it works this way." Really. Kids are more than But defaulting to it? Bad DMing and bad interpersonal skills.

Just as a player needs to be willing to immerse the PC within the setting, the DM should reciprocate by ensuring that the player's concept (so long as the player shows how it does make sense) can come to fruition.


There are lots of ways to incorporate character concepts into worlds without compromising the lore of the world. A DM just has to be mature and willing to step outside his/her comfort zone and really examine what makes their setting tick.

You don't often DM, right?
The DM is doing the heavy lifting, he has to create a world to entertain several people at once, fill it with NPCs that engage said players, device quests and conflicts that draw in the players and give them a sense of accomplishment.

And in your opinion, it's asking too much for a player to come up with more than ONE concept for a character to play, that they should absolutely stick to their guns and wrangle a compromise for THIS ONE AWESOME GUY that they just GOTTA play omgz...

Terrible, terrible advice for DMs.

[Isidorios]

Considering that the priest is seeing the options of "Go murder some kobolds in their den [standard adventurer fare]" or "Let him bring out other cultists that murder gobs of innocents," I would say he has a pretty damn good reasoning. In D&D, supposedly Good gods endorse genocide, while the followers of Evil deities can find ways to keep their gods placated so Good people don't suffer. The world of D&D is not as black-and-white as you believe it to be, and in fact probably has more grey in it than reality does. Good does awful things, while Evil can advance the best parts of civilization.

As long as one is using the hackneyed Alignment system (which I don't), then yes, D&D is exactly Black and White. In a universe where things can radiate detectable EVIL, you think it isn't?

[RickAllison]

I allowed multiclassing and feats in my campaign and I now regret it. They are not balanced. Take, for example, our Paladin/Fighter with Greater Weapon Master, Precision Attack, Divine Smite, and Action Surge. He out-performs every pure-class character in the game. By a lot.

If you allow feats and multiclassing in your campaign, you can expect two things to happen:
- The other players will feel compelled to multiclass in order keep up.
- You will have to re-design every encounter in a published adventure, because published adventures are too easy for multiclass characters.

Personally, I don't plan to allow feats or multiclassing in my next campaign. I've learned my lesson.

Is that really because of the synergy of the multiclass, or because GWM really is an unbalanced feat. Yeah, the player likely has a godly nova. He doesn't have the slots to sustain it and likely is drained after one round of combat. And for all that, he has sacrificed essentially all his exploration pillar options and doesn't have much of interest for social.

The person has created a PC who is a one-round wonder. I would think that someone optimized for one round of combat should be a good sight better for that round when he is outperformed over the interesting parts of the day. Especially if you are using the 6-8 encounters per day, his nova shouldn't be nearly so powerful as it looks on paper.

[Isidorios]

I Take, for example, our Paladin/Fighter
It's always hilarious to me how regularly everyone's "Totally unique and interesting character concept" involves a dip into Paladin and/or Warlock.

[RickAllison]

You don't often DM, right?
The DM is doing the heavy lifting, he has to create a world to entertain several people at once, fill it with NPCs that engage said players, device quests and conflicts that draw in the players and give them a sense of accomplishment.

And in your opinion, it's asking too much for a player to come up with more than ONE concept for a character to play, that they should absolutely stick to their guns and wrangle a compromise for THIS ONE AWESOME GUY that they just GOTTA play omgz...

Terrible, terrible advice for DMs.

No, I DM quite a bit. I go over each PC with my players to ensure that it both fits the world I'm creating and that it is a character that they can enjoy for potentially the duration of the campaign. It is a one-time cost to ensure that the player is more immersed to enjoy every other aspect of the universe I create. If you can't take half an hour to ensure that a component of the world you are making meshes with both the rest of the machine and the motor that's turning it for potentially years, you might reconsider your final sentence there and to whom it should be directed.


As long as one is using the hackneyed Alignment system (which I don't), then yes, D&D is exactly Black and White. In a universe where things can radiate detectable EVIL, you think it isn't?

Once again, we have examples of Good gods that don't just accept but actively endorse genocide. No, D&D alignment is a far-cry from black-and-white. You are deluding yourself to think otherwise.

[Corran]

You don't often DM, right?
The DM is doing the heavy lifting, he has to create a world to entertain several people at once, fill it with NPCs that engage said players, device quests and conflicts that draw in the players and give them a sense of accomplishment.

And in your opinion, it's asking too much for a player to come up with more than ONE concept for a character to play, that they should absolutely stick to their guns and wrangle a compromise for THIS ONE AWESOME GUY that they just GOTTA play omgz...

Terrible, terrible advice for DMs.
Putting aside that saying ''no'' without discussing it is....emm.... whatever it is, does denying players options falls into the entertaining several people category. Denying something only because YOU are not comfortable with it, without giving it a second thought, means entertaining yourself at the expense of someone else's fun.

[Corran]

It's always hilarious to me how regularly everyone's "Totally unique and interesting character concept" involves a dip into Paladin and/or Warlock.
Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of these builds are fairly suboptimal, especially if you follow the guidelines about # of encounters, short rests and so on. Especially in the case of your player's fighter/paladin.... I cannot even imagine a single circumastance under which I would suggest doing it.

My experience is, that multiclassing generally is a bad idea regarding optimization, unless when you really want to optimize around a specific aspect of a character. And in those cases, the multiclass cost always keeps the character in line (perhaps there are exception to this, but this is the general rule IME).

[RickAllison]

Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of these builds are fairly suboptimal, especially if you follow the guidelines about # of encounters, short rests and so on. Especially in the case of your player's fighter/paladin.... I cannot even imagine a single circumastance under which I would suggest doing it.

My experience is, that multiclassing generally is a bad idea regarding optimization, unless when you really want to optimize around a specific aspect of a character. And in those cases, the multiclass cost always keeps the character in line (perhaps there are exception to this, but this is the general rule IME).

Multiclass costs often have more to do with when the classes are taken rather than if. A Sorcerer 17/Warlock 3 is better in almost every way to a Sorcerer 20, even replicating the Sorcerer 20 ability. The problem is the levels leading up to that point. There are numerous times where the Warlock 3/Sorcerer 2 is going to be worse than the Sorcerer 5. Unless the party is generating massive amounts of short rests, the Sorclock is defined by getting more lower-level slots at the cost of higher level slots and spells. The Sorclock will certainly be powerful, but that dip has a heavy cost in terms of the raw power of the caster for every level.

Fighter 2/Wizard 18 is another one. It is almost unanimous that the combination of Con saving throws, armor, and an extra full spell per turn per short rest is well worth a free third-level spell and an ASI. However it becomes far more questionable at every step along the way to that final point.

When you look at the power of a multiclass, make sure to consider it as a character that levels rather than what it looks like under ideal circumstances at level 20.

[Isidorios]

No, I DM quite a bit. I go over each PC with my players to ensure that it both fits the world I'm creating



Once again, we have examples of Good gods that don't just accept but actively endorse genocide.

And yet you admonish DMs who won't allow in a character concept if it Absolutely Requires multiclassing, and the DM doesn't want to use that optional rule. You're being inconsistent.

You have Good Gods that want to see the destruction of Evil races that pursue Evil ends broadly as a race. You cannot even HAVE "Good" Gods in a non B&W universe. By definition you are painting the cosmos in Black and White terms.

[Corran]

Multiclass costs often have more to do with when the classes are taken rather than if. A Sorcerer 17/Warlock 3 is better in almost every way to a Sorcerer 20, even replicating the Sorcerer 20 ability. The problem is the levels leading up to that point. There are numerous times where the Warlock 3/Sorcerer 2 is going to be worse than the Sorcerer 5. Unless the party is generating massive amounts of short rests, the Sorclock is defined by getting more lower-level slots at the cost of higher level slots and spells. The Sorclock will certainly be powerful, but that dip has a heavy cost in terms of the raw power of the caster for every level.

Fighter 2/Wizard 18 is another one. It is almost unanimous that the combination of Con saving throws, armor, and an extra full spell per turn per short rest is well worth a free third-level spell and an ASI. However it becomes far more questionable at every step along the way to that final point.

When you look at the power of a multiclass, make sure to consider it as a character that levels rather than what it looks like under ideal circumstances at level 20.
Oh definitelly, I 100% agree.

[Corran]

And yet you admonish DMs who won't allow in a character concept if it Absolutely Requires multiclassing, and the DM doesn't want to use that optional rule. You're being inconsistent.

If a DM doesnt want to allow multiclass or even feats, just because he wants a simpler game, that is totally fine. If he is not allowing them (or a portion of them) because he doesnt like it flavourwise, and does not care about the opinions of the players (who are the ones who will afterall be playing said characters), it is certainly his prerogative to do so (as is the player's to refuse participating in such a game). For reasons already suggested in previous posts, you can see why some people considering this to be bad dming.

[Isidorios]

Putting aside that saying ''no'' without discussing it is....emm.... whatever it is, does denying players options falls into the entertaining several people category. Denying something only because YOU are not comfortable with it, without giving it a second thought, means entertaining yourself at the expense of someone else's fun.

You think I disallow Multiclassing as a form of self-entertainment? No siree. I disallow Multiclassing because 99.9% of the time it's a munchkin's pursuit of "optimization" at the expense of the other players who might specifically want a breath of fresh air from 3.5/3.Pathfinder Munchkin Wars. And I get tired of rolling my eyes at the various convoluted "character backgrounds" that justify the existence of the awkward multiclass combo that the forums says is optimal.

With Backgrounds, well-balanced classes, a variety of good Archetypes in the books and UA and Feats, there are plenty options to build just about anything you want in the game already. There's absolutely no compelling need to allow multiclassing whatsoever.
I say this as someone running a game for a group with a Travel Domain Cleric, where myself and the player spent a lot of time coming up with a Homebrew Domain, and in the same game I have another player using a homebrewed spell-less Ranger. As a DM I am absolutely willing to go the extra distance for a player with a really good idea. Those players are almost uniformly not the ones who approach me with a Paladin/Warlock multiclass "idea". Screw 'em.

[Isidorios]

If a DM doesnt want to allow multiclass or even feats, just because he wants a simpler game, that is totally fine. If he is not allowing them (or a portion of them) because he doesnt like it flavourwise, and does not care about the opinions of the players (who are the ones who will afterall be playing said characters), it is certainly his prerogative to do so (as is the player's to refuse participating in such a game). For reasons already suggested in previous posts, you can see why some people considering this to be bad dming.

It's funny to me that you think you can be the arbiter of what's fine not/fine for a DM's justification in not allowing optional rules.

The idea that a DM could disallow Flintlocks "for a simpler game" and it would be ok for you, but if he didn't want them because they "don't like it flavorwise" it would open them up to critical appraisal as a "Bad DM".......
Priceless.

[Pex]

You don't often DM, right?
The DM is doing the heavy lifting, he has to create a world to entertain several people at once, fill it with NPCs that engage said players, device quests and conflicts that draw in the players and give them a sense of accomplishment.

And in your opinion, it's asking too much for a player to come up with more than ONE concept for a character to play, that they should absolutely stick to their guns and wrangle a compromise for THIS ONE AWESOME GUY that they just GOTTA play omgz...

Terrible, terrible advice for DMs.

That's exactly it. The DM runs everything. The DM creates everything. A player's character is the one and only thing the player as any say on what he wants to do, and you want to take that away from him. I throw it back in your court. Why does the DM need players and instead write the novel he wants if he gets to decide what character players must have?

Now there is a counterpoint. If the DM really wants to run a campaign about the Holy Order of Saintly Philanthropists vanquishing the scourge of fiends and undead threatening the land, he is well within his rights to say no to a player wanting to play a plundering murdering pirate ninja. The DM is also within his rights to ensure certain abilities don't end up making the game unplayable, such as the now infamous Wish/Simulacrum debacle or Conjure Woodland Beings for 8 pixies each casting Polymorph and those are just what single class characters could possibly do. A player wanting to multiclass paladin/warlock or whatever is nowhere near either extreme and not something to be poo-pooed. It is the DM's campaign, but it is everyone's game.

[ad_hoc]

I also disallow multiclassing.

I like that D&D is class based. Multiclassing takes away from that. Or in other words, I like the silos. I like the clear tropes that each character embodies because of their class.

We do use most of the feats and between those, subclasses, and backgrounds, 5e has a lot to offer for customization.

I'm all for new feats, subclasses, and backgrounds too if they are balanced. SCAG does a great job overall of introducing new options while keeping the archetypes that the classes represent.

[Isidorios]

That's exactly it. The DM runs everything. The DM creates everything. A player's character is the one and only thing the player as any say on what he wants to do, and you want to take that away from him. I throw it back in your court. Why does the DM need players and instead write the novel he wants if he gets to decide what character players must have?

Here's my Nehwon Campaign: No playable demi-human races. 9 slight cultural human "variants" that aren't as extreme as non-humans. No Heavy Armor (fighters get the equivalent of specialization with a single weapon instead). No Alignments. No Multiclassing.

Amazingly, the players have managed to put together distinctive and effective characters they enjoy playing tremendously, (we are on session 16) and not a single one of them has expressed the desire to multiclass. I also lack any Edgelords trying to basically play an "evil character", and this is with one of them having a background of growing up in a society of belligerent raiders.

It's strange how they are having a great time and not feeling oppressed.

There is an amazing amount of variety possible character-wise without using Multiclassing, so let's stop all the Drama-queening about "The DM wants to make my character for me."

[Isidorios]

I'm all for new feats, subclasses, and backgrounds too if they are balanced. SCAG does a great job overall of introducing new options while keeping the archetypes that the classes represent.

Exactly, all it requires is IMAGINATION. Whereas the overwhelming majority of multiclassers are simply munchkins trying for a super-combo.

[Corran]

You think I disallow Multiclassing as a form of self-entertainment? No siree. I disallow Multiclassing because 99.9% of the time it's a munchkin's pursuit of "optimization" at the expense of the other players who might specifically want a breath of fresh air from 3.5/3.Pathfinder Munchkin Wars. And I get tired of rolling my eyes at the various convoluted "character backgrounds" that justify the existence of the awkward multiclass combo that the forums says is optimal.

With Backgrounds, well-balanced classes, a variety of good Archetypes in the books and UA and Feats, there are plenty options to build just about anything you want in the game already. There's absolutely no compelling need to allow multiclassing whatsoever.
I say this as someone running a game for a group with a Travel Domain Cleric, where myself and the player spent a lot of time coming up with a Homebrew Domain, and in the same game I have another player using a homebrewed spell-less Ranger. As a DM I am absolutely willing to go the extra distance for a player with a really good idea. Those players are almost uniformly not the ones who approach me with a Paladin/Warlock multiclass "idea". Screw 'em.
So, let me make sure I have this right. You say that you might not allow certain multiclass combinations because they tend to lead to powerful characters and that might upset the balance of the game, and hence other players, right? And I also assume from what you say later, that if a player asked you about a very peculiar multiclass combo and it was clear to you that he was pursuing it just because he had a real interest in a weird build that would acommodate his peculiar concept, and it didnt lead to a superpowerful character (ie the player is not being a munchkin), you would sit down and try to help him realise his build, thus his concept. Right?
And that you are against multiclassing when done completelly from a munchkin's perspective, correct? Well, if I got right all of the above, then good news for you, multiclassing does not really break game balance. Let the paladin/warlock player think he aced in character creation, that is not necessarily the case. (And really, all those paladin/warlock characters, have undeservingly such a bad reputation, I personaly consider the opposite of what most people think to be the case, ie that said multiclass has little synergy and that the concept is rock solid).

Let me ask you another question. Say I come into one of your games, at character creation, and I come with a single plan in mind for my new character. Sure, I might have a lot of details planned out, but my main idea, regarding combat - and dnd revolves quite a lot around combat so I don think it is bad to plan characters around that too, would be to be awesome at grappling enemies? Why? Perhaps because this character is a former wrestler, or perhaps because that is just the way I envisioned this character fighting. Would you not allow me to play, say for example, a rogue/barbarian multiclass, because my reasoning comes purely from a mechanics-perspective point?

My point is, that the classes themselves define far fewer things than you make out, regarding a PC. Meaning that if I want to play a barbarian/rogue for being play a fantastic wrestler with some anger management issues, is just as valid as wanting to play a rogue because I want to be good at stealing, or playing a cleric because I wanna be good at healing, of a fighter because I wanna be good at fighting, etc. There are tons of multiclass combinations that represent ideas that are just as valid as the ones the archtypes of classes represent. Just because there is not an officially published wrestler class in the phb, does not mean that this idea of a character is not equally valid. Single classes with all their archtypes, cannot cover everything, that's why there is multiclassing (even as an optional rule). Essentially multiclassing expands the game in a sense that you can now incorporate new concepts, and you can do that by specificaly tailoring your build to accomodate such concepts, which is not munchkinism, rather it makes very good sense.

And I repeat, if your problem is dealing with munchkins, you have a lot more to fear from munchkins using UA, than from munchins-wanna-be who use official material and multiclassing. Because multiclassing is not broken, it is just a common misconception that it is.

[BurgerBeast]

All right, it seems that much of my point is being misconstrued. I do think there should be discussion between DM and players, and I do think there should be a certain degree of give-and-take. In my view, the main time for such discussions is before the DM and the campaign are chosen. It's great to have discussions and include players in the decisions about campaign focus, etc. But then the DM has to take control and lay down the framework as the pitch or the "session zero," and sometimes there needs to be some discussion and compromise here, too. It's to a lesser extent, and ultimately the "DM has final say." I put this in quotes because the player can still decide not to play at this point, so the DM doesn't really have final say anyway. When players lobby the DM, however, it's important to realize that all of the following are acceptable: saying no, suggesting alternatives, reaching a compromise, or giving in to the player's desires and adjusting. All are acceptable.

With this in mind...

My assumptions based on the OP are that:

(1) there has been discussion, at least to the point that there was an agreement that he would DM (since the OP is the DM)

(2) the DM is generally opposed to multi classing, based on previous experiences, which occurred in different editions (he says so)

(3) his opposition to multi classing was "mostly that he didn't like power gamers"

(4) he still dislikes the very idea of multi classing because it doesn't reconcile well with him in terms of narrative consistency (or mechanics matching narrative)

(5) "one of [his] players has flat out stated he is multi classing whether [the DM] like[s] it or not"

(6) He responded by saying he'd just punish him using the game (treat the PC as his lowest level class and ignore all other classes)

(7) He's reconsidering the mechanics-narrative dynamic and considering whether he can make it work, so to speak.

(8) He "want[s] to sit down and talk it out with this player"

I'm trying to stick to this (the information in the OP) and not go off on tangents or speculate about the underlying causes of anything. It seems to me that 5 & 6 indicate that there's a conflict here. 5 indicates that it was initiated by the player in an inflexible, no-compromise way.


There is always the scenario where the DM and the player work together (with mutual understanding to one another's ''wants'', and with the DM possibly drawing the line where he thinks he should in respect to what multiclassing combos can be justified - although that has to be subject of a big discussion between the player and the DM), to create the conditions under which the requested multiclass makes sense.

So I agree with all of this. I think the player demonstrated his unwillingness to have such a conversation based on (5) above.


If a DM is refusing to do that, that implies that said DM is not interested at all at the player characters,...

No, it doesn't.


...and possibly all he cares about is to tell a story to an audience. So what good such a DM is?

This is pure speculation.


Actually, putting on the big-boy/girl pants is opening oneself up to compromise. Anyone can say "No, it works this way." Really. Kids are more than capable of doing it.

I agree. But when a player announces to me that he is going to actively and intentionally disrespect the rules, I don't start looking for ways to reach a compromise.


Sure, if you have a petulant player that refuses to merge their concept into how your world works, then even a mature DM has to go "Sorry, no go." But defaulting to it? Bad DMing and bad interpersonal skills.

I agree. But I give the OP the benefit of the doubt and assume that both he and the player are capable of compromise. Until the OP indicates (5) above. At that point, the player has refused to engage in a mature conversation. Hence my stance on the matter.


Really, I think you are reading more out of what the OP said of the player than is there. It doesn't seem like a case of a petulant human-child refusing to merge the character with the world, but instead someone whose concept doesn't work with the single-class concept.

Really? The player "flat out stated that he is going to multi-class whether the DM likes it or not" sounds that way to you?


Just as a player needs to be willing to immerse the PC within the setting, the DM should reciprocate by ensuring that the player's concept (so long as the player shows how it does make sense) can come to fruition.

Again, totally agree and it was my default assumption until (5) came into play.


If the player wants to be a bugbear, then I would suggest a re-fluffed half-orc. If they want to be a dragon, I would suggest having them either be a dragon cursed into their current form (a metallic that tried to use his abilities to conquer humanity from within, perhaps?) or someone like a dragonborn who aspired to be a dragon, which either way would be recommended to take a class that got True Polymorph so they can really become a dragon.

These aren't different than saying "no," to me. So if the player wants to play a multi-class then suggest a single classed character who lines up with the same concept via backgrounds and feats. This is the obvious solution, but to my mind it's still ultimately saying no to a multi-classed character in the same way that re-fluffing an orc is ultimately saying no to bugbears, or playing a dragon trapped in a human (or playing a dragonborn) is still not playing a dragon.


There are lots of ways to incorporate character concepts into worlds without compromising the lore of the world. A DM just has to be mature and willing to step outside his/her comfort zone and really examine what makes their setting tick.

Agreed. Disallowing multi-classing is independent of this, in my view. And the advice also applies to the players. Just "be mature and willing to step outside of their comfort zones."


No, I DM quite a bit. I go over each PC with my players...

All good advice. Again, I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt that both he and the player would be open to such things... but then... (5).


Putting aside that saying ''no'' without discussing it is....emm.... whatever it is,...

Presumably, when the player "flat out stated that he is going to multi-class whether the DM likes it or not," there was a discussion going on. So there was a discussion. Now let's focus on what happened instead of some hypothetical.


...does denying players options falls into the entertaining several people category.

There's no reason why it can't. Most DMs don't allow their players to be the Tarrasque. That's denying an option. Yet these DMs still entertain several people. Some DMs flat-out don't allow gnomes. They can still entertain several people.


Denying something only because YOU are not comfortable with it, without giving it a second thought, means entertaining yourself at the expense of someone else's fun.

First of all, there's no reason to assume he hasn't given it a second thought. To the contrary, this thread is evidence that he is giving it second thought... so... there's that. Second of all, "just because YOU are uncomfortable with it" is a perfectly acceptable reason. It seems about on par with "they don't exist in MY world," or "THIS world," to me.You can use it to rule out dragonborn, warlocks, gnomes, paladins, or anything else you want.

[RickAllison]

And yet you admonish DMs who won't allow in a character concept if it Absolutely Requires multiclassing, and the DM doesn't want to use that optional rule. You're being inconsistent.

You have Good Gods that want to see the destruction of Evil races that pursue Evil ends broadly as a race. You cannot even HAVE "Good" Gods in a non B&W universe. By definition you are painting the cosmos in Black and White terms.

My point about the Good gods that endorse genocide is that D&D's alignment system has just as much complexity and grey as the real world. How is genocide normally such an Evil thing to do, yet we have Good gods that endorse it? Maybe because the lines between those alignments are not as clear cut as some would wish. Gone are the days of "This is what it means to be LG", and we instead are left with "This is LG according to this faith, and this is LG according to this one, and..."

And yes I do admonish DMs who refuse to allow multi-classing due to incorrect assumptions like imbalances and because they do not want any characters to leave their neat little boxes (unless those neat little boxes are built into the setting. Maybe getting divinely chosen by the gods does dictate that a cleric cannot ever touch anything outside of their domains, or that being imbued from magic since birth as a Sorcerer means they are incapable of joining the army and training to be a Fighter; that is a weird setting, but it makes sense in-universe so players have to roll with it). Humans are adaptable, and you can bet that we will find ways to make a concept work in spite of a DM shutting it down. But telling someone who wants to be the brainy academic "No, you cannot take a level of Rogue with your Wizard to reflect your increased studies into how both Arcana and Nature relate because multiclassing is bad," is... Well it is just rather strange.

[Isidorios]

So, let me make sure I have this right. You say that you might not allow certain multiclass combinations because they tend to lead to powerful characters and that might upset the balance of the game, and hence other players, right?

Wrong, I don't allow multiclassing altogether. There's always a better way than multiclassing to flesh out a character concept.
People who become stridently insistent that they be allowed to multi-class (like some in this thread) are ALWAYS out to kick up their power-level.
Always.

I will always support a player with a fresh or interesting idea they are enthusiastic to play. Players who come to me "wanting to dip into X class" for raisins are told no. If they don't like it, they can go post on Forums about how DMs are Tyrannical Bastards.

[Isidorios]

M How is genocide normally such an Evil thing to do, yet we have Good gods that endorse it?

Because in the REAL world, there are no Evil Races, so the concept of killing off an entire race is intrinsically immoral.
In D&D world, "wiping out all Mind-Flayers" isn't immoral because they are intrinsically Evil as a species.


This isn't as complicated as you are trying to make it.
IF you remove Alignment altogether, you can start making the argument that clearing out all of the Hill Giants from the Trollstep Mountains is morally ambiguous. Not that murderhobos are above morally ambiguous actions when flattened villages and captured princesses are involved.

Also, it's important to note that the REAL WORLD concept of Genocide is still humans killing humans, of some different ethnic/religious/cultural background.

[BurgerBeast]

...For reasons already suggested in previous posts, you can see why some people considering this to be bad dming.

There is a difference between a game that is poorly DM'd and a game that you don't want to play in. Sometimes you think the DM is good but you just don;t prefer that type of game.


With Backgrounds, well-balanced classes, a variety of good Archetypes in the books and UA and Feats, there are plenty options to build just about anything you want in the game already. There's absolutely no compelling need to allow multiclassing whatsoever.

Exactly.


I also disallow multiclassing.

I like that D&D is class based. Multiclassing takes away from that. Or in other words, I like the silos. I like the clear tropes that each character embodies because of their class.

And there you go. A simple reason that is good enough. Play if you want. Don't if you don't. There's no need to say that someone who plays this way is a bad DM.


Here's my Nehwon Campaign: No playable demi-human races. [snip]

Exactly. I once DM'd a 3.5 campaign based on Westerns in which you had to play a human fighter. People played, characters were unique, and we had fun.


Let me ask you another question... Why? Perhaps because this character is a former wrestler, or perhaps because that is just the way I envisioned this character fighting. Would you not allow me to play, say for example, a rogue/barbarian multiclass, because my reasoning comes purely from a mechanics-perspective point?

I apologize for answering a question that wasn't addressed at me, but I thought might be interesting to you. I have disallowed grappling in some campaigns, with the exception of monsters with grapple abilities.


...if I want to play a barbarian/rogue for being play a fantastic wrestler with some anger management issues, is just as valid as wanting to play a rogue because I want to be good at stealing, or playing a cleric because I wanna be good at healing, of a fighter because I wanna be good at fighting, etc.

But in a world where the Rogue class is not allowed, there are still thieves. They are just mechanically different. In a game where clerics aren't allowed, there are still healers. In a game where there are no Fighters, there are still warriors. So the concepts are not removed from the game, they are just mechanically represented in a different way.

[Corran]

Wrong, I don't allow multiclassing altogether. There's always a better way than multiclassing to flesh out a character concept.
People who become stridently insistent that they be allowed to multi-class (like some in this thread) are ALWAYS out to kick up their power-level.
Always.

I will always support a player with a fresh or interesting idea they are enthusiastic to play. Players who come to me "wanting to dip into X class" for raisins are told no. If they don't like it, they can go post on Forums about how DMs are Tyrannical Bastards.
So, you dont believe that there are concepts worth exploring, that cannot be realized via the existing subclasses? I personaly believe that there are quite a few such concepts.

And even if some class archtype can approximate (but no fully realize) a concept, what's wrong with multiclassing to avhieve it a more flavourful and a more efficient way? And here I say again, if you are worried about game-breaking, multiclassing is not your enemy, UA might be though (which you are fine with).

To bring into light a previous example I used, why would it be ok for an AT or EK to exist in your game, but not for a rogue/wiazrd or fighter/wizard. Is it because you believe these multiclass combinations break the game?

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'm starting to believe Multiclassing in 5E is a bad idea. I'm tired of hearing about 2-level Warlock dips.

I'm especially tired of hearing that BladeLocks are "useless" without taking their 1st level in Fighter.

As far as I can tell, Multiclassing in 5E is nothing but munchkin-bait.

[Isidorios]

Let me ask you another question. Say I come into one of your games, at character creation, and I come with a single plan in mind for my new character. Sure, I might have a lot of details planned out, but my main idea, regarding combat - and dnd revolves quite a lot around combat so I don think it is bad to plan characters around that too, would be to be awesome at grappling enemies? Why? Perhaps because this character is a former wrestler, or perhaps because that is just the way I envisioned this character fighting. Would you not allow me to play, say for example, a rogue/barbarian multiclass, because my reasoning comes purely from a mechanics-perspective point?


Actually, I would allow your Barbarian to spend a Feat to get Expertise with a single skill (Athletics), and +1 STR. (I already use this system in my campaign).
So now you have the Expert Grappler you want, AND get to look forward to that mighty boost to STR and CON at 20th Level.
Because I am a benevolent DM.

[Isidorios]

As far as I can tell, Multiclassing in 5E is nothing but munchkin-bait.

D&D 3.whatever has pretty much ruined an entire generation of D&D gamers.
You can tell when you're dealing with people who've spent a lot of time waving poorly-balanced splatbooks at DMs in an indignant fashion.

[Sabeta]

When I learned to DM, the first thing I was taught was to empower your players. If they ever ask for something, find a way to say "Yes". The more you say "no" the less they want to play. That's not to say that when Black Sparrow your Swashbuckling Rogue asks for a revolver that does 1d12+dex, is one-handed, and compatible with Crossbow Expert you should allow it, but that you can give him a Revolver if you strip away some of the excessive parts. Tuning it all the way down to a normal Hand-Crossbow but re fluffed is more than a fair compromise and lets Black Sparrow keep his concept. For TC, if the player was this adamant about Multiclassing and he's a long, or even mid-term player then perhaps he's simply feeling stifled. There are TONS of customization options in this game, and yes some of them are freakishly powerful compared to others, but banning all options serves only to inhibit a player's creative freedom.

I honestly don't mind if my players Powergame a little bit. For example, my old Shadow Monk/ Assassin Rogue was highly optimized. That was because I wanted to play a Ninja, and then optimized a Ninja. I would allow a player to take nearly any Multiclass they wanted as long as I didn't have grounds to suspect them of trying to cheese. For many classes they don't need to explain anything, such as Fighter or Rogue. For Druid I will not give them Druidic Language immediately, but allow them to learn it a little more every time they encountered a sign (perhaps after 3 druid levels they can gain proficiency with it). A Paladin need simply go on a simple pilgrimage, A Cleric can be contacted through divine intervention, and even a Wizard's Spellbook could probably purchased in any major city.

I do allow feats as well, but V. Human are banned at my table. I really don't mind if my Greatsword Wielding Fighter takes Great Weapon Master at level 4. It's a very good Feat, perhaps even a bit too good as to make it priority number one, but at the same time a Fighter who specializes in dealing ALL of the damage isn't going to be as good at defending his party. He can't turn invisible, fly, or shoot fireballs from his fingertips. He's also probably not that social, and his interaction with skill checks are probably going to be "let me climb this cliff, push the rock, whatever man I got you." If my Fighter wants to be a big dumb fighter, then by all means he can.

In short, I would completely allow Multi Classing, and tentatively allow most Feats. You may find that Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and perhaps Sentinal are all just a little bit too strong. The rest are mostly fine. Don't worry too much if your players start getting powerful, you can easily tune up the encounter to deal with it. One of my favorite tactics for when there's a standout player is to start having some enemies run away. If he succeeds, the BBEG learns of the standout, and sends advice down the chain of command on how to deal with him. Future enemies start coming prepared, for example a GWM Fighter may suddenly start encountering enemies wearing chainmail and shields. Perhaps they're lead by an evil warlock who has Agonizing Blast to shove him around.

tldr for my tldr: Yes, you should allow it. I've never even played a game without Multiclassing and Feats, and we've never had a problem with player's feeling bad about themselves or underpowered, despite huge power gaps within the party. People are often more happy to play a cool concept then a mechanically powerful one. (ie: We went through 15 levels with a Rogue/Barbarian who only fought with a Dwarven Ale Mug that had intricate silver trimming for the occasional werewolf. 1d4 for the entire game, and he couldn't even sneak attack with 99% of the time, but that drunken pirate was one of my favorite party members)

[Isidorios]

I would allow a player to take nearly any Multiclass they wanted as long as I didn't have grounds to suspect them of trying to cheese. For many classes they don't need to explain anything, such as Fighter or Rogue.

I have zero issue with DMs who want to allow Multiclassing, they simply have to make an allowance for stronger PCs.
My issue is with Players who angrily assert that Multiclassing is "Mah Gawd-given RIGHT as a citizen".

It's interesting that you can discern between "Cheese" and "Optimizing", and it seems to be based on how effectively they can smooth-talk you with fluff.

[Corran]

There is a difference between a game that is poorly DM'd and a game that you don't want to play in. Sometimes you think the DM is good but you just don;t prefer that type of game.

I think our disagreement can be sumed up to this. But let me elaborate.

It is different if a DM rules out certain elements of the game (eg certain classes or races) because they dont fit with the world that the DM has created, and it is different for a DM to deny to a player to play a particular multiclass combination because the DM thinks it has no good flavour. I am not saying a DM cannot do it, he probably can (depends on the dynamic of the table), but I am criticising as bad DMing. Sure, this DM could be the best in the world at everything else, from doing amazingly the voices of the different NPCs, to having a fantastic campaign story, to everything else you can imagine. But denying a player to play a specific multiclass build, not because it doesnt fit in your world, but because he doesnt like it, is treading into player's territory, and for no good reason. If the player likes it, and it would keep him invested in his character and thus in the campaign, that's good enough for the DM, or at least it should be good enough. Ofc always under the assumption that it is a choice that does not conflict with what the DM has planned for his world. Essentially, disallowing a multiclass build for fluff reasons, is like saying to a player that he cannot play race X because he is not roleplaying the race as the DM thinks it should be roleplayed. But in all of the above, it is important to understand that they all fall under personal taste and opinions. So if a DM is denying a player to play something that the player likes, and that is done uder the reasoning that the DM does not like it, and not under the reasoning that it is not allowed because it wouldnt work with the world or sth similar, I consider it to be a case where the DM unstustifiably trends into player's teritory and for no reason. A more extreme case of the above DM behaviour (though it follows the same reasoning), would be if the DM said the following during character creation: ''John, you will play the ranger, because that suits you, Bob, you will play the paladin because I like how you rp it, Jimmy, you will play the wizard because I prefer you playing spellcasting classes rather than martial ones, I think you are doing a better job with them, etc....''

[RickAllison]

These aren't different than saying "no," to me. So if the player wants to play a multi-class then suggest a single classed character who lines up with the same concept via backgrounds and feats. This is the obvious solution, but to my mind it's still ultimately saying no to a multi-classed character in the same way that re-fluffing an orc is ultimately saying no to bugbears, or playing a dragon trapped in a human (or playing a dragonborn) is still not playing a dragon.

I agree that not every compromise can be totally fine for both parties. It flat isn't balanced for someone to pick up a dragon, even a wyrmling, and use it as a PC. I can think of several ways to implement it (a Moon Druid that could use wyrmling forms, the aforementioned styles, a re-fluffed Aarakocra Sorcerer who uses his spells as breath weapons, etc.), but it is flat imbalanced to take a creature that is massively more powerful as a base and then level it up. Bugbear probably could get worked out with a homebrew race (and weren't they one of the ones on the Volo's guide this fall?) and fall in line with the other PC.

The problem comes into play when backgrounds and feats really don't cover it. Sure the academic expert Wizard could probably take a homebrew feat to get Expertise, but it would take some ridiculous feats to get the same combinations and archetypes possible with multiclassing.

How about the warrior who is a superior swordsman by using his Intelligence to counteract any physical advantages of his foes? I'm sure some feats could be made up that would allow for a similar feel, but why introduce the risk of those then being powergamed through single-classed people (which generally have far more power than their multiclassed brethren)? Instead, we put two levels of Bladesinger on and he both gets to fulfill his concept of having the intelligent swordsman with a reflection in the mechanics, but also don't open the floodgates open to the abuse available with feats. Really, the only example we've been given that supposedly showed how unbalanced multi-classing is was more due to how insanely powerful GWM, especially when combined with Battlemaster. The workarounds to avoid multiclassing lend themselves more to abuse than multiclassing itself (in 5e; this is a very different case in 3.X).


First of all, there's no reason to assume he hasn't given it a second thought. To the contrary, this thread is evidence that he is giving it second thought... so... there's that. Second of all, "just because YOU are uncomfortable with it" is a perfectly acceptable reason. It seems about on par with "they don't exist in MY world," or "THIS world," to me.You can use it to rule out dragonborn, warlocks, gnomes, paladins, or anything else you want.

In the case of a DM being uncomfortable with it, my advice would be to examine WHY the DM is uncomfortable with it. If it is due to increased complexity that the DM can't yet juggle with everything else, that is perfectly understandable. The players should give the DM a pass because it can be difficult for a new DM to the system to keep track of multi-classing rules with everything else. Heck, my DM banned Mystic for our group for the simple reason that he didn't want to have to deal with a unique subsystem in play that he has to learn and remember.

If it is due to a bad experience, the DM should seriously look at that experience and what caused it. 3.P is a horrible comparison for multiclassing against this edition because 5e is balanced much better. If it is 5e, like the case of the Paladin/Fighter, the DM should examine exactly why it went bad. That particular combination is obscenely powerful in the 5-minute adventuring day because it can let loose most of its resources in one powerful round. In the context of a more normal adventuring day, it becomes significantly less powerful and inferior to either of its components taken alone. So the lesson for the DM in that case is not that multiclassing creates overpowered combinations, but that failing to take into the rest dynamics of the party allows for certain members to shine more than others. In the same environment that the Nova-pally is best in, Sorclocks (and even just warlocks in general) suffer. But the same thing applies with single-classed PCs. 5-minute adventuring days leave Sorcerers and Wizards gods among men, while the fighter, monk, and warlock sit there sad-hearted.

If it is due to the flavor clashing, that may be because the DM has (ironically) taken the powergamer mindset. Much of the flavor-clash has to do with the DM looking at a PC as Fighter 2/Abjurer X rather than seeing the character Elladia the Mage-Slayer. As far as the player and the PC are concerned, the wizard levels are a natural extension of her time studying other mages and how to beat them. It is the DM that has separated the two into their mechanical parts and so created the clash.

[Isidorios]

I think our disagreement can be sumed up to this. But let me elaborate.

It is different if a DM rules out certain elements of the game (eg certain classes or races) because they dont fit with the world that the DM has created, and it is different for a DM to deny to a player to play a particular multiclass combination because the DM thinks it has no good flavour. ''

Has anyone in this thread actually suggested this? I stated that I do not allow Multiclassing PERIOD because it's almost always munchkining. People dipping into Thief for Expertise can be satisfied with an easy Feat granting "Expertise in X/+1 to associated Stat". But largely people are trying to power-game with it. In no way am I discriminating between various multiclass builds, I dislike all of them equally.

[Isidorios]

The problem comes into play when backgrounds and feats really don't cover it. Sure the academic expert Wizard could probably take a homebrew feat to get Expertise, but it would take some ridiculous feats to get the same combinations and archetypes possible with multiclassing.
No, it wouldn't. It would take multiclassing to gets some of the ridiculous ability combos. But not to make the concept itself good.


How about the warrior who is a superior swordsman by using his Intelligence to counteract any physical advantages of his foes?
How about he play a Bladesinger? Maybe talk the DM into the UA Sword Mastery feat? Anything further is just munchkining, sorry.



In the case of a DM being uncomfortable with it, my advice would be to examine WHY the DM is uncomfortable with it. If it is due to increased complexity that the DM can't yet juggle with everything else, that is perfectly understandable.

"Start a long conversation with the DM, find out if he's just poorly skilled or if he's just a poor trauma victim."
Stop this. Stop trying to advise new players on how to be That Guy. The DM doesn't need your pity, understanding or counseling for his decision-making. You aren't qualified to provide it in any case, and by that I mean you specifically.




If it is due to the flavor clashing, that may be because the DM has (ironically) taken the powergamer mindset. Much of the flavor-clash has to do with the DM looking at a PC as Fighter 2/Abjurer X rather than seeing the character Elladia the Mage-Slayer.

Play an Eldritch Knight with the Mage Slayer Feat, you damned Munchkin.

[Sabeta]

I have zero issue with DMs who want to allow Multiclassing, they simply have to make an allowance for stronger PCs.
My issue is with Players who angrily assert that Multiclassing is "Mah Gawd-given RIGHT as a citizen".

It's interesting that you can discern between "Cheese" and "Optimizing", and it seems to be based on how effectively they can smooth-talk you with fluff.

There's a stark contrast between a Tavern Brawling drunken sailor who started as a Swashbuckling Rogue and then spent the rest of the game as a Raging Babearian, and a Level 4 Fighter wielding a Glaive and has picked up Great Weapon Master and Polearm Mastery. I spend quite a bit of time reading forums such as these so I'm very privy to the stronger combinations. I have an eye out for players looking to min-max (I generally dislike the two-level Warlock Dip, for example. Eldritch Blast is just a bit too strong for that kind of shenanigans; I'm also against many classes picking up Paladin)

If your table is fine without multiclassing then that's your prerogative. I won't hold that against you. If it's a single player who's getting frustrated, and as you say has actually gotten angry then he's probably a munchkin and you're better off without him. If the majority of your table wants to multiclass and you're telling them no, then you're a bad DM.

[Isidorios]

There's a stark contrast between a Tavern Brawling drunken sailor who started as a Swashbuckling Rogue and then spent the rest of the game as a Raging Babearian, and a Level 4 Fighter wielding a Glaive and has picked up Great Weapon Master and Polearm Mastery.

Yes, as I said, they have to pillow-talk you into being super-optimal.
I don't allow Multiclassing. But if you allow Multiclassing, I firmly believe you should allow it in every class you allow to be played in the game, that you can't play favorites between Player A who's concept you find fluffy and Player B who's concept isn't as fluffy to you.

[Malifice]

I allowed multiclassing and feats in my campaign and I now regret it. They are not balanced. Take, for example, our Paladin/Fighter with Greater Weapon Master, Precision Attack, Divine Smite, and Action Surge. He out-performs every pure-class character in the game. By a lot.

When he novas.

Youre the one letting him nova. Its not the players fault, or the multiclassing rules fault. Its your inability to police the adventuring day thats the problem.

As a MC fighter/ paladin he has fewer slots to smite with. He can basically do this once before needing to rest. If you had have been policing the adventuring day from the start, you wouldnt have faced this problem to begin with, and once it reared its ugly head you should have policed the adventuring day to stop it (making this a really poor character build for anything other than single combat adventuring days).

[Sabeta]

I didn't say that I don't allow it. I just don't really like it. I empower my players, but if they start going off the deep end with powergaming then the BBEG is going to know about it, and their character may not live too much longer. It honestly feels to me like you're so paranoid about powergamers that you refuse to let your players have fun. Do you also deny them certain classes because some are clearly stronger than others? Can your Pure Fighter take GWM and PAM, while your Ranger wants to grab Rogue so that he can at least Sneak Attack to keep up with damage a little bit? The aggressive and confrontational manner that you've addressed everyone in this thread, especially going as far as to tell people to play a different edition instead leads me to believe that you aren't really a terrific DM.

[Malifice]

Considering that the priest is seeing the options of "Go murder some kobolds in their den [standard adventurer fare]" or "Let him bring out other cultists that murder gobs of innocents," I would say he has a pretty damn good reasoning.

And I would say you're totally wrong.

A police officer that takes the law ionto his own hands and murders suspected murderers is evil. He would be denounced as such in any trial before any judge I know, and would be thrown in prison to rot for the rest of his life.


In D&D, supposedly Good gods endorse genocide

No, they dont.

[Isidorios]

When he novas.

Youre the one letting him nova. Its not the players fault, or the multiclassing rules fault. Its your inability to police the adventuring day thats the problem.
.
Keep in mind that not every adventuring session is a time-clock punch "put in mah 6-8 encounters" session. Sometimes you get jumped by Assassins, save some pilgrims from a pack of Worgs, or your ship gets attacked by a mob of Sahaugin.

Yes, in a typical DUNGEON or multi-part encounter scenario, the Nova guy is going to be drawn down to the level of the other PCs. To their level, mind you, not disadvantaged. In every other type of scenario they get to be a brilliant burst of super-damage.

[RickAllison]

Wrong, I don't allow multiclassing altogether. There's always a better way than multiclassing to flesh out a character concept.
People who become stridently insistent that they be allowed to multi-class (like some in this thread) are ALWAYS out to kick up their power-level.
Always.

I will always support a player with a fresh or interesting idea they are enthusiastic to play. Players who come to me "wanting to dip into X class" for raisins are told no. If they don't like it, they can go post on Forums about how DMs are Tyrannical Bastards.


D&D 3.whatever has pretty much ruined an entire generation of D&D gamers.
You can tell when you're dealing with people who've spent a lot of time waving poorly-balanced splatbooks at DMs in an indignant fashion.


I have zero issue with DMs who want to allow Multiclassing, they simply have to make an allowance for stronger PCs.
My issue is with Players who angrily assert that Multiclassing is "Mah Gawd-given RIGHT as a citizen".

It's interesting that you can discern between "Cheese" and "Optimizing", and it seems to be based on how effectively they can smooth-talk you with fluff.

Before, I thought you were a hard-nosed dictator of a DM. Now I see it. Your bias is because you have had some royal butt-hats of players in the mess that was 3.P that have permanently prejudiced you against it. That's fine, it's okay and understandable that in the horrors of optimization that existed in those depths you would develop such a phobia. But hope is here if you will open your eyes.

Multiclassing in 5e doesn't destroy the game, and it isn't for munchkins. In fact, the most overpowered combos I've seen were due to single-classed people with rules interactions that weren't planned for. Things like Wish+Simulacrum utterly destroy games if allowed, but multiclasses in 5e often weaken the user in exchange for more versatility. Paladin/Fighter runs out of steam fast, while combinations like Swashbuckler or other rogues +Booming/Green-Flame Blade run all day and cause more mayhem. Even the supposed cheesiness of the Warlock 2 dip is far from game-breaking if not combined with the poorly designed Repelling Blast (which is, like Simulacrum, a problem entirely of the base class rather than the combination). Really, the concepts that benefit most from the dip are Paladins or Bards, people who are just trying to keep up with damage when out of their element.


Because in the REAL world, there are no Evil Races, so the concept of killing off an entire race is intrinsically immoral.
In D&D world, "wiping out all Mind-Flayers" isn't immoral because they are intrinsically Evil as a species.


This isn't as complicated as you are trying to make it.
IF you remove Alignment altogether, you can start making the argument that clearing out all of the Hill Giants from the Trollstep Mountains is morally ambiguous. Not that murderhobos are above morally ambiguous actions when flattened villages and captured princesses are involved.

Also, it's important to note that the REAL WORLD concept of Genocide is still humans killing humans, of some different ethnic/religious/cultural background.

Remember that orcs don't get a choice. They are some of the most tragic of creatures, doomed to an eternity of bloodlust with little hope of breaking out of it. They are taught from birth that they are hated and shunned by all other humanoids, building onto an instinctual hatred forced upon them by their creater Gruumsh. They fight because they are taught that not to fight is weakness, and weakness is punishable by death.

And yet orcs end up being one of the most inclusive of all species. They care not for such petty differences as species. Any who contribute to the orc ideals that they are not allowed to veer from are welcomed and respected. Really, Corellon Larethian should be joining Gruumsh on the Evil side, his followers should be attempting to rescue these poor creatures from the eternal slavery they are born into rather than genociding them for being born into that slavery and brain-washing.


I'm starting to believe Multiclassing in 5E is a bad idea. I'm tired of hearing about 2-level Warlock dips.

I'm especially tired of hearing that BladeLocks are "useless" without taking their 1st level in Fighter.

As far as I can tell, Multiclassing in 5E is nothing but munchkin-bait.

Warlock 2 gets tossed around a lot, but doesn't see a lot of actual play. Most often, it is used to turn an awful offense into one that can actually contribute so that the user can focus on non-combat abilities which... is kind of the opposite of munchkinry. The PC takes the ability so they can focus on the RP side of things...

Bladelocks aren't "uselsss" without Fighter 1 because that dip has created the status quo, they are "useless" because it was a poorly designed subclass that is more effective just focusing on EB. That isn't a multiclassing problem, that is a base Warlock problem.


Has anyone in this thread actually suggested this? I stated that I do not allow Multiclassing PERIOD because it's almost always munchkining. People dipping into Thief for Expertise can be satisfied with an easy Feat granting "Expertise in X/+1 to associated Stat". But largely people are trying to power-game with it. In no way am I discriminating between various multiclass builds, I dislike all of them equally.

Try looking at multiclassing in actual play rather than what posters put up here for their optimization exercises. Of course, you can't really do that if you banned it to begin with....

[Sabeta]

And I would say you're totally wrong.

A police officer that takes the law ionto his own hands and murders suspected murderers is evil. He would be denounced as such in any trial before any judge I know, and would be thrown in prison to rot for the rest of his life.

and if he had reason to believe they were going to murder someone in the very near future; to include himself as a target then suddenly he's no longer the bad guy. Especially if he can prove it. My last DM strictly forbid Necromancers in his game, because the desecration of corpses was a purely evil act in his vision of Faerun, and therefore was not suitable for adventurer's. That doesn't stop someone else from playing their Necromancer as a somewhat dark doctor who uses his undead thralls to research the human (or humanoid) body and advance the medical field by leaps and bounds; creating an overall better world.

[Isidorios]

It honestly feels to me like you're so paranoid about powergamers that you refuse to let your players have fun.

If a large part of the fun my game sessions provide relies on allowing them to dip into other classes, I'm clearly not doing my job as a DM right.
As I've previously posted, if you want to play the Super-Acrobat Barbarian, I allow for Feat-based Expertise. With that, you can build just about anything your heart desires as a basic character concept, using Background, a single Class, an Archetype and Feats.

[RickAllison]

No, it wouldn't. It would take multiclassing to gets some of the ridiculous ability combos. But not to make the concept itself good.


How about he play a Bladesinger? Maybe talk the DM into the UA Sword Mastery feat? Anything further is just munchkining, sorry.




"Start a long conversation with the DM, find out if he's just poorly skilled or if he's just a poor trauma victim."
Stop this. Stop trying to advise new players on how to be That Guy. The DM doesn't need your pity, understanding or counseling for his decision-making. You aren't qualified to provide it in any case, and by that I mean you specifically.





Play an Eldritch Knight with the Mage Slayer Feat, you damned Munchkin.


Yes, as I said, they have to pillow-talk you into being super-optimal.
I don't allow Multiclassing. But if you allow Multiclassing, I firmly believe you should allow it in every class you allow to be played in the game, that you can't play favorites between Player A who's concept you find fluffy and Player B who's concept isn't as fluffy to you.

So you've stepped over the line from being just rude and condescending to belligerent and actively insulting. Really helps your lack of points. I'm sorry if you have had crappy players who have attuned you to this attitude, but it isn't acceptable here and don't project your frustrations onto me.

[Malifice]

Keep in mind that not every adventuring session is a time-clock punch "put in mah 6-8 encounters" session. Sometimes you get jumped by Assassins, save some pilgrims from a pack of Worgs, or your ship gets attacked by a mob of Sahaugin.

Great. So the Nova specific character will have the chance to shine in some encounters. On longer days he's a fair way behind.


Yes, in a typical DUNGEON or multi-part encounter scenario, the Nova guy is going to be drawn down to the level of the other PCs. To their level, mind you, not disadvantaged. In every other type of scenario they get to be a brilliant burst of super-damage.

No he wont. He'll be far behind other PCs on account of that build. Multiclassing into Fighter (assume a 3 level dip from the sounds of it) from Paladin before 5th level offsets:

1) Extra attack (an at will +50 percent boost to damage and combat effectiveness) for 3 whole levels.
2) ASI/ Feats by the same.
3) Paladin spell increases and more slots to Smite with.
4) + CHA to saves.
5) Improved divine smite of +1d8 damage Improved smite to every single attack made ever.

A lowly 3 level dip delays access to all the above for 3 levels. 30 combat encounters. Months of game play. Each

He is trading away all the above, for a round or two of impressive nova-ing on adventuring days that support nova strikes (and feature encounters against a single target, and not mutiple ones). For a standard campaign (recommended) featuring adventuring days of 6-8 encounters (each featuring multiple opponents, mooks, heavies etc) on average, this is a really bad trade off.

[Isidorios]

Before, I thought you were a hard-nosed dictator of a DM. Now I see it. Your bias is because you have had some royal butt-hats of players in the mess that was 3.P that have permanently prejudiced you against it.
Nope, I just realize that a lot of people want to bring 3. with them into 5e, or they really want to play 5e and too many people around them have moved on from it.



Things like Wish+Simulacrum utterly destroy games if allowed,
99.9999% of campaigns never reach the level where this sort of thing is even possible, and we both know it.




Remember that orcs don't get a choice. They are some of the most tragic of creatures, doomed to an eternity of bloodlust with little hope of breaking out of it.
These are YOUR special pitiable Orcs. They aren't Tokien's Orcs, they aren't Gygax's Orcs, they are your special woe is me Orcs.
It's funny that you both Adhere to the alignment system and then create morally ambiguous races to specifically invalidate the whole concept.


The PC takes the ability so they can focus on the RP side of things...
Laughable schwarbage. I wonder if you've ever tried this line of hooey on an actual DM.




Try looking at multiclassing in actual play rather than what posters put up here for their optimization exercises. Of course, you can't really do that if you banned it to begin with....
As someone who's GMed 3 editions of D&D and another dozen RPG's, I am quite capable of grasping the mechanical implications of multiclassing by reading a book, and don't need to indulge it Yet Again to see whether I will like it. I harken back to the days when you HAD to multiclass to be a Bard.

Stop acting like you have something to teach me as a DM, because you really, really don't.

[Isidorios]

So you've stepped over the line from being just rude and condescending to belligerent and actively insulting.
To be fair, you've been the one laying the Condescending on super-thick. If you don't want belligerence, maybe you ought to dial that condescension back a ways, friend.

[Malifice]

and if he had reason to believe they were going to murder someone in the very near future; to include himself as a target then suddenly he's no longer the bad guy.

Force (inlcuding lethal force) in self defence or the defence of innocents when no other option presents itself is not murder. Same deal with a defence force utilising collective defence against a foreign military invader. Killing in this situation is not a good act, but its not an evil act either.

Paladins carry swords for a reason you know?

But no Paladin can go the house of a suspected murderer and run him through as he sleeps. Its not self defence. Its not the defence of others. Other options present themselves for arresting this man, or bringing him to justice. It is not a good act. It just makes the Paladin himself a murderer.

If a person breaks into your house, you wake up and they lunge at you with a knife, and you have no other options available to you to stop them, shoot them dead. You havent done anything morally wrong here, and no jury in the land will convict you.

On the other hand, if you only wound him, then track him back to his own house later that night and shoot him in the face while he sleeps, expect to get sent to prison for murder.

Society condemns the latter because its evil. It permits the former because its not.

[Corran]

Edited the post as it wouldnt be beneficial to the discussion.

[Malifice]

Ok, so, you are not allowing multiclassing because it can lead to very powerful builds that muchkin players will use, and you dont like muchkin players. That much is clear by now. I disagree with your reasoning for disallowing multiclassing, as I dont believe it leads to powerful builds that munchkins will use, especially if you are using UA (I think it was you who said sth about using UA). We just seem to have a completely different expactation about how multiclass builds perform powerwise.

My read of the situation is he cant/ doesnt police the adventuring day. His players are taking advantage of that fact, and he hasnt realised it yet.

The simple solution is just 'ban multiclassing'. Its not adressing the actual problem he has though.

[Corran]

My read of the situation is he cant/ doesnt police the adventuring day. His players are taking advantage of that fact, and he hasnt realised it yet.

The simple solution is just 'ban multiclassing'. Its not adressing the actual problem he has though.
Damn, my editing was slow.
I agree, but he seems really convinced. Perhaps he is right, perhaps he is not.

[Sabeta]

Nope, I just realize that a lot of people want to bring 3. with them into 5e, or they really want to play 5e and too many people around them have moved on from it.
Laughable schwarbage. I wonder if you've ever tried this line of hooey on an actual DM.
As someone who's GMed 3 editions of D&D and another dozen RPG's, I am quite capable of grasping the mechanical implications of multiclassing by reading a book, and don't need to indulge it Yet Again to see whether I will like it. I harken back to the days when you HAD to multiclass to be a Bard.

1) Never played 3e, started with 4th but did not enjoy it because every single ability missed like 90% of the time and combat was a slog.
2) I, and many players I know have done exactly that. Opening up to fun and flavorful spells is the best part of getting Eldritch Blast out of Warlock.
3) It is in fact possible to be a bad DM for 3 editions of D&D and another dozen RPG. By the way, you don't have to multiclass to be a Bard in THIS edition. Just sayin'. Although a Fighter Rogue Enchanter Wizard could get pretty close.

[Isidorios]

My read of the situation is he cant/ doesnt police the adventuring day. His players are taking advantage of that fact, and he hasnt realised it yet.

The simple solution is just 'ban multiclassing'. Its not adressing the actual problem he has though.

Actually, I'm not the guy who complained about the Nova problem at all.

And as has been pointed out, sometimes Multiclassing leads to weaker builds, just as it can lead to stronger builds.
Placing an Expertise Feat into the game eliminates the risks posed by Multiclassing to unbalance characters (aside from imbalances inherent in the basic classes themselves), while allowing the extra-proficiency "I'm extra-good at X" that people dip into Thief for. People DO NOT dip into stuff like Warlock and Paladin and the like for character flavor, let's not pretend that they do.
They do so because they believe, rightly or not, that it will make them extra-strong.
And I don't see that as a legitimate cause for allowing multiclassing in my games.

Your games, you do whatever you like.
I just advise new DMs against it, so they don't have to struggle to balance pre-made adventures for min-maxers.

[Isidorios]

1)
3) It is in fact possible to be a bad DM for 3 editions of D&D and another dozen RPG. By the way, you don't have to multiclass to be a Bard in THIS edition. Just sayin'. Although a Fighter Rogue Enchanter Wizard could get pretty close.
He's not implying I'm a BAD DM, he's implying that I'm a frightened/inexperienced/biased DM. And you know what? I totally realize that multiclassing prerequisites for Bards haven't been a thing for years and years.
Also, Eldritch Blast is the poor Warlock's thing, maybe you ought to try being a Warlock if Eldritch Blast really does it for you. Just sayin'.

[RickAllison]

Nope, I just realize that a lot of people want to bring 3. with them into 5e, or they really want to play 5e and too many people around them have moved on from it.

Maybe you attract those kinds of people. Other than on this forum, I haven't met anyone who used multiclassing to break/cheese/whatever the game. Even on the forum, the weaknesses and impracticality of those builds and why they really aren't that great are usually established in the same thread.


99.9999% of campaigns never reach the level where this sort of thing is even possible, and we both know it.

Perfect, those are the levels where multiclassing dips actually become strictly better than the corresponding single-classed builds.


These are YOUR special pitiable Orcs. They aren't Tokien's Orcs, they aren't Gygax's Orcs, they are your special woe is me Orcs.
It's funny that you both Adhere to the alignment system and then create morally ambiguous races to specifically invalidate the whole concept.

Every bit of that lore was from the Monster Manual. The only difference is looking at them sympathetically rather than through the lens of "Evil race." That lens is an excuse so Gygax could toss in creatures that could be killed without conscience. Now that 5e has abolished the hard restrictions of alignment, we should actually consider how ridiculous the entire premise is and how the fact that Orcs don't have a choice in whether to be Evil should affect how we look at them.


Laughable schwarbage. I wonder if you've ever tried this line of hooey on an actual DM.

No, because all my characters would actually be made weaker if I fell into the trap of thinking that was some god-dip that improved everyone's DPR. I've been perfectly content with stabbing with Sneak Attack, punching with the power of the sun, and stabbing with flaming horns. Much more effective and I don't have to delay my class features to do it. Hooray single-class being more powerful!


As someone who's GMed 3 editions of D&D and another dozen RPG's, I am quite capable of grasping the mechanical implications of multiclassing by reading a book, and don't need to indulge it Yet Again to see whether I will like it. I harken back to the days when you HAD to multiclass to be a Bard.

Stop acting like you have something to teach me as a DM, because you really, really don't.

Stop acting like you don't have something to learn as a DM. As soon as you think you know everything, you have stagnated, which may be the closest thing to failure in life. Growth is part of every aspect of life. A doctor constantly reads new medical journals to keep abreast of the latest developments, engineers implement new technology to widen their abilities, and musicians are constantly re-inventing created music to expand their repertoire. DMing is no different.

[Malifice]

People DO NOT dip into stuff like Warlock and Paladin and the like for character flavor, let's not pretend that they do.
They do so because they believe, rightly or not, that it will make them extra-strong.

And thats a direct consequence of how you DM your game. Players will make choices accordingly.

If you routinely enforce longer adventuring days on your party, then dipping into Paladin becomes a lot less attractive. If you routinely use solo monsters and single encounter adventuring days, Paladin (and sorcerer) becomes a go to.

If you allow short rests at will, expect to see a lot of Warlocks, Monks and Fighters. If you allow long rests at will, expect to see a lot of Paladins, Casters and Barbarians.

If you manage the adventuring day around a 6-8 encounter default (some days longer, some days shorter), with a good mix of encounters (the odd legendary encounter, the odd mook have encounter, flying + ranged beasties, etc) no one 'build' or single class comes out on top. Each shines or wanes depending on this frequency.

Look at a Fighter 3/ Paladin 3. Paladin 6 is strictly superior in every way.


I just advise new DMs against it, so they don't have to struggle to balance pre-made adventures for min-maxers.

Its the DM who creates the environment for min-maxing.

By doing your job as DM, you can run the game without curtailing player creativity or choice.

[AmayaElls]

Can we perhaps cool off? Both parties have given their reasoning for their decisions and thus answered the OPs dilemma. This is a case (I believe) that it is purely opinion, it is now up to the OP and other DMs in his position to balance the reasons and decide for themselves. It seems obvious that those who have given their opinions feel strongly for them and cannot be convinced otherwise, while continued discussion at this point is sometimes useful I feel the reasons given are merely being reiterated and supplemented by arguments about the opponent's tone. At first I think there was no ill intent but I feel now that one or more parties are getting frustrated and there is no point in continuing a discussion that frustrates you.

I am purely a player, so I don't have the same POV as these other DMs. In my opinion it is up to me to come into a world and create a character to fit it (including the rules) the only issue I would have is if I proposed a character concept that includes multiclassing (Such as my current rogue 1/trickery cleric X) and was told yes, only to be shut down later. Now I do tend to have at least three character ideas I am interested in at any one point, sometimes even more; so perhaps I am an atypical player with increased flexibility. I also play online, so I can clearly see (or ask) what rules a DM wants to put in place and decide if that fits my preferences, if not I can wait and find another DM. However I do understand how this may be rougher for a RL player who has less choice in DMs and more of a focus on a single character then I do. The response "I'll play it anyway" seems rather immature to me, but this needs to be addressed out of game but not within it. I am glad you are considering it, but I do believe you have the final say. Ask him why he wants to do that concept however, what does he want from it? If you decide not to include multiclassing I would simply advise trying to make his character concept still feasible.

[Isidorios]

And thats a direct consequence of how you DM your game. Players will make choices accordingly.

If you routinely enforce longer adventuring days on your party, then dipping into Paladin becomes a lot less attractive. If you routinely use solo monsters and single encounter adventuring days, Paladin (and sorcerer) becomes a go to.
Sure doesn't. I don't allow multiclassing, and as you point out, people indulge in it to take advantage of a perceived "weakness" in the DM. So much for that whole "curtailing player creativity" strawman. As you point out here:


If you allow short rests at will, expect to see a lot of Warlocks, Monks and Fighters. If you allow long rests at will, expect to see a lot of Paladins, Casters and Barbarians.
Or I can not allow multi-Paladins, and if I want to run a heavy Roleplay session with one or two brief fights, HEY IT AIN'T A PROBLEM!"



By doing your job as DM, you can run the game without curtailing player creativity or choice.

If you do your job as the player, and roleplay an interesting character who adds the experience of everyone around the table, and stop focusing on being "creative" with your mechanics and your entitlement to do so, you can play a fun game without being That Guy.

[RickAllison]

Can we perhaps cool off? Both parties have given their reasoning for their decisions and thus answered the OPs dilemma. This is a case (I believe) that it is purely opinion, it is now up to the OP and other DMs in his position to balance the reasons and decide for themselves. It seems obvious that those who have given their opinions feel strongly for them and cannot be convinced otherwise, while continued discussion at this point is sometimes useful I feel the reasons given are merely being reiterated and supplemented by arguments about the opponent's tone. At first I think there was no ill intent but I feel now that one or more parties are getting frustrated and there is no point in continuing a discussion that frustrates you.

I am purely a player, so I don't have the same POV as these other DMs. In my opinion it is up to me to come into a world and create a character to fit it (including the rules) the only issue I would have is if I proposed a character concept that includes multiclassing (Such as my current rogue 1/trickery cleric X) and was told yes, only to be shut down later. Now I do tend to have at least three character ideas I am interested in at any one point, sometimes even more; so perhaps I am an atypical player with increased flexibility. I also play online, so I can clearly see (or ask) what rules a DM wants to put in place and decide if that fits my preferences, if not I can wait and find another DM. However I do understand how this may be rougher for a RL player who has less choice in DMs and more of a focus on a single character then I do. The response "I'll play it anyway" seems rather immature to me, but this needs to be addressed out of game but not within it. I am glad you are considering it, but I do believe you have the final say. Ask him why he wants to do that concept however, what does he want from it? If you decide not to include multiclassing I would simply advise trying to make his character concept still feasible.

And naturally the entire community is open to offering suggestions. We may not agree on DMing styles, alignment, or specific rulings, but working within the confines of the rules set by a DM to create a character concept is something most of us can rally behind. At that point it isn't a bunch of DMs, DM/players, and players debating the text, it is a horde of players who love a good challenge and who have varying enough perspective that you get a wide range of potential builds.

Leave us to debate rules and styles and we may get heated. Get us actually creating new things and it is totally collaborative.

[Isidorios]

Can we perhaps cool off?
Ok

Such as my current rogue 1/trickery cleric X)
This supports my theory that people only Multiclass to A. "gain Rogue Expertise" or B. "be annoying damage-monkeys".

The first is neatly solved with a Feat, the second can soak their heads.

[Sabeta]

If you do your job as the player, and roleplay an interesting character who adds the experience of everyone around the table, and stop focusing on being "creative" with your mechanics and your entitlement to do so, you can play a fun game without being That Guy.

No, you don't get to tell me how to have fun. Mechanically interesting characters are fun. Roleplaying comes after I've filled whatever interesting niche I want. Likewise, when I'm in the DM chair I spend more time working out interesting encounters than I do slogging around town talking to nobles about politics. Roleplay is great in setting tone and creating goals and driving forces. It's also fun to use role play to defuse a situation, but at the end of the day Dungeons and Dragons is about Dungeons and Dragons. I would actually be interested to know how many players have left your table now, because I probably would have quit mid-session just listening to the way you try to rationalize yourself. In my 5 years of DMing I've had a single player quit, and it was because I didn't allow his Religion Roll of 26 to tell him anything useful about a Wizard. (I even told him it was easy Arcana check to figure it out, because the wizard left his notes sprawled out on his desk)

[Isidorios]

Leave us to debate rules and styles and we may get heated. Get us actually creating new things and it is totally collaborative.

Agreed. You seemed to want a Smug-off, and so indulged you (and myself). I don't hate ya tho.

[AmayaElls]

And naturally the entire community is open to offering suggestions. We may not agree on DMing styles, alignment, or specific rulings, but working within the confines of the rules set by a DM to create a character concept is something most of us can rally behind. At that point it isn't a bunch of DMs, DM/players, and players debating the text, it is a horde of players who love a good challenge and who have varying enough perspective that you get a wide range of potential builds.

Leave us to debate rules and styles and we may get heated. Get us actually creating new things and it is totally collaborative.

Oh yes, I love this forum for its collaborative nature and I believe the debates on styles, rules and alignments can be so very enlightening. And almost all people on this forum in my experience are really good at keeping the debates from getting truly heated (by this I mean not becoming offensive or offended). But sometimes people here seem to forget that when all the points are on the table, and the opponent has made it clear there position is not changing, that is the time to step back and say everyone's different. This discussion here is still no where near the flame wars I have seen on other forums when opinion comes into play, I thought I would just say something to remind people who are just enthusiastic about their opinions before it blew up. (Though I guess that might not be my place)

I would also love to hear what the OP has decided and/or how it goes with his player.


Ok

This supports my theory that people only Multiclass to A. "gain Rogue Expertise" or B. "be annoying damage-monkeys".

The first is neatly solved with a Feat, the second can soak their heads.
I actually chose it so my variant human could get the resilient wisdom feat, it fitted with the idea I had of her as a very stealthy thief character and because I wanted her to use a rapier. I only realised I would get expertise somewhat later and now have no idea what I want to do with the damn thing. And the sneak attack damage bonus is kinda nice, but a secondary or tertiary thought at most.

[Isidorios]

No, you don't get to tell me how to have fun.

No, YOU as the Player, don't get to tell ME, the DM, what the rule boundries are that provide you with "fun" in my game.
You are free to ask for whatever at the onset, and hey I will do what I can to let you build such-and-such thing. But in the game I run, you don't get to multiclass. Period. Non-negotiable.
As I've said, in your personal at-home game, you can give everyone 3 extra feats and who cares?

I personally take umbrage at your "pick and choose" method of determining what multiclassing is acceptable, I find that a lot more grating that someone who allows/disallows mulitclassing as a whole.
Do you only allow certain Feats based on how well you like the player/concept as well? Hmmmmm???

[Isidorios]

It's also fun to use role play to defuse a situation, but at the end of the day Dungeons and Dragons is about Dungeons and Dragons.
4U
My group enjoys a mix where some nights are story driven roleplay sessions, and then the next evening is Piazo maps and Pawns and kicking in doors. They enjoy the latter more because the Ancient Shrine they are violating is intrinsical to the complex story and well-developed backgrounds of their characters.

I would actually be interested to know how many players have left your table now, because I probably would have quit mid-session just listening to the way you try to rationalize yourself.
No, this indicates that you are interested in picking a fite with me. Without bragging I can say that I've always had to disappoint people trying to add themselves to my games. You would probably enjoy being in my campaign (and I would probably find you a fine addition), as long as your "enjoyment" didn't hinge on a DIRE NEED to multiclass at some point. If it does, then we would just have to go do our own thing.

[Sabeta]

No, I allow everything. If you were bothering to read my posts you'd have known that. I may not like it when a character tries to min-max too much, and if it gets out of hand (to the point that other characters stop having fun) then I may start making that character infamous among the BBEG, and they suddenly start becoming more of a target when encountering unfriendly forces. Like I said before, a level 4 V.Human Fighter with GWM and PAM is probably going to run into a lot of guys wearing chainmail and shields.(And that's not even a multiclass) A Drunken Dwarf Rogue/Barbearian is going to get stock encounters, or perhaps easier ones just to speed up gameplay a little.

Removed my second paragraph because you've defused me. I don't personally NEED to Multiclass all the time. My Rogue/Ninja was fun if a bit powerful (My DM at the time gave me Sphairai/Pugils that counted as Finesse Monk weapons), but in this edition sticking to a pure class is usually better. There's only a few oddballs like Sorc/Warlock, and even then you slow down spell progression and ASI's to a point where you don't even want to multiclass until very late in the game.

[ad_hoc]

Fighter 1/Rogue 1: Heavy Armour, 15HP, 3 skills
Rogue 1/Fighter 1: Medium Armour, 14HP, 4 skills

Barbarian 1/Wizard 1: Medium Armour, 16HP
Wizard 1/Barbarian 1: No Armour, 13HP

Class as chassis and feats, backgrounds, and subclass as add-ons is an elegant system.

Multiclassing is a mess because you are adding multiple chassis together.

5e has done a pretty good job of making it work, but it is still inelegant. I believe this is why it is an optional rule. I'm glad they included rules for it, and I think they are about as good as you can get.

That said, I think the subclass system was a far more elegant solution to mutliclasses/prestige classes of previous editions and is all you need in 5e.

Sometimes less is more.

[Isidorios]

I actually chose it so my variant human could get the resilient wisdom feat, i
Wut? Explain this to me, maybe I am getting tired.

[Isidorios]

No, I allow everything. If you were bothering to read my posts you'd have known that.
So you let characters in with builds you clearly don't like in the first place....

then I may start making that character infamous among the BBEG, and they suddenly start becoming more of a target when encountering unfriendly forces.
And then you start punishing them in-game for building a character you didn't like in the first place.

Maybe YOU should start reading the things you are typing. I clearly understood you the first time.
You are simply a Bad DM.

Edit: You are a terrible DM. I think we can all agree on that much.

[BurgerBeast]

So, to summarize my thoughts on this:

The whole thing seems to me to come down to a question of whether the DM is allowed to say no in the first place, and whether doing so makes he or she a bad DM. It's hardly relevant that we're talking about multi-classing. In fairness, it's relevant it's relevant to the OP, but not to much of tangential arguments that have cropped up.

I say a DM can say no to any rule, whether a home-brew, house rule, splatbook, PHB optional rule, or PHB core rule, for any reason. This is part of being the referee.

This in no way intrudes on the player's rights (or whatever you want to call them). No one is forcing players to play. They can choose to play or not to play. There is no inherent rule (official or implied) that states that players should have a say in the rules of the game, and no amount to wish-thinking or fuzzy feelings can change that.

This has no bearing on whether you are a good or bad DM. It's simply a matter of taste.


So, you dont believe that there are concepts worth exploring, that cannot be realized via the existing subclasses? I personaly believe that there are quite a few such concepts.

This has little to no relevance. D&D is not intended to be a game that allows you to realize any and all concepts. If you want it to be, go ahead and make changes. If you thin another game does it better, play that game. If you can live with the limitations, live with them.


And even if some class archtype can approximate (but no fully realize) a concept, what's wrong with multiclassing to avhieve it a more flavourful and a more efficient way? And here I say again, if you are worried about game-breaking, multiclassing is not your enemy, UA might be though (which you are fine with).

Nothing. Nobody said there's anything wrong with it. What we said is that there's nothing wrong with just living with the limitations, either.


To bring into light a previous example I used, why would it be ok for an AT or EK to exist in your game, but not for a rogue/wiazrd or fighter/wizard. Is it because you believe these multiclass combinations break the game?

Who cares the reason? Allow and disallow classes as you see fit. Let the players vote with their feet.


When I learned to DM, the first thing I was taught was to empower your players.

This is a personal philosophy and is not a requirement of being a DM. It's no better or worse than many other philosophies. I'm not here to make players want to play. I prefer players who want to play, independent of my ability to persuade them.


There are TONS of customization options in this game, and yes some of them are freakishly powerful compared to others, but banning all options serves only to inhibit a player's creative freedom.

Nobody is suggesting banning all options. This thread is predicated on the idea opting out of one optional rule.


I do allow feats as well, but V. Human are banned at my table.

How do you reconcile this with your "empower your players" attitude? What if a player wants to play a V. Human? Why take away the option? How is it any different than taking away a different option?


In short, I would completely allow Multi Classing, and tentatively allow most Feats.

Great. That's your prerogative, and I support it.

Now why can't you get behind someone whose prerogative is to ban multi-classing?


I think our disagreement can be sumed up to this. But let me elaborate.

It is different if a DM rules out certain elements of the game (eg certain classes or races) because they dont fit with the world that the DM has created, and it is different for a DM to deny to a player to play a particular multiclass combination because the DM thinks it has no good flavour.

Sure, but you're free to like or dislike his reasons all you like. What you can't do is tell the DM he has no right to ban rules. He has every right to ban whatever options he wants. Likewise, players have every right to opt out of his game. It's that simple.


I am not saying a DM cannot do it, he probably can (depends on the dynamic of the table), but I am criticising as bad DMing.

And I'm saying you'd need more information to make that determination.

I ban dragonborn because I think they're f**king ridiculous. That's my right as a DM. They don't exist in any world that I DM. You don't have to like it. You can even call me a bad DM. But you can't claim that I'm DMing incorrectly.


Sure, this DM could be the best in the world at everything else, from doing amazingly the voices of the different NPCs, to having a fantastic campaign story, to everything else you can imagine. But denying a player to play a specific multiclass build, not because it doesnt fit in your world, but because he doesnt like it, is treading into player's territory, and for no good reason.

No, it's not player's territory. Any player who makes assumptions without consulting the DM is in error. The DM can ban anything he or she wants. If the DM abuses this privilege or communicates these things poorly, he will eventually suffer the consequences when players don't want to play.


Essentially, disallowing a multiclass build for fluff reasons, is like saying to a player that he cannot play race X because he is not roleplaying the race as the DM thinks it should be roleplayed.

These are not the same at all. If a DM allows a player to play a character, then the DM has no basis for telling the player how to role-play. If the DM has strict for behaviour guidelines for particular races, he shouldn't put them in player hands. Notice that this would justify limiting player choice so that they couldn't improperly role-play.


But in all of the above, it is important to understand that they all fall under personal taste and opinions.

Bingo.


So if a DM is denying a player to play something that the player likes, and that is done uder the reasoning that the DM does not like it, and not under the reasoning that it is not allowed because it wouldnt work with the world or sth similar, I consider it to be a case where the DM unstustifiably trends into player's teritory and for no reason.

Here we differ. The DM can disallow anything for any reason. The player can play or not play as he likes.


A more extreme case of the above DM behaviour (though it follows the same reasoning), would be if the DM said the following during character creation: ''John, you will play the ranger, because that suits you, Bob, you will play the paladin because I like how you rp it, Jimmy, you will play the wizard because I prefer you playing spellcasting classes rather than martial ones, I think you are doing a better job with them, etc....''

No this is very different. This is not limiting choice. This is making choices for the players. This isn't fair, because it treats players differently. Every player should be given the same choices to make, but how those choices are limited is up to the DM, not the players.


The problem comes into play when backgrounds and feats really don't cover it. Sure the academic expert Wizard could probably take a homebrew feat to get Expertise, but it would take some ridiculous feats to get the same combinations and archetypes possible with multi classing.

But if multi classing wasn't in the books, we'd be finding ways to portray those archetypes. If the books contained 12 additional classes and therefore many more multiples combinations, we'd be able to portray even more archetypes accurately. But the specific amount of choice provided by the rules is arbitrary. Any limitations you think are being imposed by adding or removing rules are illusory in the sense that even if expertise wasn't a thing, you could still build an expert.


How about the warrior who is a superior swordsman by using his Intelligence to counteract any physical advantages of his foes? I'm sure some feats could be made up that would allow for a similar feel, but why introduce the risk of those then being powergamed through single-classed people (which generally have far more power than their multiclassed brethren)? Instead, we put two levels of Bladesinger on and he both gets to fulfill his concept of having the intelligent swordsman with a reflection in the mechanics, but also don't open the floodgates open to the abuse available with feats.

Just to play devil's advocate, why not let a Champion (the least specialized fighter) be this character by simply using the Champion features, but describing the combat as though the character is "a superior swordsman, using his intelligence to counteract the physical advantages of his foes." When they miss him it's because he "cleverly used their weight against them." His +11 attack bonus reflects his shrewd swordplay.

If there are no battle masters, eldritch knights, or blade singers in the world, them this is what the Champion's abilities represent in that world.


There's a stark contrast between a Tavern Brawling drunken sailor who started as a Swashbuckling Rogue and then spent the rest of the game as a Raging Babearian, and a Level 4 Fighter wielding a Glaive and has picked up Great Weapon Master and Polearm Mastery. I spend quite a bit of time reading forums such as these so I'm very privy to the stronger combinations. I have an eye out for players looking to min-max (I generally dislike the two-level Warlock Dip, for example. Eldritch Blast is just a bit too strong for that kind of shenanigans; I'm also against many classes picking up Paladin)

I respect your right to run your game this way. Shouldn't all DMs be afforded the right to make the same decisions in their games? It's up to them. The players don;t have to play if they don't want to.


If your table is fine without multiclassing then that's your prerogative.

What if they aren't? I think it's still his prerogative.


I won't hold that against you. If it's a single player who's getting frustrated, and as you say has actually gotten angry then he's probably a munchkin and you're better off without him.

Not sure how you can make the jump from frustrated to munchkin solely on the basis that he's the only player.


If the majority of your table wants to multiclass and you're telling them no, then you're a bad DM.

This is ridiculous. Maybe the DM and the players just have different preferences. It may be your philosophy that DMs ought to cater to players, but it's not mine. Nobody else is bound to adhere to your tastes.

[AmayaElls]

Wut? Explain this to me, maybe I am getting tired.

I wanted a +2 to wis on my variant human, so I needed to take a feat which gave a bonus to wisdom. However the options for that are very slim and I already have two other characters in the works that were both taking the Observant feat. The only other option is resilient which gives you a bonus in your saving throw as well, but if you start as a cleric that isn't needed.

I kinda knew she was already a very thief flavoured character, so it made sense to me that her first level could be in that if I wanted to make the best use of that feat. From there I was able to build her better as a character, and as a worshiper of Mask it really does make sense to me. I planned a cleric however, which in my mind is support, so sneak attack was a lesser concern for me even if it does mesh well with the trickery cleric skills.

[Isidorios]

D&D is not intended to be a game that allows you to realize any and all concepts.

The modern editions before 5e and their endless Splatbookery made modern players forget this important fact. It's not Exalted or Champions.

[Sabeta]

So you let characters in with builds you clearly don't like in the first place....

And then you start punishing them in-game for building a character you didn't like in the first place.

Maybe YOU should start reading the things you are typing. I clearly understood you the first time.
You are simply a Bad DM.

Edit: You are a terrible DM. I think we can all agree on that much.

Guys in chainmail and shields also aren't doing as much damage. It's just giving the other players a chance to do their thing while the fighter is stuck using standard attack action because the enemy AC is too high to make GWM practical at the moment. Plus, these enemies are just begging for Heat Metal to be cast on them. A few flying enemies usually goes far to make an archer feel good about himself. If my players are specifically building their characters to power through every encounter, then it's only fair to raise the stakes and continue to challenge them.

Thanks for calling me terrible though. Glad to see that in the end you resort to petty name calling.

[Isidorios]

I wanted a +2 to wis on my variant human, so I needed to take a feat which gave a bonus to wisdom. However the options for that are very slim and I already have two other characters in the works that were both taking the Observant feat. The only other option is resilient which gives you a bonus in your saving throw as well, but if you start as a cleric that isn't needed.
You couldn't just take the +2 Wisdom in lieu of taking a Feat? This is kinda making my head hurt.

[Sabeta]

You couldn't just take the +2 Wisdom in lieu of taking a Feat? This is kinda making my head hurt.

If memory serves, there is no +2 Wisdom Race. The only way to have it at level 1 is to play a V.Human, take +1 Wisdom, and then take Resilient Wisdom.

[Corran]

Ok

This supports my theory that people only Multiclass to A. "gain Rogue Expertise" or B. "be annoying damage-monkeys".

The first is neatly solved with a Feat, the second can soak their heads.
Out of curiosity, I want to ask you something.
Consider a player who wanted to play an elf who could stand his ground in a melee fight, and still be able to throw some spells around, and consider that said player was not satisfied with the EK who does not gain access to high level spells, and his spell progression is very slow. So this player wants to play a reversed EK, one who is less focused on his martial capabilities, and more on his spellcasting. The natural choice now is ofc playing a bladesinger. And since the need for such a build to exist was real, natually WotC came up with the bladesinger class in the first place, and brought it over to 5e.

Now say that such a player came at your campaign before SCAG came out, and suggested to play a multiclass of fighter and wizard, just because the EK didnt get enough spell support, and he had imagined his character more powerful spellcasting-wise. So before SCAG, and thus before bladesinger, would you call this character a munchkin, only for trying to create a build that could acommodate his perfectly reasonable concept, that at the time could be best accomplished by multiclassing? And after SCAG came out it would be perfectly ok and he would not be a munchkin just because this concept took form as a subclass of an official single class? Or would you suggest to this player to go with a valor bard or with a war cleric, even if the bard and cleric flavor didnt really fir his theme? Or do you consider fighter/wizard multiclasses to be so much game breaking, and you wouldnt allow them for that reason, even though you recognized that the player wanted to play this due to theme reasons? Or do you have handy such vast homebrew rules that would allow for this character to exist without multiclassing (talking before SCAG), and you believe that your houserules are better balanced that the current multiclassing rules?

-----------------

Second example (this is a weaker one)
Suppose I play a monk in your campaign, because I like my character to beat people with his hands, and for whatever other reason people who play monks like to play this class (I wouldnt know:smalltongue:). And say that at some point during the campaign, I would like to have my character get some training to become an assassin, so that one day he can become good at assassinating people. Because of how dnd is using hp, that means that unless I take the assassinating feature, I will hardly ever make good assassin material. Is a 3 level dip in rogue so unimaginable to you, just because this character has levels in monk already? Is the idea of adding assassinating to what a monk can already do so difficult to imagine or so out of context? Do you believe that mechanicaly is game breaking or powergaming? Or woulld you suggest to me to play a rogue with the tavern brawler feat and see how it works out for me? Or would it for some reason that I cannot think of, impossible for my monk to be trained as an assassin in your world?

-------------------

There are still concepts that cannot be covered sufficiently by the archtypes of single classes. And in the end, restricting a character to a single class seems more unreasonable from an in-game perspective, than the most ridiculous multiclass combo there exists. Creating houserules can possibly lead to a lot more balance issues than using RAW, unless you are maybe one of those few people that have trully a real grasp for game balance, and can afford to spend the time and energy to do it. Though I still believe that multiclassing is quite ok, at least for what I can think of.

[Isidorios]

Guys in chainmail and shields also aren't doing as much damage. It's just giving the other players a chance to do their thing while the fighter is stuck using standard attack action because the enemy AC is too high to make GWM practical at the moment. Plus, these enemies are just begging for Heat Metal to be cast on them. A few flying enemies usually goes far to make an archer feel good about himself. If my players are specifically building their characters to power through every encounter, then it's only fair to raise the stakes and continue to challenge them.

Thanks for calling me terrible though. Glad to see that in the end you resort to petty name calling.

You pivot from calling me an unfair/unfun DM for not allowing multiclassing, to admitting that you single out people you've allowed to build a class you "just don't approve of" for extra-beatdowns based on your Feels and the need to negate the point of their build.
"Well this guy min-maxed DEX and piled Stealth Expertise on top of it, so I make all HIS guards have a +4 to perception to even it all out".

Holy Crap.

And if the worst name-calling you're subjected to on the internets is "terrible", then you're doing OK.

[AmayaElls]

You couldn't just take the +2 Wisdom in lieu of taking a Feat? This is kinda making my head hurt.

That's not how V. Human works... and I was building this before I had a campaign to play in (remember I play online) so I have to construct mostly to the books. I feel it is very rude to come to a DM saying "Look I want this homebrew rule/fix, I need it to make my character." Once I know a DM, say I'm making a new character after the first dies, I might decide to ask him/her that. I know variant human isn't the strongest in many ways (or overly strong in others depending on the feat), but I wanted a human for the character concept so I make do.

[RickAllison]

The modern editions before 5e and their endless Splatbookery made modern players forget this important fact. It's not Exalted or Champions.

Oh yes. I have no desire to deal with the ridiculous amounts of splats from 3.P. Yugh.

Frankly, it is unnecessary. We have twelve classes with three archetypes each (some like cleric and wizard have more, but they don't have as much of a difference in how the character plays compared to the vast differences between the monks or fighters) allowing for around 36 archetypes. That is plenty of room to passably cover many archetypes anyway, but it allows for even more customization. Let's say you can make five different character concepts with each build that feel distinct enough as to be different characters, that's 180 characters. A decent amount, but it gets better.

With the rather elegant system of multiclassing that doesn't make an abominable wreck of things like 3.P, we get somewhere between 400 and 1200 combinations of two classes and subclasses. Appreciated as the slow leak of new options may be, that system takes it from a smattering of archetypes that could get tired fast to enough variations to account for just about any archetype mechanically as well as from an RP standpoint. Who needs splatbooks when we have two to six thousand potential distinct characters waiting? Using just the standard classes in the PHB gives decent variety, but multiclassing gives the ability that one could never play the same character twice.

[GorogIrongut]

I both play and DM. Have done since AD&D. The only thing I really missed was 4th edition.

The way I see things is very simple:
1. The DM is in control of everything... S/he has every right to allow or not allow things as s/he sees fit.
2. That said, this is a collaborative process with the players. If they players get no say in their character creation and interaction, they're not having fun. If they're not having fun, then the DM is left to play with themselves. There has to be some give and take.
3. As the DM is in control of everything, the players can super power their characters and you will STILL have the answer to the problem of what to do with them. There is no character so powerful that you can't neuter it's strengths and leave it vulnerable... without being a douchebag about it... and moreso in 5e than previous incarnations of DnD.
4. Players play the game to feel epic. They like to leave the dreary world behind to play something out of the norm. Some will have a set character in mind. Others may be more open to whatever. That said, most like their characters to be capable and strong. Able to influence events, eventually on a world level. There have been a few times where I deliberately played a weaksauce character for the fun of it. But in the end they managed to fumble their way to epicness, in part due to my playing... in part due to an understanding DM who thought it added to the story. They key point being that epicness was achieved and fun was had... regardless of a character being overpowered or underpowered. A good DM can compensate for an imbalanced party and a whole host of other ills and fun can be had by all.


Now, I'm going to digress more into my views... I personally believe characters should have more decisions than they do in 5e. The more the character is able to make the character that they want, the happier they will be. This perhaps comes back to my Shadowrun days. As such, I would allow multi classing... and feats... and more homebrew. If you're worried about a feat, then diminish it slightly. If you're worried about a multi class, then put some hedging around. If you don't like the Paladock multi class, then make a rule that they can't dip and still get the full abilities immediately. They've got to invest a few more levels than a level 2 dip into warlock to have agonizing blast come online. You're the DM, you decide what goes (within the framework of keeping your players happy).

I personally don't see a problem with multi classing being overpowered and in fact side in the camp of it being a tool for exploring the character's personality and personal journey. I consider staying one class to be unnatural. How many people nowadays, stay in one job for their entire life. I've been a pool boy, dock worker, a driver, an office worker and ultimately an osteopath. Even as an osteopath, my theoretical chosen profession, I still dabble in hundreds of other hobbies that could easily become a profession.

To tell someone you're going to be a fighter and you'll never be anything else... just seems daft to me.

There are too many things that come up in life, too many opportunities for us to HAVE to be just one thing. If we choose it, then great. We've identified our priorities and that's what we want. For me, I practice archery, boxing, armour making, blacksmithing, leatherworking, painting, singing and much more... But my chosen profession would have me listed as nothing more than a 'cleric' (when brought into DnD terminology). I had someone offer me 200 head of heritage sheep just a few months back... does that make me a farmer instead of a 'cleric'?

In my view, players should have the ability to choose who their characters are... like they have the right and ability to do in their own lives. It makes it more real and thus more compelling. Sure there may be a few hiccups along the way, but a good DM can easily fix that problem.


p.s. Maybe the fact that I have twin dalmatians that I'm training up as guard dogs, means I would be considered a ranger...

[Isidorios]

Now say that such a player came at your campaign before SCAG came out, and suggested to play a multiclass of fighter and wizard, just because the EK didnt get enough spell support, and he had imagined his character more powerful spellcasting-wise. So before SCAG, and thus before bladesinger, would you call this character a munchkin, only for trying to create a build that could acommodate his perfectly reasonable concept, that at the time could be best accomplished by multiclassing?
If he really really wanted the inverse of an EK, I'd probably help him with a homebrewed Archetype I felt was balanced, whether that started to look like the Bladesinger or something else entirely.
Wouldn't let him in with a Multiclass.

Also, a 3 level dip in rogue isn't going to make you THAT much better at Assassinating someone. That Shadow Monk Archetype would though, and such things could be made before SCAG.

Maye you should just have a clearer idea of what you want to play from the onset, or if you start out as a Bearbarian and suddenly can't live without being a Master of Illusion, I just let you write up an Illusionist Wizard and you play that instead of trying to be two things at the same time?

[Isidorios]

I feel it is very rude to come to a DM saying "Look I want this homebrew rule/fix, I need it to make my character." Once I know a DM, say I'm making a new character after the first dies, I might decide to ask him/her that. I know variant human isn't the strongest in many ways (or overly strong in others depending on the feat), but I wanted a human for the character concept so I make do.
Really, I don't think a DM is going to hassle you too hard over a single point of Wisdom, and most would be willing to meet you halfway on it. I certainly would, without necessitating you dipping into an entirely different class and delaying your main class abilities unnecessarily.

[Isidorios]

2. That said, this is a collaborative process with the players. If they players get no say in their character creation and interaction, they're not having fun. If they're not having fun, then the DM is left to play with themselves. There has to be some give and take.

They have fully customizable backgrounds, a load of classes, races, archetypes and usually Feats to choose from without even getting into UA.
They have a TON of say in their character creation, restricting them from an optional multiclassing rule just isn't all that draconian.

[Sabeta]

You pivot from calling me an unfair/unfun DM for not allowing multiclassing, to admitting that you single out people you've allowed to build a class you "just don't approve of" for extra-beatdowns based on your Feels and the need to negate the point of their build.
"Well this guy min-maxed DEX and piled Stealth Expertise on top of it, so I make all HIS guards have a +4 to perception to even it all out".

Holy Crap.

It's give and take. A high powered character becomes a high priority because they enjoy the challenge. I always ask for feedback on my sessions and they're generally well received. My biggest compliment is often that high-powered characters feel rewarded even more for overcoming harder odds because it further upped their cool factor. They didn't casually mow down a few goblins who might as well have been human children at this point. He fended off some elite soldiers sent specifically to kill him and won despite "insurmountable" odds. Throwing the occasional flying enemy isn't meant to negate their purpose in the world, it's an opportunity for other players to shine. If my Fighter is really, really good a boss fights because his single-target damage is so high, then there also needs to be a fair amount of mook fights where the Wizard feels cool too.

I also don't touch ability checks. If people min-max out of combat that's fine. I generally don't give persuasion and deception the reality warping powers that most DMs seem to allow, but aside from that pretty much all skill checks are left untouched. Sneaking tends have some weird usages sometimes, (the weirdest was when a Pass Without Trace Shadow Monk used Minor Illusion to clear an entire dungeon by repeatedly barking orders in the voice of the leader) but my parties usually end up with one or two guys who have disadvantage on stealth, so sneak gets used exclusively to scout and then formulate a plan on how to charge in recklessly.

[BurgerBeast]

No, I allow everything. If you were bothering to read my posts you'd have known that.

Well, I have to point out:


I do allow feats as well, but V. Human are banned at my table.

So I guess not everything.


In short, I would completely allow Multi Classing, and tentatively allow most Feats.

This implies that you disallow some feats, too.


Out of curiosity, I want to ask you something.

Not directed at me, but I'll offer my answers. You can ignore them if you like, of course.


(the blade singer)

I tend to DM core only. So no blade singers. Players wanting that type of character would have to build one using the core rules to the best of their ability. I would allow a multi-classed fighter/wizard, but it seems to me there are other ways such as a wizard with feats.


Second example (this is a weaker one) (the monk-assassin)

I'd just point out that "assassins" don't need to be Assassins. But in a game where I disallowed multi-classing, first of all, the player would at least be prepared for it because I would've explained it beforehand, and second of all, I'd let them re-roll if they really wanted to.


And in the end, restricting a character to a single class seems more unreasonable from an in-game perspective, than the most ridiculous multiclass combo there exists.

Yeah well it all comes down to managing player expectations. "Unreasonable" here is based on the expectation that multi-classing is allowed. This expectation is unjustified by virtue of the fact that the multi-classing rules are optional. Players who aren't sure should ask before assuming they are being used in any campaign.

[AmayaElls]

Really, I don't think a DM is going to hassle you too hard over a single point of Wisdom, and most would be willing to meet you halfway on it. I certainly would, without necessitating you dipping into an entirely different class and delaying your main class abilities unnecessarily.

That's why I emphasised the I, I can be an odd person. I like to be extremely accommodating, especially when I am first getting to know someone.

And it didn't necessitate anything, that one point is minimal and I can and have done without it. I would not have multiclassed it if my character were not already a thief, she was always on that border between cleric and thief and might have taken the multiclass later. This choice got me to consider it and I realised I liked the proficiencies and skill selection given by the rogue as a starting point. Her background as an Urchin offered her some of this flavour, but this means I can dip more into that flavour. I could have looked at it and gone "nah, cleric start fits her well enough" In which case I would have either gritted my teeth and chosen the observant feat again or cast off the idea and got a dex feat to add to her roguey flavour (something I was considering). Or something else entirely.

I am not actually a fan of multiclassing (personally I often find it a little difficult to track but that I guess is because I usually play pure casters) and will usually just stick to a single class. However after making the decision to Multiclass this character I got really interested in the way the mechanics now strongly reflected her backstory and she became the main character I wanted to play next (over like 3 others I still want to play).

[Sabeta]

snip

Stop single-line quoting, please. You're taking things out of context. I allow all feats even if I feel some are a little bit too strong. My suggestion to TC was that he might want to restrict some of the more powerful feats, as he seems to be concerned about player balance. I don't allow V.Human because a bonus feat at level one disrupts player balance way too far to be fun for anyone but the human. All of my players agreed to that stipulation and also agreed that the temptation for a free feat would greatly influence how they build their characters and subsequent choices in race. This really shouldn't come as a surprise given how often Variant Humans are just outright banned in most people's tables, or removed from Homebrew/Tweak Lists whatever.

[tombowings]

I tend not to like multiclassing in general and do not normally allow it in my games (not do I allow feats).

Why?

Because a Druid is a Druid. It's a member of a Druidic Circle. In order to become a Druid you must first join that organization and undergo a period of training to learn your new spells and abilities. You cannot make up one morning and decide, 'HEY, wouldn't it be cool if I could turn into a bear? Great, I'm going to multiclass." That is not how it works in my game. A wildshaping rogue is NOT a druid. It is a wildshaping rogue.

There are times, however, when a player comes up with a concept that is not functional using the classes and sub-classes presented to us in the PHB and SCAG. That's fine. That's when homebrewing comes in.


You want a wildshifting rogue? GREAT, let's write that new sub-class up.
You want a monk that wields a katana instead of duking it out with his fists? PERFECT! Let's meet up Monday night and talk about that new sub-class.
You want to play a minotaur? COOL, get some graph paper and let's stat is out.
You want a paladin whose loyalty is torn between light and dark? NICE, sounds like a cool Paladin sub-class.


While I may not allow multiclassing, I am happy to twist the game to bring my players' characters to life in the game world.

[Isidorios]

And it didn't necessitate anything, that one point is minimal and I can and have done without it.
Well, you took the Multiclass route for something you could have achieved with Feats/DM involvement, for a minimal effect.

As I've said, I'm not hating on other people multiclassing; I don't allow it myself, and strongly suggest new DM's leave it for a second campaign down the road, if they feel it is necessary at all. The designers of the game didn't think it was necessary at all; it is an optional rule for that very reason. And the basic classes were clearly designed without a priority on "balancing" them for mulitclassing; hence all the odd optimized builds involving dips into certain classes.

[RickAllison]

That's why I emphasised the I, I can be an odd person. I like to be extremely accommodating, especially when I am first getting to know someone.

And it didn't necessitate anything, that one point is minimal and I can and have done without it. I would not have multiclassed it if my character were not already a thief, she was always on that border between cleric and thief and might have taken the multiclass later. This choice got me to consider it and I realised I liked the proficiencies and skill selection given by the rogue as a starting point. Her background as an Urchin offered her some of this flavour, but this means I can dip more into that flavour. I could have looked at it and gone "nah, cleric start fits her well enough" In which case I would have either gritted my teeth and chosen the observant feat again or cast off the idea and got a dex feat to add to her roguey flavour (something I was considering). Or something else entirely.

I am not actually a fan of multiclassing (personally I often find it a little difficult to track but that I guess is because I usually play pure casters) and will usually just stick to a single class. However after making the decision to Multiclass this character I got really interested in the way the mechanics now strongly reflected her backstory and she became the main character I wanted to play next (over like 3 others I still want to play).

That's really the thing I like most about multiclassing, they create a unique feel for the person. My monk/ridiculous multiclass was fun because I didn't play him like monklocerer, but as a unique being. The combination of his hardiness, his massive Charisma to taunt and Intimidate enemies, and his tendency to go bare-fisted despite being Sun Soul made him feel like a barbarian built a very wrong, but fun way. He wasn't a monk, or a warlock, or a sorcerer, he was just Quierk, a stealth-punching, hard-cussing drunkard birdman (his swears were in chirps and such).

I miss him. May your feathers e'er fly twixt sky and sun...

[Isidorios]

Stop single-line quoting, please.
Denied

All of my players agreed to that stipulation and also agreed that the temptation for a free feat would greatly influence how they build their characters and subsequent choices in race. This really shouldn't come as a surprise given how often Variant Humans are just outright banned in most people's tables, or removed from Homebrew/Tweak Lists whatever.
Combined with your stance on Multiclassing "entitlement" and "muh fun", you end up looking like a terrible hypocrite here.

[Corran]

So, to summarize my thoughts on this:
.....

Thank you for providing such a detailed answer, and for breaking it down to answer to everything I posted. I apologize for not doing the same, dont have the courage. Let me present my major source of disagreement with one example (examples are easy to write without giving yourself a headache:smallsmile:).

Say I play with a DM that allows both gnomes and barbarians to exist in his world. And say I really want to play a gnome barbarian, because for some reason I fell in love with the concept (possibly after seeing the promotion videos for 4e). And say that I do not intend to roleplay this character in a fashion that wouldnt suit the campaign theme (so for example, if we are playing a horror campaign, I wouldnt go with a comic relief character). Assume my intentions are good, and that I dont want to cause issues with this character, and that I trully want to play a gnome barbarian.

Now, the DM for his own reasons, might not like the fluff of a gnome barbarian, to the extent of never playing such a character when he is not dming. But other than pure personal preference, he has no other issues (like if it fits the world, or if it is gamebreaking, etc). Imo, a good DM has to respect that I, as a player, want to play this character, and he has to allow me to do so. Perhaps he may even come to realise, if I roleplay this character nicely, that his initial view has now changed, and that now after seeing me play this character, he learned of a new concept that he had never thought of before. Perhaps not. The point is, that he has to put his own views aside, since I am not conflicting with any element of the campaign or of the world, and let me play the character I want to play, so that I can have fun too.

If a DM went out of his way and refused me playing this character, with the only reason behind it being ''I dont like the concept of a gnome barbarian and I cannot think of why a gnome would ever become a barbarian'', then I call that bad dming. Even if this dm runs amazing campaigns, the above situation shows that he has not even begun to understand what his role as a DM is.

That's the same case as when a DM does not allow a certain multiclass, with the only reason being that the DM does not like the fluff of said multiclass.

[Isidorios]

That's really the thing I like most about multiclassing, they create a unique feel for the person. My monk/ridiculous multiclass was fun because I didn't play him like monklocerer, but as a unique being. The combination of his hardiness, his massive Charisma to taunt and Intimidate enemies, and his tendency to go bare-fisted despite being Sun Soul made him feel like a barbarian built a very wrong, but fun way. He wasn't a monk, or a warlock, or a sorcerer, he was just Quierk, a stealth-punching, hard-cussing drunkard birdman (his swears were in chirps and such).

I miss him. May your feathers e'er fly twixt sky and sun...

None of the things you mentioned in any way required Multiclassing.
Just want to point that out.

[Isidorios]

If a DM went out of his way and refused me playing this character, with the only reason behind it being ''I dont like the concept of a gnome barbarian and I cannot think of why a gnome would ever become a barbarian'', then I call that bad dming. Even if this dm runs amazing campaigns, the above situation shows that he has not even begun to understand what his role as a DM is.

I agree that the DM should have laid out during initial character creation that X races don't support Barbarians, or asked you to provide some sort of background idea that would make the idea of a Rage Gnome palatable to him (really couldn't see that being all that hard).
On the other hand, you've always got that guy who wants to be a Tiefling Paladin in the Order of Pathological Fiend Haters, and that player needs to be told to get another idea.

Also, if he runs "amazing campaigns" I'd say he perfectly understands his role as a DM, and maybe you ought to turn down your sense of entitlement down just a teensy bit in order to have a seat at his "anazing campaign". Because there really aren't that many of them.

[RickAllison]

I tend not to like multiclassing in general and do not normally allow it in my games (not do I allow feats).

Why?

Because a Druid is a Druid. It's a member of a Druidic Circle. In order to become a Druid you must first join that organization and undergo a period of training to learn your new spells and abilities. You cannot make up one morning and decide, 'HEY, wouldn't it be cool if I could turn into a bear? Great, I'm going to multiclass." That is not how it works in my game. A wildshaping rogue is NOT a druid. It is a wildshaping rogue.

There are times, however, when a player comes up with a concept that is not functional using the classes and sub-classes presented to us in the PHB and SCAG. That's fine. That's when homebrewing comes in.


You want a wildshifting rogue? GREAT, let's write that new sub-class up.
You want a monk that wields a katana instead of duking it out with his fists? PERFECT! Let's meet up Monday night and talk about that new sub-class.
You want to play a minotaur? COOL, get some graph paper and let's stat is out.
You want a paladin whose loyalty is torn between light and dark? NICE, sounds like a cool Paladin sub-class.


While I may not allow multiclassing, I am happy to twist the game to bring my players' characters to life in the game world.

Your example of the Druid is where downtime is supposed to come into play. A Ranger devoted to Mielikki, for example, could desire to become closer to nature. He spends a few days here, a month there, heck maybe he even suggests to the DM he could play a Land Druid for a few sessions to try it out for his Ranger while his PC is taken in for the long period of judgement by Mielikki to decide if he is ready. A month or two later, when the other PCs return laden with gold, they see a massive wolf in broad daylight, who leaps down while shifting to reveal the Ranger who has been gone for months.

You can run your world your way (as any DM can), but multiclassing shouldn't be as abrupt as "I suddenly know spells!" Just as an Eldritch Knight should probably lead into his decision to become a magic knight during Fighter 2, a player should inform the DM and try to lead into these decisions ahead of time. Some work better than others for instant power (if you are chosen by a god, good luck denying it...), but the majority of level-ups should have some lead-in or downtime.

[BurgerBeast]

Stop single-line quoting, please.

Is there some etiquette I'm not aware of? If so, sorry. But until I know that, I'll probably keep doing it because it prevents confusion over which parts of the text I am replying to.


You're taking things out of context.

I really don't think I took anything out of context. The entire posts are in this thread, so I am ready stand corrected.


I allow all feats even if I feel some are a little bit too strong.

Okay, well "I allow all feats" is a different statement than "I tentatively allow most feats."


I don't allow V.Human because a bonus feat at level one disrupts player balance way too far to be fun for anyone but the human.

Okay, so you don't allow V Human. So there are some things that you don't allow. I'm not saying this to be a jerk.


All of my players agreed to that stipulation and also agreed that the temptation for a free feat would greatly influence how they build their characters and subsequent choices in race. This really shouldn't come as a surprise given how often Variant Humans are just outright banned in most people's tables, or removed from Homebrew/Tweak Lists whatever.

You don't have to justify your choices to me. This has been my stance all along. your game, your rules. I have simply been advocating that every DM be afforded the same privilege.

[Sabeta]

Combined with your stance on Multiclassing "entitlement" and "muh fun", you end up looking like a terrible hypocrite here.

My Stance on multiclassing is different from my stance on V. Humans. The two are unrelated issues. One can be used by anyone for anything. The other is only used be munchkins looking for an early power-spike. But whatever, I'm done with you. It's clear at this point you're just looking for people to argue with, what with your cute little "denied" comment. Have fun being terrible.

Edit for BurgerBeast: It's not an etiquette issue, you took my comment out of context when you split up two lines of text. I PERSONALLY allow all feats. My SUGGESTION TO TC was to perhaps deny the stronger ones. By removing supporting lines you've removed the context that I was talking to TC rather than talking about myself personally.

[Isidorios]

Your example of the Druid is where downtime is supposed to come into play. A Ranger devoted to Mielikki, for example, could desire to become closer to nature. He spends a few days here, a month there, heck maybe he even suggests to the DM he could play a Land Druid for a few sessions to try it out for his Ranger while his PC is taken in for the long period of judgement by Mielikki to decide if he is ready. A month or two later, when the other PCs return laden with gold, they see a massive wolf in broad daylight, who leaps down while shifting to reveal the Ranger who has been gone for months.

Me, I would just have the Druidic order send the Ranger (and party) on a dangerous quest. And when it's completed, they give the Ranger a Mask/Amulet/Belt of "Turns into a Wolf X times per day".

See, that wasn't hard!

[Isidorios]

My Stance on multiclassing is different from my stance on V. Humans. The two are unrelated issues. One can be used by anyone for anything. The other is only used be munchkins looking for an early power-spike. But whatever, I'm done with you. It's clear at this point you're just looking for people to argue with, what with your cute little "denied" comment. Have fun being terrible.

Edit for BurgerBeast: It's not an etiquette issue, you took my comment out of context when you split up two lines of text. I PERSONALLY allow all feats. My SUGGESTION TO TC was to perhaps deny the stronger ones. By removing supporting lines you've removed the context that I was talking to TC rather than talking about myself personally.

"Your stance on a particular Optional Rule is meanie-fun-denying"
"My stance on this other Optional Rule is completely reasonable"

[Corran]

On the other hand, you've always got that guy who wants to be a Tiefling Paladin in the Order of Pathological Fiend Haters, and that player needs to be told to get another idea.
Why? Personaly I find this to be a very good (and yes, very cliche) idea of a character. Being always treated with prejudice when you only want to help. Full of roleplaying opportunities. And difficult to roleplay well. And dangerous, you might find yourself in a difficult spot due to being a tiefling very often, and sometimes you might just suffer the consequences of just being a tiefling. I like it. So long as tieflings and paladins exist in this world, and there is not some houserule that indicates that tieflings are pure evil and cannot willingly performs an act of goodness, I dont see why I should be talked out of playing a tiefling paladin.


Also, if he runs "amazing campaigns" I'd say he perfectly understands his role as a DM, and maybe you ought to turn down your sense of entitlement down just a teensy bit in order to have a seat at his "anazing campaign". Because there really aren't that many of them.
No, I stand by what I said. Granted, it is just my opinion, but I will back it up passionately and with confidence, until someone convinces me that I am wrong.

[tombowings]

Your example of the Druid is where downtime is supposed to come into play. A Ranger devoted to Mielikki, for example, could desire to become closer to nature. He spends a few days here, a month there, heck maybe he even suggests to the DM he could play a Land Druid for a few sessions to try it out for his Ranger while his PC is taken in for the long period of judgement by Mielikki to decide if he is ready. A month or two later, when the other PCs return laden with gold, they see a massive wolf in broad daylight, who leaps down while shifting to reveal the Ranger who has been gone for months.

Absolutely. If a player ever wanted to join the Druids and take some time off, I would allow it. Most players, however, are interested in playing a concept. They want the abilities, but not necessarily the story. In this case, assuming the character was below 3rd level, I would suggesting writing up a new sub-class. If the character was above 4th level, we would find another way to handle it. I'm open to ideas.

If multiclassing was the best way (the player really does want to be a member of the Druids), I would allow it in that case. What matters is that the character in the players' head is modeled correctly in a way that makes sense in the game world. It all just depends, and I am happy to play fast and loose with the rules in those cases, even my normal rules against multi-classing.


You can run your world your way (as any DM can), but multiclassing shouldn't be as abrupt as "I suddenly know spells!" Just as an Eldritch Knight should probably lead into his decision to become a magic knight during Fighter 2, a player should inform the DM and try to lead into these decisions ahead of time. Some work better than others for instant power (if you are chosen by a god, good luck denying it...), but the majority of level-ups should have some lead-in or downtime.

Well, it would the GOD choosing the character. Not the character choosing the god. Once again, it's a matter of trying to figure out how the player imagines his/her character and working together to find the best way to model that image in the game world.

[Isidorios]

Why? Personally I find this to be a very good (and yes, very cliche) idea of a character.

No. You don't get to be the first and only Black Klansman.
Why?
Because it's a stupid idea. Not every idea you crap out is diamond-studded gold that I should bend my game world so that it can gleam in all it's glory. So sorry if that eviscerates all sense of fun in the game of D&D and possibly ruins your whole week.

[Isidorios]

No, I stand by what I said. Granted, it is just my opinion, but I will back it up passionately and with confidence, until someone convinces me that I am wrong.

That Guy 101
Give him an "amazing campaign", and he will find some quibble to dig his heels in over, and refuse to budge until reasoned with at length.

"Man our ballteam is awesome fun"
"Glad you like it"
"Problem is the red uniforms"
"What?"
"I wanna wear blue"
".....red is the team color..."
"REEEEEE you are limiting my fun! I demand you convince me that wearing red is better!!!"
And so it goes.

[BurgerBeast]

Thank you for providing such a detailed answer, and for breaking it down to answer to everything I posted. I apologize for not doing the same, dont have the courage. Let me present my major source of disagreement with one example (examples are easy to write without giving yourself a headache:smallsmile:).

Heh, no problem.


(the gnome barbarian)

Yeah if the DM allow songs and barbarians, and then you put together a character who the DM then decides he does't like, then you have a legitimate complaint. If the DM doesn't like the combo then he should disallow the combo before players build it. That being said, I still think it's the DM's right to say no if he does so through a discussion before a game begins. I'd expect him or her, in this case, to recognize that it was his or her own mistake, and be apologetic, and willing to compromise if possible.

(You picked a good example, because I hate gnomes, but if I ever allowed them, I would disallow the gnome barbarian combo... nice one.)

So I think you might've identified a difference of opinion between us, only because I still think it's within the DMs rights to forbid the character. I would be willing to call it bad DMing, but I'd be open to the idea that it was just a mistake, too. If this sort of thing happened often, mistake or not, I'd expect players to get fed up and stop playing.


If a DM went out of his way and refused me playing this character, with the only reason behind it being ''I dont like the concept of a gnome barbarian and I cannot think of why a gnome would ever become a barbarian'', then I call that bad dming.

Here I agree with you, based on the reason given. I can say that there are no gnome barbarians in any worlds I've DM'd, though.


Even if this dm runs amazing campaigns, the above situation shows that he has not even begun to understand what his role as a DM is.

I don't know if I agree, here. As I said, I'd tend to view it as a mistake. Bad DMing, sure. It could be the result of inexperience, incompetence, or lack of respect for players and their time and effort.


That's the same case as when a DM does not allow a certain multiclass, with the only reason being that the DM does not like the fluff of said multiclass.

I guess for me the difference is the default assumption. I think players should never assume that multi-classing is a part of a 5e campaign. It's an optional rule, as are the rules about feats, flanking, and encumbrance.

If the circumstances are the same (a player makes a multi-classed character in a game where multi-classing is allowed, and the specific multi-class is allowed, but the DM then decides he doesn't want that particular multi-class), then the DM has made the same error and is just as guilty. But generally speaking, it's within the DM's rights to ban multi-classed characters across the board.

[Corran]

No. You don't get to be the first and only Black Klansman.
Why?
Because it's a stupid idea. Not every idea you crap out is diamond-studded gold that I should bend my game world so that it can gleam in all it's glory. So sorry if that eviscerates all sense of fun in the game of D&D and possibly ruins your whole week.
Lol


That Guy 101
Give him an "amazing campaign", and he will find some quibble to dig his heels in over, and refuse to budge until reasoned with at length.

"Man our ballteam is awesome fun"
"Glad you like it"
"Problem is the red uniforms"
"What?"
"I wanna wear blue"
".....red is the team color..."
"REEEEEE you are limiting my fun! I demand you convince me that wearing red is better!!!"
And so it goes.
Lets just say that this is as accurate as the assumption that ''multiclassing is insanely broken''.
Good day.

[RickAllison]

None of the things you mentioned in any way required Multiclassing.
Just want to point that out.

Well his tendency to be a brawler could certainly be done with Tavern Brawler to a lesser extent and lacking the flavor of being a monk with the full capabilities of the same when he actually feels like applying it. I guess you could say "He knows monk Martial Arts, but just chooses not to use them because he likes a more visceral style" without actually being able to do the same. The toughness and reluctance to go down in a brawl could be done with Barbarian, but he won't have access to his arsenal of spells that were his bag of tricks for infiltration.

I ran over a couple of builds in my head, but I don't think I can actually re-create him without multiclassing. He needs some way to seemingly always stay standing in a brawl (Barbarian, Shadow Sorcerer, Fiendlock, and Long Death Monk could do it; note that this is an actual bar brawl rather than a normal fight), ability to perform beat-downs with his fists (Monk or Tavern Brawler Barbarian), a utility belt of spells to make up for not having Expertise or caution (Sorcerer and Warlock), and his lookout (Warlock or Magic Initiate). So the best I can do is a Fiend Chainlock with Tavern Brawler. Still doesn't capture the essence of the character (because fists must use Strength, can't be an unarmored user of the Drunken Fist; really just relies on casting Booming/Green-Flame Blade because he can't actually beat anyone down with his fists while violating a rule to do so; definitely can't be the Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass of Quierk when he got serious). So I can re-make his character, but only a watered-down version and certainly not something that created its own character.

So yes, you could make a sad, Impressionist portrait of Quierk using single-class. No, you could not actually make Quierk.

[Malifice]

That Guy 101... he will find some quibble to dig his heels in over, and refuse to budge until reasoned with at length.

What, you mean like exactly what you're doing in this thread?

[Isidorios]

If the circumstances are the same (a player makes a multi-classed character in a game where multi-classing is allowed, and the specific multi-class is allowed, but the DM then decides he doesn't want that particular multi-class), then the DM has made the same error and is just as guilty. But generally speaking, it's within the DM's rights to ban multi-classed characters across the board.

The problem is players who think that a D&D Campaign is their own land of "Do As Thou Wilt".

That said, the DM needs to lay out the House Rules for his campaign at the start, what races, classes and whatever are not allowed/not allowed in combination. And what Optional Rules, such as multiclassing. That said, I feel that IF you allow mulitclassing, you're pretty obliged to allow it in full; you can't make a case-by-case on which combos to allow, though you can obligate the player to go through the necessary roleplaying/hurdles to be accepted into say, a Druid Order that it's already established can be picky about membership. But if the Church of Dog doesn't allow Halflings and Barbarians in it's order, that shoulda been made clear at the onset.

[Isidorios]

What, you mean like exactly what you're doing in this thread?

That's a slick comeback, unfortunately it has absolutely no relevance to my own personal stance, which is simply that you CAN have Multiclassing, I won't have it in my game, and feel there are better alternatives to it.

But still, nice comeback and all.

[Corran]

So I think you might've identified a difference of opinion between us, only because I still think it's within the DMs rights to forbid the character.
Yes, I believe that sums it up pretty well. I would say that it is possibly within the DM's power, but he shouldn't abuse it, meaning that he would have no right to do so. But that certainly comes from my own personal expectations and how I am used to play this game. So my statement is highly opinionated.


I would be willing to call it bad DMing, but I'd be open to the idea that it was just a mistake, too. If this sort of thing happened often, mistake or not, I'd expect players to get fed up and stop playing.
Yes, you are right, perhaps I came too strong. Also agreed on everything else, even to the fact that gnomes are disgusting:smallbiggrin:

[Alberic Strein]

I always get surprised at how we can have a civil discussion for 6+ pages on the most slippery subject and then very vehemently argue about a particular point of rules.

Personally, as a DM, I have no issue with multiclassing, I'll just pull DM fiat if it becomes too ridiculous or imbalances the team mechanics. Surprisingly, sometimes having OP characters can be good for a group as a whole, with some players focusing more on social aspects, intrigue, the pursue of magical knowledge, or simply acquiring a brothel, making it the best in the capital, and being dubbed Lord Pimp General Bandit (Bandit being the character's last name). The OP character being the specialist in a field that allows the others to completely disregard an entire part of the game that doesn't interest them. I've seen it happen a couple of times.

As a player, I often have concepts floating in my mind and try to bring them to the game and have them be as effective as possible regarding the rules. Sometimes it meshes well with a pre-existing class, sometimes I feel the need to multi-class, sometimes the DM really doesn't want me to MC and lets me attain my goal by another way.

I would probably be the kind of player Isidorios hates though. I freaking LOVE being a damage-monkey. There is something really pleasant in being able to shoot the BBEG in the back as he runs away and roll high enough to have him killed, forcing a temp BBEG to pitch in and resurrect his mentor. I was never a fan of how resilient characters and enemies quickly became in 3. 4e and PF, being able to pull the card "reality check, you got a sword in your gut, you're gargling on the ground, dying, and not going anywhere." is one of the great joys I have.

[RickAllison]

Me, I would just have the Druidic order send the Ranger (and party) on a dangerous quest. And when it's completed, they give the Ranger a Mask/Amulet/Belt of "Turns into a Wolf X times per day".

See, that wasn't hard!

So the player wants to immerse himself in your world, delve into the secret order of druids, and work to be proven worthy. And you just shut it down. I'm starting to think I was wrong, maybe you are a bad DM...


Why? Personaly I find this to be a very good (and yes, very cliche) idea of a character. Being always treated with prejudice when you only want to help. Full of roleplaying opportunities. And difficult to roleplay well. And dangerous, you might find yourself in a difficult spot due to being a tiefling very often, and sometimes you might just suffer the consequences of just being a tiefling. I like it. So long as tieflings and paladins exist in this world, and there is not some houserule that indicates that tieflings are pure evil and cannot willingly performs an act of goodness, I dont see why I should be talked out of playing a tiefling paladin.


No, I stand by what I said. Granted, it is just my opinion, but I will back it up passionately and with confidence, until someone convinces me that I am wrong.

Every Tiefling I have ever made has always known Celestial as a language. Since I always assumed they would be treated with persecution in fear of the devil within, I thought the best way to deflate those fears was to give greetings from the Good gods (specifically Eldath, perhaps the most Good god of all the Faerunian pantheons) in actual Celestial. He would cite proverbs from the various churches and show himself to be the epitome of a model citizen to the point where others would feel a little guilty. The idea of a Tiefling defying the social norms like that is both so funny and flavorful that I can't pass it up.


Absolutely. If a player ever wanted to join the Druids and take some time off, I would allow it. Most players, however, are interested in playing a concept. They want the abilities, but not necessarily the story. In this case, assuming the character was below 3rd level, I would suggesting writing up a new sub-class. If the character was above 4th level, we would find another way to handle it. I'm open to ideas.

If multiclassing was the best way (the player really does want to be a member of the Druids), I would allow it in that case. What matters is that the character in the players' head is modeled correctly in a way that makes sense in the game world. It all just depends, and I am happy to play fast and loose with the rules in those cases, even my normal rules against multi-classing.

Of course, all multiclasses should make sense IC. There are generally only two times when multiclassing should come up for a character:

1) Creating the concept. This is the one where the player should discuss their idea for the change with the DM, so s/he can set up a good hook for it.

2) The moment just seems right. These would be the unplanned multiclasses where the bait the DM has lured out is really just too perfect to avoid. This is the kind of hook that occurs if you let the PC choose a gift when the moment is perfect, or the PC is perfectly foiled in pursuing their ultimate goal, or the party spends just a little too much time near the NPCs. One of my friends was rocking an Arcane Trickster, but he ended up MCing into Bard with guidance from Osiris when we were raiding a tomb and he proved he was pure of heart. Wasn't planned, the moment just seemed right for him to try a new path in life.


Well, it would the GOD choosing the character. Not the character choosing the god. Once again, it's a matter of trying to figure out how the player imagines his/her character and working together to find the best way to model that image in the game world.

The character choosing the god doesn't really do that much :smallbiggrin:. An orc can choose Corellon, but Corellon a'int choosing the orc...

[Isidorios]

I would probably be the kind of player Isidorios hates though. I freaking LOVE being a damage-monkey. There is something really pleasant in being able to shoot the BBEG in the back as he runs away and roll high enough to have him killed, forcing a temp BBEG to pitch in and resurrect his mentor.


You'd be surprised. The four players in my campaign each have a "special trait" based on their backgrounds, and are really quite powerful for characters of their low (4th) level.
My issue is with players wanting to jam an optional rule down a DM's throat, and squealing "NO FUN" when he's not going for it.
Another issue is players who sacrifice a coherent backstory/background/progression simply to combine abilities for "Super-Effectiveness"
And people who apply optional rules inconsistently and on a case-by-case basis based on whether they "like" that particular use of it or not.

I strongly feel that characters should be powerfully heroic. And if youo came to me with an odd character idea that didn't completely violate the flavor of my game (No Cyber-Ninjas plz), I'd happily set you on a SINGLE CLASS path to being that weirdly interesting character, through homebrew Archetypes, Feats, quested magic items or whatever it takes, because you have an idea you put a lot of thought into, and you have clear enthusiasm for it. And I find Enthusiasm to be 80% of what makes a good player.

With that I bid all of you good evening.

[Isidorios]

So the player wants to immerse himself in your world, delve into the secret order of druids, and work to be proven worthy.
See, he's already a nature-loving Ranger or Barbarian....the Druids would be already chill with him hanging out. He already casts Druid-type magic as a Ranger. They could Magic Initiate him into more of their secrets with a simple Feat. They are going to send him on a quest and reward him with a great treasure that puts him MORE in tune with nature as a wolf....


You are just sounding petulant at this point, or more precisely someone who REALLY wants some specific Druid power.

Damn you made me reply one more time.

[RickAllison]

See, he's already a nature-loving Ranger or Barbarian....the Druids would be already chill with him hanging out. He already casts Druid-type magic as a Ranger. They could Magic Initiate him into more of their secrets with a simple Feat. They are going to send him on a quest and reward him with a great treasure that puts him MORE in tune with nature as a wolf....


You are just sounding petulant at this point, or more precisely someone who REALLY wants some specific Druid power.

Damn you made me reply one more time.

Rangers aren't really privy to the whole "secrets of the forest" thing. Rangers see the tops of it all, the surface of nature. Druids live it. Druids are the wolves, and the trees, and the birds, and the bees. A magic item that let's him experience a limited facet of that life is fine for the player, but who cares about the mechanics? A PC's capabilities are a partial reflection of who they are. The build doesn't see a difference between becoming a wolf through an item and becoming a wolf through Wild Shape, but the character does. The character always knows that he is on the other side of the wall, still separate. He is not the wolf, he just takes on the shape of one, and that capability can be lost. One misstep and he is forever unable to experience the joy of being a wolf again.

The flavor with the mechanics matters much more than the mechanics on their own. Mechanics are how players think, flavor of them is how the PCs feel.

[smcmike]

Never change GiTP, never change.

If a player said that to me, I'd shrug and write an E on their character sheet. In ink.

Ironic.


I tend not to like multiclassing in general and do not normally allow it in my games (not do I allow feats).

Why?

Because a Druid is a Druid. It's a member of a Druidic Circle. In order to become a Druid you must first join that organization and undergo a period of training to learn your new spells and abilities. You cannot make up one morning and decide, 'HEY, wouldn't it be cool if I could turn into a bear? Great, I'm going to multiclass." That is not how it works in my game. A wildshaping rogue is NOT a druid. It is a wildshaping rogue.

There are times, however, when a player comes up with a concept that is not functional using the classes and sub-classes presented to us in the PHB and SCAG. That's fine. That's when homebrewing comes in.


You want a wildshifting rogue? GREAT, let's write that new sub-class up.
You want a monk that wields a katana instead of duking it out with his fists? PERFECT! Let's meet up Monday night and talk about that new sub-class.
You want to play a minotaur? COOL, get some graph paper and let's stat is out.
You want a paladin whose loyalty is torn between light and dark? NICE, sounds like a cool Paladin sub-class.


While I may not allow multiclassing, I am happy to twist the game to bring my players' characters to life in the game world.


Well, you took the Multiclass route for something you could have achieved with Feats/DM involvement, for a minimal effect.

As I've said, I'm not hating on other people multiclassing; I don't allow it myself, and strongly suggest new DM's leave it for a second campaign down the road, if they feel it is necessary at all. The designers of the game didn't think it was necessary at all; it is an optional rule for that very reason. And the basic classes were clearly designed without a priority on "balancing" them for mulitclassing; hence all the odd optimized builds involving dips into certain classes.

Strange how multiple people think multiclassing is a problem, and would rather literally rewrite classes to achieve the same effect.

"Ok, I want a class with the abilities from first five levels of barbarian and the first 15 levels of rogue. A single homebrewed class, mind you."

That's just bizarre, and it says to me what you are really concerned about is control: you want a big say in the shaping of the character concept.


Denied

Combined with your stance on Multiclassing "entitlement" and "muh fun", you end up looking like a terrible hypocrite here.

So antagonistic. Name calling throughout the thread. Why?




So I think you might've identified a difference of opinion between us, only because I still think it's within the DMs rights to forbid the character. I would be willing to call it bad DMing, but I'd be open to the idea that it was just a mistake, too. If this sort of thing happened often, mistake or not, I'd expect players to get fed up and stop playing.


You seem very focused on DM rights. DMs do have rights, including the right to be a bad DM. By this, I mean that I agree that the DM has to be the ultimate arbiter in any game. Other people have the right to criticize them, though.


That's a slick comeback, unfortunately it has absolutely no relevance to my own personal stance, which is simply that you CAN have Multiclassing, I won't have it in my game, and feel there are better alternatives to it.

But still, nice comeback and all.

That does not seem to be your stance at all. Your stance is that anyone who multiclasses is an all-caps MUNCHKIN, near as I can tell. But it's ok if they get their munchkin superpowers from special homebrewed abilities given by you, the DM.

[R.Shackleford]

The character choosing the god doesn't really do that much :smallbiggrin:. An orc can choose Corellon, but Corellon a'int choosing the orc...

Why not? Corellon hates Gruumish. Best way to black Gruumish's eye is to start taking orcs.

This could lead to these orcs being changed a bit, like drow were changed when they followed Lolth, I mean who wouldn't want Elcs in their game.

[RickAllison]

Why not? Corellon hates Gruumish. Best way to black Gruumish's eye is to start taking orcs.

This could lead to these orcs being changed a bit, like drow were changed when they followed Lolth, I mean who wouldn't want Elcs in their game.

Part of the issue might be the whole "Gruumsh has set them up so they are incapable of not acting like he wants them too". Half-orcs now, that is a way Corellon could get a really ironic champion.

[Pex]

Here's my Nehwon Campaign: No playable demi-human races. 9 slight cultural human "variants" that aren't as extreme as non-humans. No Heavy Armor (fighters get the equivalent of specialization with a single weapon instead). No Alignments. No Multiclassing.

Amazingly, the players have managed to put together distinctive and effective characters they enjoy playing tremendously, (we are on session 16) and not a single one of them has expressed the desire to multiclass. I also lack any Edgelords trying to basically play an "evil character", and this is with one of them having a background of growing up in a society of belligerent raiders.

It's strange how they are having a great time and not feeling oppressed.

There is an amazing amount of variety possible character-wise without using Multiclassing, so let's stop all the Drama-queening about "The DM wants to make my character for me."

If the players are enjoying your campaign, hooray for all of you. Nothing more needs to be said.


Exactly, all it requires is IMAGINATION. Whereas the overwhelming majority of multiclassers are simply munchkins trying for a super-combo.

But this is where lose credibility. You have your own personal dislike and blow it out of proportion to cover everyone not in your game calling them names and saying they are having BadWrongFun. In essence, you do want to oppress everyone into only playing what you like.

[JNAProductions]

I offer multiclassing, and it's been taken only once. It was a friend of mine who started as a Rogue, and realized he wanted to be a Druid. So I let him take his next level in Druid.

In a more serious campaign, I would've required some fluff explanation (the "Spend a month or two amongst the forest" is a good one from earlier in this thread) but as it was, it was a rather silly campaign, so I just let him have it without any muss or fuss.

He had a lot of fun wildshaping! And it was actually pretty suboptimal, considering the lack of synergy with his various features and stats.

But, to answer the OP-I'd say yes. Some players will use it for fluff, some might use it for mechanics, and either way, they'll be using it for fun. Some players love the fluff more than crunch, some the other way around. Now, I would also say this to your players: "Hey guys, I'm still a little uncertain about multiclassing and its effects, so the encounters might be a bit wonky till I get used to it."

That way, you can mess around with encounter difficulty, finding a sweet spot to match your players' optimization levels without the players being upset that everything is too easy/hard.

[Sir cryosin]

TO THE OP. What are your thoughts after reading all this. This will be my last post on this thread. So we know you don't want MC in fear of powerful builds or not lore friendly. So my last advice is give it a trial period. See if it gets to out of hand or if your player and you can handle it. If you don't like something of it not working have a talk as a group. Because there's no game with out players or a DM and all of ya'll have to work together to make it work and have fun.


P.S cough cough Drizzt is a fighter ,ranger cough cough.

[Isidorios]

Rangers aren't really privy to the whole "secrets of the forest" thing. Rangers see the tops of it all, the surface of nature. Druids live it. Druids are the wolves, and the trees, and the birds, and the bees. A magic item that let's him experience a limited facet of that life is fine for the player, but who cares about the mechanics? A PC's capabilities are a partial reflection of who they are. The build doesn't see a difference between becoming a wolf through an item and becoming a wolf through Wild Shape, but the character does. The character always knows that he is on the other side of the wall, still separate. He is not the wolf, he just takes on the shape of one, and that capability can be lost. One misstep and he is forever unable to experience the joy of being a wolf again.

Now you are just wheedling for multi-classing as a Druid BECAUSE. At this point, as a DM, I'd sure be willing to let you roll up a nice Druid since you clearly cannot live any longer without the functions of that class and this incredible flavor you've put into your head.

[JNAProductions]

Now you are just wheedling for multi-classing as a Druid BECAUSE. At this point, as a DM, I'd sure be willing to let you roll up a nice Druid since you clearly cannot live any longer without the functions of that class and this incredible flavor you've put into your head.

And if he wants to continue to play the same character? The character that he's put time and effort into, and not some new person that he didn't want in the first place?

[Isidorios]

P.S cough cough Drizzt is a fighter ,ranger cough cough.

Drizz't would only need to be a multiclass Ranger in a system where the Ranger class is such a "Everything to everybody" mess that you really couldn't fit him into it. And we may well be playing with that system.

Just because he's a Really Skilled swordsman doesn't automatically necessitate a dip into fighter.

[Isidorios]

And if he wants to continue to play the same character? The character that he's put time and effort into, and not some new person that he didn't want in the first place?

Then honestly, he should try to advance his original character with some nature-oriented Feats and stop boo-hooing about how "I JUST CANT BE THE TREES, MAN. IT'S HARSHING MY MELLOW!"
Guess what, you don't get to be everything and have everything you want in the context of an RPG you are not running yourself. Game worlds lose immersion and credibility as a setting when it simply becomes "The world of whatever I want".
"Oh hey that's a gorgeous elven princess over there."
"..Yes just as I described her, she's the fairest in the forest."
"I want to marry her."
"Well, you're an 8 Charisma Half-Orc to start-"
"Hey, this is my fun we are talking about here!"
"....and she's happily married to the Wood Elf Prince, as I stated last session."
"I'm starting to think that you don't care about my happiness as a player. I have long dreamed of wooing the heart of a fair High Elven lady.."
"Funny how this never came up in your background or the last 20 adventures"
"....and my inner heart has always been that of an Elf, in tune with their lifestyle, their elegant ways, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..."


Yeah, would never run for this guy.

[JNAProductions]

Then honestly, he should try to advance his original character with some nature-oriented Feats and stop boo-hooing about how "I JUST CANT BE THE TREES, MAN. IT'S HARSHING MY MELLOW!"
Guess what, you don't get to be everything and have everything you want in the context of an RPG you are not running yourself. Game worlds lose immersion and credibility as a setting when it simply becomes "The world of whatever I want".
"Oh hey that's a gorgeous elven princess over there."
"..Yes just as I described her, she's the fairest in the forest."
"I want to marry her."
"Well, you're an 8 Charisma Half-Orc to start-"
"Hey, this is my fun we are talking about here!"
"....and she's happily married to the Wood Elf Prince, as I stated last session."
"I'm starting to think that you don't care about my happiness as a player. I have long dreamed of wooing the heart of a fair High Elven lady.."
"Funny how this never came up in your background or the last 20 adventures"
"....and my inner heart has always been that of an Elf, in tune with their lifestyle, their elegant ways, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..."


Yeah, would never run for this guy.

To bring up the earlier example, if this character spends several months amongst a Druidic Circle, why is it unreasonable for him to become a Druid? That's not "Effortlessly get whatever you desire," that's "Work hard and achieve your goals."

And, if you would, could you provide some feats for this character?

Edit: And notice the bolded bit. The example is hyperbole-and no, no one wants to DM for someone who's a hyperbole of a bad player. A Ranger who wants to become more in touch with nature? That's not hyperbole. That's something that could actually be fairly common.

[smcmike]

Simple question: a player wants to make a fighter who wears heavy armor and casts intelligence-based arcane spells, a classic wizard/warrior. He looks at eldritch knight, but wants a bit more casting than that - EK just isn't quite scholarly enough in flavor, and doesn't use a spell book. He wants a spellbook. He'd rather take a few levels in fighter and mix in wizard. His basic concept is an aristocrat who was extensively trained in war and wizardry.

Simply put, why say no? What is the reason not to allow this, exactly?

[Isidorios]

To bring up the earlier example, if this character spends several months amongst a Druidic Circle, why is it unreasonable for him to become a Druid? That's not "Effortlessly get whatever you desire," that's "Work hard and achieve your goals."

And, if you would, could you provide some feats for this character?

Because If he were in MY game, it would have been established on the "House Rules" handout that you can't multiclass. For the sixth or so time, I don't care if he mulitclasses in this game I'm to believe he's a player in. I just really don't. I'm not violating his rights as a player running a campaign without it. Nor am I slandering his reputation as a human being when I imply that an awfully large percentage of players are doing it for the damage, with a few more doing it for Expertise (which I understand, and accommodate through Feats myself).

Magic Initiate - Druid Spells
Skilled - Whatever Druid skills you feel you lack like Religion
Since he's willing to suck up to them SO BADLY, they'll eventually cave in and teach him their language to shut him up (kidding).

Also, by "Work Hard" what you mean is, endlessly bother the DM with descriptions of your Druid Training Montage and your earnest love for the trees and sheeit. Let's not pretend that he's slaved away making the character to this point, and that he's engaging in some IRS audit level effort to become a Druid.
He's woke up yesterday with the wild urge to become a Druid, and has decided to come to the table and hard-bargain me into letting him become one in my "No Multiclassing Allowed" game.

[Isidorios]

Simple question: a player wants to make a fighter who wears heavy armor and casts intelligence-based arcane spells, a classic wizard/warrior.
Hey cool, they have an Archetype for that! And a Bladesinger too! lucky you!


He looks at eldritch knight, but wants a bit more casting than that - EK just isn't quite scholarly enough in flavor, and doesn't use a spell book. He wants a spellbook.
Hey Magic Initiate can give you more spellcasting!
Wait, you WANT to drag a big book around....well there's ritual caster, or I could just give you a spell book if you really want....(begins to look at you dubiously)[/QUOTE]


He'd rather take a few levels in fighter and mix in wizard. His basic concept is an aristocrat who was extensively trained in war and wizardry.

Ok you got an Aristocrat background, you can get the skills/proficiencies you like from that, fortunately for you the only "Martial" skill is Athletics so that was easy. Oh and hey, you are a first level character, you know there's a limit to how "extensively" you've been trained at anything, right? You don't start out as Madmartigan and Merlin. Personally I suggest you go EK with a bit more magic fluff added on.

And hey, we all want to be the Greatest Swordsman AND the Greatest Wizard, but Mike is playing a Wizard, and Chuck is a Champion, and they have dreams too.

[Isidorios]

, a classic wizard/warrior.

When did this start being "Classic" exactly? 3rd edition? Are you trying to make me feel old or something?

It's noteworthy that you and Druid Boy both assail me with "BUT MUH FLUFF", but interestingly no amount of Fluff can satisfy, you gotta have those mechanics too, Gosh Golly Darn It!

[CaptainCharisma]

I dont know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I think the problems you are going to have are more with the player than the multiclassing. If a player came to me and said 'I am doing this regardless of if you allow it or not' Id be inclined to just disinvite him.

[Isidorios]

I dont know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I think the problems you are going to have are more with the player than the multiclassing. If a player came to me and said 'I am doing this regardless of if you allow it or not' Id be inclined to just disinvite him.

But then they would have no resort but to come to this Forum and gripe about DM's who are Adolf Eichmanns while they troll about looking for their next vict-Imean DM.

[smcmike]

Hey cool, they have an Archetype for that! And a Bladesinger too! lucky you!


He's not an elf, and he doesn't want to be a bladesinger anyways. He wants to be a wizard knight.



Hey Magic Initiate can give you more spellcasting!
Wait, you WANT to drag a big book around....well there's ritual caster, or I could just give you a spell book if you really want....(begins to look at you dubiously)

These are fine suggestions, actually, but in this case I want more spellcasting than they offer.



Oh and hey, you are a first level character, you know there's a limit to how "extensively" you've been trained at anything, right? You don't start out as Madmartigan and Merlin. Personally I suggest you go EK with a bit more magic fluff added on.

And hey, we all want to be the Greatest Swordsman AND the Greatest Wizard, but Mike is playing a Wizard, and Chuck is a Champion, and they have dreams too.

I don't want to be the Greatest anything, but you do like your straw men. I want an ok fighter who is also an ok wizard. (And clearly I'm not talking about a first level character. This should be obvious.)

Really, though, I don't see any answer to my question. Why not? You give other options, and those options are fine, but what reason do you have for ruling out the most obvious option?

[Tanarii]

I don't like multi-classing. Because I don't like power-gaming during a character creation/planning. I want players to focus on play, and creating strategies in play in conjunction with other players with the available tools and powers. Not on pre-designing character builds before play begins. So I generally prefer one of three kinds of multi-classing:
1) None.
2) Simul-classing. Must keep levels within 1 of each other. Decide on classes at character creation. (Being a D&D history buff, I'm easily won over by builds like Halfling F/Th, Half-elf Cl/Ranger or Half-orc Cl/Assassin)
3) Changing careers. Stop leveling your old class and start a new one in response to in-campaign events.

That said, I understand where some players desire to multi-class comes from. They are doing top down character concept --> archetype, not bottom up archetype --> character concept. For example:


I tend not to like multiclassing in general and do not normally allow it in my games (not do I allow feats).

Why?

Because a Druid is a Druid. It's a member of a Druidic Circle. In order to become a Druid you must first join that organization and undergo a period of training to learn your new spells and abilities. You cannot make up one morning and decide, 'HEY, wouldn't it be cool if I could turn into a bear? Great, I'm going to multiclass." That is not how it works in my game. A wildshaping rogue is NOT a druid. It is a wildshaping rogue.This holds if you start with D&D archetypes and build your character up from there. It doesn't work as well if you start with a concept and try to build the character down from it.

For example, recently I wanted to make 3 characters. Two were easy. The third was kinda difficult. A magic-using elven court functionary with no real world experience. High Elf Wizard Noble, no combat cantrips or spells. A viking halfling raider. Stout Halfling Barbarian Sailor. (also Bard --> College of Valor probably would have worked). A dwarven archaeologist, possibly using a Whip & Fedora .... this one I got a bit stuck on. Hill Dwarf Sage, but what class? I ended up settling on Rogue, but Sneak Attack and Thieves Cant are a poor fit. (Edit: And adding MC Ranger at some point is *really* appealing to me for this last build.)

Now, in this case, I had a really simple concept for each, and there were potentially several ways to build each. But my point is that building your character concept first then driving down into archetypes then down to mechanics is a fairly common way for players to want to design characters, and it can get messy. The 3e/5e discrete levels method for multi-classing allows a more 'pick and choose the features needed for a concept' approach to that.

[smcmike]

When did this start being "Classic" exactly? 3rd edition? Are you trying to make me feel old or something?

It's noteworthy that you and Druid Boy both assail me with "BUT MUH FLUFF", but interestingly no amount of Fluff can satisfy, you gotta have those mechanics too, Gosh Golly Darn It!

In my case, from Pool of Radiance, so 1988?

[Isidorios]

He's not an elf, and he doesn't want to be a bladesinger anyways. He wants to be a wizard knight.

Then I can refluff a Very Special Wizard Knight or you, using the Bladesinger's mechanics, now with Extra Added Spell Book and Scholarly Gravitas.

But no, what you REALLY want it to hold your breath at the table til I let you be a Fighter/Magic-User. Screw the Fluff and Flavor, I am impeding you in your desires, and isn't my job to be your Free Babysitter that cooks you whatever you want for dinner, even Ice Cream and Sausages, and screw whatever I've got prepared in the fridge, I don't want to eat your smelly cooking or play your board game, I WANT MY ICE CREAM AND SAUSAGES!

And someone rings a bell, and another That Guy gets his wings.

[Tanarii]

When did this start being "Classic" exactly? 3rd edition? Are you trying to make me feel old or something?

It's noteworthy that you and Druid Boy both assail me with "BUT MUH FLUFF", but interestingly no amount of Fluff can satisfy, you gotta have those mechanics too, Gosh Golly Darn It!

In my case, from Pool of Radiance, so 1988?
Yeah, seriously, Fighter/Magic-User is classic D&D as in (at least) AD&D 1e Elves, Half-elves, and Gnomes. The latter being illusionists only.

Edit: Of course, if you wanted to do it as a human (and not face level limits) you had to Dual-class, which was a whole 'nother barrel of monkeys.

[smcmike]

Then I can refluff a Very Special Wizard Knight or you, using the Bladesinger's mechanics, now with Extra Added Spell Book and Scholarly Gravitas.

But no, what you REALLY want it to hold your breath at the table til I let you be a Fighter/Magic-User. Screw the Fluff and Flavor, I am impeding you in your desires, and isn't my job to be your Free Babysitter that cooks you whatever you want for dinner, even Ice Cream and Sausages, and screw whatever I've got prepared in the fridge, I don't want to eat your smelly cooking or play your board game, I WANT MY ICE CREAM AND SAUSAGES!

And someone rings a bell, and another That Guy gets his wings.

Fascinating. I just asked a question, man. And you haven't answered it yet.

(Also, Knights wear heavy armor. Bladesingers do not).

[RickAllison]

Yeah, seriously, Fighter/Magic-User is classic D&D as in (at least) AD&D 1e Elves, Half-elves, and Gnomes. The latter being illusionists only.

Edit: Of course, if you wanted to do it as a human (and not face level limits) you had to Dual-class, which was a whole 'nother barrel of monkeys.

Heck, it goes back at least to Tolkien with Gandalf with his Glamdring.

[Isidorios]

Really, though, I don't see any answer to my question. Why not? You give other options, and those options are fine, but what reason do you have for ruling out the most obvious option?

Ok.
1. It's an optional rule. That gives me the OPTION not to use it at all. Not as if the DM needs permission to not use a rule, but you can certainly assume I am using all the cores rules unless I notify you at the onset.
2. Hey, I notified you way back at the character creation stage, that we wouldn't be using Multi-Class optional rules.
3. No, really, I meant it back then, asking me again now isn't going to change my mind
4. Why? Various reasons. You don't need it to Feat Expertise in this game, I gotcha covered. Archetypes work great, I can even work with you on a new one if you have a cool idea. I don't want to encourage "dips" just to get a combo-mechanic for unbalanced damage. A Gypsy woman told me that it would be unlucky for me to allow multiclassing. I secretly hate your eye color and this is my subtlest form of passive aggressiveness towards you. Lots of Reasons. Also see 2.

[Tanarii]

And someone rings a bell, and another That Guy gets his wings.Y'know, so far the only person I see being That Guy is you being a 'multiclassing is munchkin' That DM all over this thread.

[Isidorios]

Heck, it goes back at least to Tolkien with Gandalf with his Glamdring.

Gandalf is a Demi-God pretending to be a Hedge Wizard/Scholar. He's closer to a Solar covered in dust and grey robes than a Fighter/Wizard.

[Isidorios]

Y'know, so far the only person I see being That Guy is you being a 'multiclassing is munchkin' That DM all over this thread.

Y'know, you should really become familiar with terms you want to use glibly. That Guy is the player who disrupts the evening's game with their Special Needs, Abrasiveness towards the other players, Rules hectoring and general not being fun to run a game for/play a game with.

What I am is a DM who runs his game how he likes, and doesn't obligate you to play in YOUR game how I like, but feels he has very good reasons for suggesting to people who ask "Multiclassing, should I allow it?", as the OP asked.

People who REALLY bristle this hard at the suggestion that they "are a Munchkin", who defend their "honor" this vigorously, are probably Munchkins.
That's my take at least.

[Sir cryosin]

Hey cool, they have an Archetype for that! And a Bladesinger too! lucky you!


Hey Magic Initiate can give you more spellcasting!
Wait, you WANT to drag a big book around....well there's ritual caster, or I could just give you a spell book if you really want....(begins to look at you dubiously)



Ok you got an Aristocrat background, you can get the skills/proficiencies you like from that, fortunately for you the only "Martial" skill is Athletics so that was easy. Oh and hey, you are a first level character, you know there's a limit to how "extensively" you've been trained at anything, right? You don't start out as Madmartigan and Merlin. Personally I suggest you go EK with a bit more magic fluff added on.

And hey, we all want to be the Greatest Swordsman AND the Greatest Wizard, but Mike is playing a Wizard, and Chuck is a Champion, and they have dreams too.[/QUOTE]

From what I can tell you don't like using variant rules. So the bladesinger can't be a half-orc, human, gnome, or any other non-elf. Some archetypes just aren't going to get the feel that a player wants. Do you let your players have any bit of creation to the game world or are they just rats runing your maze unaware of there free will taken away from them.

[smcmike]

1. It's an optional rule. That gives me the OPTION not to use it at all. Not as if the DM needs permission to not use a rule, but you can certainly assume I am using all the cores rules unless I notify you at the onset.

This is fine, but it's not a reason. It's just a restatement of the principle that it is ultimately the DM's decision what rules to use, a principle that I agree with.



2. Hey, I notified you way back at the character creation stage, that we wouldn't be using Multi-Class optional rules.


I should hope so! It would be awkward to notify me as I pulled out my spellbook. This isn't a reason though.



3. No, really, I meant it back then, asking me again now isn't going to change my mind


I'm not even sure what this is, but it isn't a reason.



4. Why? Various reasons. You don't need it to Feat Expertise in this game, I gotcha covered. Archetypes work great, I can even work with you on a new one if you have a cool idea. I don't want to encourage "dips" just to get a combo-mechanic for unbalanced damage. A Gypsy woman told me that it would be unlucky for me to allow multiclassing. I secretly hate your eye color and this is my subtlest form of passive aggressiveness towards you. Lots of Reasons. Also see 2.

Oh, lots of reasons, got it. Let's break these down:

1. I like feat expertise just fine, and it's a nice feature once you've decided not to include MC, but it isn't a reason not to include it, is it?

2. Archetypes do work great! So?

3. Unbalanced damage: is my wizard knight really going to outpace a barbarian with GWM? No. No he is not. But good job - this is an actual reason.

4, 5. Oh, facetiousness. I guess we are out of actual reasons. Already?

6. Lots, or one? Cause I counted one.

[Sir cryosin]

Y'know, you should really become familiar with terms you want to use glibly. That Guy is the player who disrupts the evening's game with their Special Needs, Abrasiveness towards the other players, Rules hectoring and general not being fun to run a game for/play a game with.

What I am is a DM who runs his game how he likes, and doesn't obligate you to play in YOUR game how I like, but feels he has very good reasons for suggesting to people who ask "Multiclassing, should I allow it?", as the OP asked.

People who REALLY bristle this hard at the suggestion that they "are a Munchkin", who defend their "honor" this vigorously, are probably Munchkins.
That's my take at least.

That's the problem it's not your game it's everyone at the tables game. If you don't like something you instantly shoot it down.

[Tanarii]

Y'know, you should really become familiar with terms you want to use glibly. That Guy is the player who disrupts the evening's game with their Special Needs, Abrasiveness towards the other players, Rules hectoring and general not being fun to run a game for/play a game with.
no. That Guy is someone who comes into a thread with a massive chip on his shoulder, insults everyone else repeatedly, and yet somehow thinks he's the one being insulted and everyone else deserves his attitude.

I've been That Guy plenty of times in plenty of other threads. But in this thread, you're being That Guy.

[Ruslan]

In 5e I've heard it is more balanced and in my own reading it does seem so. But I still dislike the thought of a fighter suddenly learning to cast spells mid campaign or a rogue suddenly learning how to use any armor or weapon.
It's not "suddenly". Look at it like this: a character reaches level 4, and takes the Skilled feat. He now knows 3 skills he didn't know before. How do you explain that this character suddenly became proficient in History, Acrobatics, and Persuasion? He wasn't just a moment ago!

Or, how can you explain that two new spells suddenly appear at the spellbook of a mage who just leveled up? Those spells weren't in the spellbook a moment ago!

The answer to those conundrums is that, of course, those things happen over time. The mage was researching those spells for a while, and upon leveling up, his research finally comes to fruition. He didn't need to tell the DM in advance "over each rest break, I'm researching Web and Hypnotic Pattern". He just levels up, adds those two spells to his spellbook, and we can quietly assume he was researching them all along.

Why can we not make the same assumption with the fighter who learns to cast spells? He was always a fighter interested in magic, he scribbled some notes, took a gander at other wizards, he's pretty quick on the uptake*, and boom, suddenly this study comes to fruition and he can cast rudimentary spells.

So I don't see any problems. Any seeming inconsistencies can be waived off with the "he's actually been studying it the whole time" agument, plus the "he had some natural talent" argument.

* you need to have at least INT 13 to multiclass into a wizard.

[SmokingSkull]

MCing is fine for what it is, even if it is optional it requires you to be a little MAD based on what you got stat wise and what you want to do. You delay getting class abilities for others, some combinations have more synergy than others but if the player and group is having fun then no big deal in the end. While I do firmly believe that the DM is god at the same time if I didn't like a given campaign on its stipulations for char creation, I'll find another group simple as that. And for the record barring creating some kind of raging fighter subclass, a fighter cannot rage like a barbarian, not even through feats. But that's ok, I get to play Lo'Kag tomorrow morning with my group, I get to have my barbarian and fighter cake and eat it too :smalltongue:

I digress although I MCed for story reasons and the RP flavor it provides, I will not deny the synergy between the two. To me though RP, Story, Mechanical and Fun are not mutually exclusive, they're all perfectly valid reasons to MC. But in the end everyone, from DM to player has their different methods, standards, likes and dislikes for creating a world and characters of their own.

[DwarvenGM]

Wow this thread blew up while I was at work. I'm glad to see I'm not the only anti-multiclasser here a couple points I want to make.

I appreciate the advice but I'd appreciate the same amount of respect I give you, so can we please refrain from insulting my skills as a dm because I dislike an optional rule? I know this is the internet where everyone insults everyone but I'd like a civil conversation.

Second some bring up the classes as abstract and view that as a reason for being pro multiclassing but that's how I've viewed classes for a long time and that is why multi classing has been unnecessary in my games. A paladin can be stealthy dagger wielding guy, a barbarian can be wise with great knowledge.

For me the classes are mechanics to hang your fluff around so almost any concept can be made by tweaking the fluff.



TO THE OP. What are your thoughts after reading all this. This will be my last post on this thread. So we know you don't want MC in fear of powerful builds or not lore friendly. So my last advice is give it a trial period. See if it gets to out of hand or if your player and you can handle it. If you don't like something of it not working have a talk as a group. Because there's no game with out players or a DM and all of ya'll have to work together to make it work and have fun.


P.S cough cough Drizzt is a fighter ,ranger cough cough.

I've talked to my player he wants to multi class just so he can add action surge and the archery fighting style on to his rogue.

I've told him to come up with a concept anx I'll let him be my trial run. I greatly dislike his reasons for multi classing BUT I am going to see how it plays out.

Also I'm one of the few that dislike Drizzt lol so not a good argument for me. Angsty and over exposed the drizzt clones still keep popping up in my games.

[Tanarii]

I've talked to my player he wants to multi class just so he can add action surge and the archery fighting style on to his rogue.

I've told him to come up with a concept anx I'll let him be my trial run. I greatly dislike his reasons for multi classing BUT I am going to see how it plays out.lol Kudos to you for being flexible. If I'd already stated a campaign was "no multi-classing at all" and someone came to me with that reason, they'd definitely get a no in response.

Of course, I'd hope I had a better reason for stating that other than my natural bias against it. Such as trying to establish an old-school D&D feel, including the focus on single-class humans as much as possible.

[DwarvenGM]

lol Kudos to you for being flexible. If I'd already stated a campaign was "no multi-classing at all" and someone came to me with that reason, they'd definitely get a no in response.

Of course, I'd hope I had a better reason for stating that other than my natural bias against it. Such as trying to establish an old-school D&D feel, including the focus on single-class humans as much as possible.

I was tempted to turn him down lol but people on here reminded that I need to keep in mind his preference as well.

but I already warned him if his character is too strong and upsets my other players I will shut it down fast. My main concern is everyone having fun.

[JNAProductions]

I was tempted to turn him down lol but people on here reminded that I need to keep in mind his preference as well.

but I already warned him if his character is too strong and upsets my other players I will shut it down fast. My main concern is everyone having fun.

That's legit. I do agree-his reasoning is pretty rollplay over roleplay.

[Sigreid]

Heck, it goes back at least to Tolkien with Gandalf with his Glamdring.

Some of the older Arthurian tales include stories of Merlin donning armor, strapping on his shield and charging into battle with the other knights because using magic would have been unfair.

Edit: On a side note, I never cease to be amazed at how worked up some people get over how another table plays the game. I will say at my table it's not the DM's game, we agree on terms before we start a campaign. Granted this is probably at least partially because we pass the DM gig around. Whoever has the cool idea is DMing this time.

[ZX6Rob]

I disallow multi-classing in my games for a few reasons.

One, I currently run for a group that has a lot of new players. I find that limiting their options somewhat allows me to lower the barrier of entry for the game for them. Yeah, I can see people arguing that I should just help those players build single-classed characters and let more experienced players multi-class, but that doesn't feel very fair to me, and I'm the DM.

Two, it makes it easier for me to remember and keep track of what everyone's abilities are, so that I can use that information in order to create interesting and fair challenges. Yeah, I can see people arguing that I should be able to tailor challenges for my entire group, including multi-classed characters, but I think it's less overhead for me to worry about when building my encounters, and I'm the DM.

Three, I have some thematic concerns about multi-classing in general. I do like the idea that D&D is a class-based game, and that the class that you choose helps define your role in the party. It gives players an easy way to identify what their teammates are supposed to be good at quickly, and cements everyone's role in the party. Multi-class characters are much harder to pin down, especially for less-experienced players -- is a fighter/rogue/warlock a front-line fighter and defender, a sneaky scout, an arcane caster, or what? Yeah, I can see people arguing that it's perfectly reasonable to create multi-classed characters that fill a single role (and often fill it very well), but I think it introduces confusion to the class-based system, and I'm the DM.

Four, I think that most ideas can be closely approximated using feats, existing archetypes, and perhaps one or two homebrew substitutions. I'm more willing to swap out one or two proficiencies and abilities for a single class than I am to introduce the whole of multi-classing, which does, I think, come with a lot of baggage. Yeah, I can see people arguing that there are certain builds that you can really only do with multi-classing, but I also don't think I necessarily have a responsibility to allow and empower players to use absolutely any character concept they come up with, and I'm the DM.

I'm explaining my philosophy on it because I recently began a new, ongoing campaign, and I ended up losing a player before it started because of my decision to not allow multi-classing from the outset. Before the start of my game, I drafted up an email to all of my players, explaining what was and wasn't allowed. SCAG and EEPC were in. Feats were in. VHuman was in. DMG races and subclasses were in. Most UA was in, but I asked them to talk to me about it first. Sorcerers get to use the Spell Point variant from the DMG. Pretty much everything was allowed. The only exception was multi-classing -- it was the one thing I called out as specifically not allowed, for the reasons that I explained above.

Well, I had one player who had decided that he wanted to play a multi-classed Bard/Warlock combination. We had talked about the idea once before, in a context that I believed was "characters we'd like to play someday", but it was before I had sent out the official invitation and list of rules for the current game. Once I sent out the rules, he contacted me and said he was very upset that I had "not consulted him" prior to banning multi-classing.

This turned into an argument, in which I was informed that I was too restrictive as a DM, that I was unfairly stifling his ability to create a character that he would enjoy, and that I had unfairly targeted him in disallowing multi-classing. We weren't rude with each other, but we were fairly blunt. He told me that he did not find anything interesting about playing a single-classed character. "I can't enjoy creating a character unless I can meaningfully change it somehow," he said. After some back-and-forth, we both came to the conclusion that perhaps my game was not the right one for him, and he chose to leave the game before it began.

We remain good friends, and of the 7 people remaining in the group, I've not heard one other complaint about the lack of multi-classing. Personally, I stand by my guns -- as the DM of the game, I believe I should have a degree of say-so in what options are available for players. I think I'm within my rights to state that certain options are or are not allowed, and I think it's fair for those reasons to be mechanical, thematic, or otherwise. I do believe it's my responsibility to be as up-front about those restrictions (as well as any additions such as house rules) ahead of time, with plenty of lead-in for players to feel informed prior to building their characters.

[smcmike]

^ This is how you construct a post explaining why you don't allow multiclassing.

[RickAllison]

^ This is how you construct a post explaining why you don't allow multiclassing.

Oh yeah. He had definitively valid answers (while 5e combinations are pretty hard to ruin, it is a entirely reasonable to take measures to ensure that first-timers don't make characters that turn them off from the game, for example), and even more questionable points have the points brought up in such a way that the reasons are clear and organized so dissenters can express their feelings on the same issues without any confusion, and all can be done in a calm and happy manner. You know, rather than defaulting to insulting those who disagree...

[Sigreid]

Oh yeah. He had definitively valid answers (while 5e combinations are pretty hard to ruin, it is a entirely reasonable to take measures to ensure that first-timers don't make characters that turn them off from the game, for example), and even more questionable points have the points brought up in such a way that the reasons are clear and organized so dissenters can express their feelings on the same issues without any confusion, and all can be done in a calm and happy manner. You know, rather than defaulting to insulting those who disagree...

You have offended my great ancestors you MONSTER!!!:smalltongue:

[RickAllison]

You have offended my great ancestors you MONSTER!!!:smalltongue:

No, I am your great ancestor. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

[Coffee_Dragon]

^ This is how you construct a post explaining why you don't allow multiclassing.

A more concise way to contruct it would have been "Some players may want some things, but I don't like those things, and I'm the DM", though.

[smcmike]

A more concise way to contruct it would have been "Some players may want some things, but I don't like those things, and I'm the DM", though.

No, that would be a flat declaration of preference, without any explanation of the reasons behind tha preference.

[ZX6Rob]

A more concise way to contruct it would have been "Some players may want some things, but I don't like those things, and I'm the DM", though.

Then you don't have the reasons, and in this case, the reasons are the fruit filling that makes the dessert so satisfying.

Look, I can just flat-out tell you that I am the DM, and this is how it is. I don't think that is productive, though. It doesn't help my players by explaining why I'm making the decisions that I'm making, which impacts their gameplay experience; and it doesn't help anyone in this discussion, because the reason this topic is on its seventh eighth page is that it is not a cut-and-dry answer to a simple question, but a complex and nuanced discussion that demands dissection and reasonable argument.

I can tell you that I just don't like multi-classing, but that doesn't help you in any way, shape, or form if you do and we are trying to have a conversation. If I explain why I don't like it, you can more closely understand the reasoning I used to get to that point, and furthermore, you can choose to discuss particulars or refute my points with your own. In that way, we both increase our understanding of each other's position and are better for the exchange.

"I don't like this" is a dead-end. It's a brick wall. You can't get anything out of it. "I don't like this because..." is an open door. You can learn something about how someone else thinks, and that's the first step in having a productive discussion.

[BurgerBeast]

But the problem is that some people think that they deserve an explanation from the DM about how he or she runs his or her game.

That's the problem. It's simple. If a DM is going to run a game, it's his or her game. They have zero obligation to explain their rationale, and you have zero obligation to play in it.

This - the attitude that you are somehow allowed to demand explanations or reasons - is the "entitled" attitude that is more-or-less rude.

You don't go to a friends poker game and demand explanations for why they play 7 stud with 1/2 antes, and then make demands that the host is inflexible if he refuses to play 2/4 NL Holdem.

If you don't like it, you don't play. You don't go into Walmart and demand explanations for their return policy. You accept it or you do to shop there. They don't owe you an explanation. This is generally true and specifically true to D&D. The DM can outlaw any element if the game and change any rules he wants. The players can choose not to play. Whine, scream, complain all you want. That's how it is.

[smcmike]

But the problem is that some people think that they deserve an explanation from the DM about how he or she runs his or her game.

That's the problem. It's simple. If a DM is going to run a game, it's his or her game. They have zero obligation to explain their rationale, and you have zero obligation to play in it.

This - the attitude that you are somehow allowed to demand explanations or reasons - is the "entitled" attitude that is more-or-less rude.

You don't go to a friends poker game and demand explanations for why they play 7 stud with 1/2 antes, and then make demands that the host is inflexible if he refuses to play 2/4 NL Holdem.

If you don't like it, you don't play. You don't go into Walmart and demand explanations for their return policy. You accept it or you do to shop there. They don't owe you an explanation. This is generally true and specifically true to D&D. The DM can outlaw any element if the game and change any rules he wants. The players can choose not to play. Whine, scream, complain all you want. That's how it is.

Meanwhile, I don't think big box retail is an appropriate model for gaming with my friends.

Go figure.

[Ruslan]

But the problem is that some people think that they deserve an explanation from the DM about how he or she runs his or her game.Yeah. Some people have come to think that if they ask a person - a friend they game with - a question, they actually deserve an answer. They actually expect that friend to answer their question.

You know what, you hit the nail on the head, BurgerBeast. This exactly is the problem. People talking to other people in the setting of a social game - and expecting a reply. We would all be better off without those people.

[Sigreid]

But the problem is that some people think that they deserve an explanation from the DM about how he or she runs his or her game.

That's the problem. It's simple. If a DM is going to run a game, it's his or her game. They have zero obligation to explain their rationale, and you have zero obligation to play in it.

This - the attitude that you are somehow allowed to demand explanations or reasons - is the "entitled" attitude that is more-or-less rude.

You don't go to a friends poker game and demand explanations for why they play 7 stud with 1/2 antes, and then make demands that the host is inflexible if he refuses to play 2/4 NL Holdem.

If you don't like it, you don't play. You don't go into Walmart and demand explanations for their return policy. You accept it or you do to shop there. They don't owe you an explanation. This is generally true and specifically true to D&D. The DM can outlaw any element if the game and change any rules he wants. The players can choose not to play. Whine, scream, complain all you want. That's how it is.

This is an interesting perspective to me. I tend to ask lots of questions, and never with the intention of making someone feel like they are wrong or whatever. I like to understand how they got to where they were and see if their perspective resonates me and influences mine. Heck, one of my favorite people to talk to at work never sees anything the same way I do. That's exactly why his viewpoint is valuable to me.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You know what, you hit the nail on the head, BurgerBeast. This exactly is the problem. People talking to other people in the setting of a social game - and expecting a reply. We would all be better off without those people.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png

[Isidorios]

Yeah. Some people have come to think that if they ask a person - a friend they game with - a question, they actually deserve an answer.

No they aren't asking for an "answer", the answer was already "No you cannot multi-class in this campaign". What they looking for is a convincing rationale, for the DM to justify not using X optional rule in his campaign. And honestly I don't see where the DM is under any sort of obligation to explain why he isn't using an optional rule.
I use some optional rules, I don't use others. I explain which ones I intend to use against those I have no intention of using.

Maybe I will volunteer my reasoning, but I really don't have to sit you down and convince you of the rightness of my decisions.
Really, I don't, and neither does anyone else DMing.

[Isidorios]

I cannot avoid the feeling that I am in an argument mainly with Pro-multiclass players, and not people who regularly DM.

Another DM would shrug and say "You don't allow multiclassing, I do, that's swell"

Instead you have people getting rustled like an NRA convention on the issue of gun registration. That tells me that the most vocal advocates for Multiclass are players who like to "optimize", to use a family-friendly non-aggressive hugbox term.

Even then, the clamor against prohibiting multiclassing, the outright "You Suh Have Impuned Mah Honor" by suggesting that people are generally min-maxing, leaves me believing that not only are most of the advocates in this thread unapologetic optimizers, but that they are currently between regular DMs.

Am I right? Or are all of you in your 20 year running campaign with your wife, Morgan Fairchild?

[Elminster298]

When I multiclass(which I do a lot of the time) I build an entire character. 1-20 fully fleshed out with a detailed backstory and hopes and dreams for the future. Some take advantage of existing power spikes, but most are because I have a particular character idea. Such as my Bladelock 12/Eldritch Knight 8 with crossbow expert+warcaster who likes to go "Ironman" by slashing then repelling blast then next turn summon a lightning javelin(Eldritch knight weapon×2) throw it then go back to hack and blast all in full plate. This is a fully realized RP character that has a great mechanical flair that I love. I fully agree that RP should go hand in hand with any character build. If you disallow multiclass because of balance issues though, you should flat out van full moon druids from your game as well. Power wise they are neck and neck with ever powergaming build you could possibly make through multiclassing.

[Isidorios]

When I multiclass(which I do a lot of the time) I build an entire character.
You're building the blueprint for an optimized Kill-bot, then giving them a backstory to justify it. Plotting out characters to the last detail of their careers all the way to 20th level (which you won't arrive at) is a relic of 3.5/Pathfinder, where you had to meet an intricate map of requisites to qualify for the Next Great Thing.

In 5e, it's just silly "Optimizing" to use the polite term.

Edit: Those people in Pathfinder aren't hitting 20th level either.

Edit Edit: Oh and personally, I don't care if you map out your guy to 20th level, just don't show me the blueprint, it's the thing about your character I LEAST care about.

[smcmike]

You're building the blueprint for an optimized Kill-bot, then giving them a backstory to justify it. Plotting out characters to the last detail of their careers all the way to 20th level (which you won't arrive at) is a relic of 3.5/Pathfinder, where you had to meet an intricate map of requisites to qualify for the Next Great Thing.

In 5e, it's just silly "Optimizing" to use the polite term.

How dare he enjoy the mechanics and attempt to wed them to narrative! It's almost like he's trying to play some sort of game while role playing!

[Isidorios]

How dare he enjoy the mechanics and attempt to wed them to narrative! It's almost like he's trying to play some sort of game while role playing!

Am I a terrible DM if at 8th level mounted combat becomes a hugely important thing, and suddenly it's super-desirable to have that Feat, but it throws all of his careful optimizing to hell?

Again, I don't care if he maps out 20 levels. I just hope he puts half that effort into his backstory and character's motives.

[Coffee_Dragon]

If you disallow multiclass because of balance issues though, you should flat out van full moon druids from your game as well. Power wise they are neck and neck with ever powergaming build you could possibly make through multiclassing.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png here too

Flashbacks to the Wizards forum, where no amount of CoDzilla power demonstration would dissuade those who claimed to ban everything non-core (such as the XPH) for balance reasons.

[Ruslan]

Ok, here's my last thought on the issue:

The DM controls the entire world. If the DM wants a town to be in a particular place - there will be a town. If the DM wants said town to be controlled by a disguised lich - it will be controlled be a lich. If the DM wants the lich to be level 17 - he will be. If the DM wants to lich to also be in cahoots with a demon - he will be. If the DM wants some enemy to have a magical sword - the enemy will have a magical sword. Everything the DM wants to be about a world will be so. This is an inherent property of being a DM.

The player, meanwhile, has only one measly character to control. Just one. And he can't even arbitrarily say "I will be level 17" or "I have a magical sword". He has to advance his character by the rules. Well, dear DMs, please, for crying out loud, at least don't limit those rules too much - to the point a player has to leave the group even.

If the player wants to play a Rogue with Action Surge, or a Paladin who sells his soul to the Devil and took levels in Warlock, for crying out loud, let him. It's his one and only character. You have the entire world to play with.


I cannot avoid the feeling that I am in an argument mainly with Pro-multiclass players, and not people who regularly DM.FWIW, I'm pro-multiclass and I regularly DM.

[RickAllison]

No they aren't asking for an "answer", the answer was already "No you cannot multi-class in this campaign". What they looking for is a convincing rationale, for the DM to justify not using X optional rule in his campaign. And honestly I don't see where the DM is under any sort of obligation to explain why he isn't using an optional rule.
I use some optional rules, I don't use others. I explain which ones I intend to use against those I have no intention of using.

Maybe I will volunteer my reasoning, but I really don't have to sit you down and convince you of the rightness of my decisions.
Really, I don't, and neither does anyone else DMing.

Restating the the sentence that prompted the question of why isn't an answer, by any stretch of the imagination. In most social circles, such a question is entirely reasonable. In the military it is discouraged during firefights ("Why are you questioning me when they are SHOOTING US!"), but I fail to see many other situations where such an question is undue.

At a table, the ability to ask such a question and receive a real response is the difference between a tyrant DM who is having a power trip and a fellow games enthusiasts who wants to create a story. I wouldn't leave a game because the DM banned multi classing (it may severely restrict my options, but I can think of numerous fun characters I could play without needing two classes), but I would certainly vote with my feet against a DM who is so obsessed with power over the players that he won't even explain his rationale outside of the RP. I can enjoy a game where the DM has set up his world just so and introduces rules to keep it that way. I could not stand a game where the DM treats his players like babysitting children rather than fellow creators of the story.

[Isidorios]

The player, meanwhile, has only one measly character to control. Just one. And he can't even arbitrarily say "I will be level 17" or "I have a magical sword". He has to advance his character by the rules. Well, dear DMs, please, for crying out loud, at least don't limit those rules too much - to the point a player has to leave the group even.

You have an Avatar who's race, class, background, skills, feats, looks, loves/hates, desires, motivations and general personality are all Yours to determine.

If I, as a DM, decide I don't want Paladins of Satan to be a part of my campaign world, or any particular Optional Rule, then you are obligated to determine all of the above without the option of being a Paladin/Warlock.
Crushing, but I feel you are adult enough to get over it with time.

[JNAProductions]

FWIW, I'm pro-multiclass and I regularly DM.

Seconded. I WISH I could play more often.

[Ruslan]

You have an Avatar who's race, class, background, skills, feats, looks, loves/hates, desires, motivations and general personality are all Yours to determine.

If I, as a DM, decide I don't want Paladins of Satan to be a part of my campaign world, or any particular Optional Rule, then you are obligated to determine all of the above without the option of being a Paladin/Warlock.
Crushing, but I feel you are adult enough to get over it with time.
Given your attitude, I suspect "the time" will be about 0.5 seconds - just enough to utter "goodbye".

To alleviate any misunderstanding, I would not drop your game because you disallow multiclassing - but because of your disgusting attitude toward your fellow players and humans.

[RickAllison]

Seconded. I WISH I could play more often.

In my community, we have a good amount of DMs so generally everyone can play who wants to. Unfortunately, I can't get any of them to do a sandbox-type world where we can interact and RP freely instead of being locked on the rails. If I want to do games that aren't just linear games, I have to be the DM. Fortunately, DMing is awesome, but I would love to get the chance to interact with a world from the other side of the screen...

[Isidorios]

Restating the the sentence that prompted the question of why isn't an answer, by any stretch of the imagination.
Swell.
Here's how this goes with you at the table.
"I don't allow multiclassing"
"You don't?"
"Sure don't"
"Why"
"Sigh, ok, I don't care for it because I'm not a fan of dipping into classes, or the usual reasons for doing so, If you want something flavorful your class lacks, we can probably sit down and work something out."
"But WHY aren't you a fan of it, did you have a bad experience, what if.........." and on and on, til you get your way, I get tired of wasting my time trying to secure your acceptance, or something.

Because it's abundantly clear that you will worry at that bone of contention for as long as it takes.

[Isidorios]

but because of your disgusting attitude toward your fellow players and humans.

Funny how I'm the one being insulting by using the term "Munchkin".
I would tread carefully here.

[Ruslan]

Your posts haven't been insulting. Just disgusting. There's a difference.

[Isidorios]

In my community, we have a good amount of DMs so generally everyone can play who wants to. Unfortunately, I can't get any of them to do a sandbox-type world where we can interact and RP freely instead of being locked on the rails. If I want to do games that aren't just linear games, I have to be the DM. Fortunately, DMing is awesome, but I would love to get the chance to interact with a world from the other side of the screen...

My Nehwon campaign is very specifically a sandbox style campaign, even at 4th level my players have a double sided page of various hooks and clues they've garnered, everything from bought treasure maps to nomads suspiciously disappearing to strange monks harvesting poisonous flowers to reputedly dangerous ruins, many of these connected to their backstories or the Main Story Thread of the campaign.

You'd probably love something like it, but I am an awful person who doesn't allow Multiclassing out of spite and meanness.

[Isidorios]

Your posts haven't been insulting. Just disgusting. There's a difference.


People who ask a question, and will only except one answer get under my skin.
Sometimes the answer is just No, and no amount of wheedling, whining, rationalizing or pleading will make it become Yes.

This thread asked opinions on the optional Multiclass Rule, I have at length explained why it seemed a dubious idea, especially for new DMs/Players.
People got butt-flustered at the suggestion that they are meticulously charting out 20th level multiclass characters for the purpose of *gasp* Min-Maxing. That's their problem, I have zero control over how they Play or DM their own games.

[RickAllison]

Swell.
Here's how this goes with you at the table.
"I don't allow multiclassing"
"You don't?"
"Sure don't"
"Why"
"Sigh, ok, I don't care for it because I'm not a fan of dipping into classes, or the usual reasons for doing so, If you want something flavorful your class lacks, we can probably sit down and work something out."
"But WHY aren't you a fan of it, did you have a bad experience, what if.........." and on and on, til you get your way, I get tired of wasting my time trying to secure your acceptance, or something.

Because it's abundantly clear that you will worry at that bone of contention for as long as it takes.

It is different in a forum than in real life. Here, we are creating arguments that help other DMs think about multi classing. If I think your arguments have no merit and are based on experiences that aren't using this game system, I'm going to point them out so DMs who don't have that prejudice understand why you decry all multiclassers as munchkins. In person, I would accept that it is your prerogative and move on.

It is like discussing politics at the dinner table vs. in a public venue. At the dinner table, I accept that you have your views and we go from there politely. In a public venue, I will tear faulty positions apart so that others can make a more informed decision with less bias. Same thing here. At table, I accept your rules so long as I think I can still enjoy it (and while multiclassing increases my enjoyment, it isn't required). On a forum, I will dissect your accusations of munchkinry and imbalance by pointing out the flaws and erroneous assumptions. For more opinion-based points (whether you can create the same character without multiclassing, whether there is a problem with flavor), my arguments turn more towards why they don't create the problems and supporting my position because you can't tear apart another's opinion under normal circumstances.

There are very different dynamics in play here than at table.

[Sigreid]

"Sigh, ok, I don't care for it because I'm not a fan of dipping into classes, or the usual reasons for doing so, If you want something flavorful your class lacks, we can probably sit down and work something out."


Actually, this right here would be a real and satisfactory answer, at least for me.

[RickAllison]

People who ask a question, and will only except one answer get under my skin.
Sometimes the answer is just No, and no amount of wheedling, whining, rationalizing or pleading will make it become Yes.

This thread asked opinions on the optional Multiclass Rule, I have at length explained why it seemed a dubious idea, especially for new DMs/Players.
People got butt-flustered at the suggestion that they are meticulously charting out 20th level multiclass characters for the purpose of *gasp* Min-Maxing. That's their problem, I have zero control over how they Play or DM their own games.

Maybe you should go back through the thread and re-read your posts. You might find that most criticisms of you stemmed from the fact that yes, people do take offense when you make judgements based not on actually seeing the person in play or how they treat the characters, but assuming that they are munchkins purely because they want to use one optional rule. Exceedingly ironic when 5e munchkins are far more likely to abuse the optional rule you allow, feats. When you make judgements against other people, you should expect they will call you out on it.

[Isidorios]

Actually, this right here would be a real and satisfactory answer, at least for me.

The Mingol (it's correctly spelled) in my campaign has Advantage on saves vs Fear as part of his background, because they are expected to be fearless in battle, if young men (and horses) balk so many times in battle they are killed on the spot.

Is it a bit too powerful for a Background ability? Quite possibly (the other players have a unique trait as well from various sources I should mention).

But it sure beats having him dip into another class for Wisdom save proficiency or a similar ability.
Again, I have zero problem with the party members being slightly more powerful than vanilla, I don't run modules, so balance isn't an issue.

My issue with multiclassing is the mental gymnastics and genre-bending necessary to let someone be a Paladin of the Great Fiend, or obligating the Barbarian to be a part-time Rogue just so he can be a Master Wrestler, when I can let him have a Feat for Athletics Expertise and +1 STR and be done with it, and keep his main class abilities on track.

There's really no argument that multi-classing adds to the fun and adventure of the game; it almost always boils down to 1st level Thief traits and stacking damage modifiers. Which is IMO a poor argument for humoring Multiclassing.

[Sigreid]

The Mingol (it's correctly spelled) in my campaign has Advantage on saves vs Fear as part of his background, because they are expected to be fearless in battle, if young men (and horses) balk so many times in battle they are killed on the spot.

Is it a bit too powerful for a Background ability? Quite possibly (the other players have a unique trait as well from various sources I should mention).

But it sure beats having him dip into another class for Wisdom save proficiency or a similar ability.
Again, I have zero problem with the party members being slightly more powerful than vanilla, I don't run modules, so balance isn't an issue.

My issue with multiclassing is the mental gymnastics and genre-bending necessary to let someone be a Paladin of the Great Fiend, or obligating the Barbarian to be a part-time Rogue just so he can be a Master Wrestler, when I can let him have a Feat for Athletics Expertise and +1 STR and be done with it, and keep his main class abilities on track.

There's really no argument that multi-classing adds to the fun and adventure of the game; it almost always boils down to 1st level Thief traits and stacking damage modifiers. Which is IMO a poor argument for humoring Multiclassing.
While personally I don't mind when people multi-class when I DM, I rarely multi-class when I'm a player. I actually think that except for a few corner cases you give up more than you gain in the long run.

[Isidorios]

Exceedingly ironic when 5e munchkins are far more likely to abuse the optional rule you allow, feats.

Again, I don't have a problem with Feats, or even Multiclassing on the basis of it making characters "too powerful" (Which is impossible, you'll never get too strong for the stuff I can throw at you).
My problem is that Multiclassing leads to hackneyed and illogical class combinations for which people have to cobble together some exceedingly silly justification for, all for the cause of low-level combat "advantage"

And as has already been pointed out in this thread, not only does that not always work, but it doesn't always pan out long-term.
So you have people making something mechanical to play in what THEY assume to be a short-term commitment to a game, or people multiclasing because they feel they will lose some sort of Arms-Race against other players who ARE multiclassing.

Neither of these things are condusive to building a well fleshed-out, interesting and memorable Character. Mechanics are not memorable or interesting; everyone has them.

Oh and FYI, over my long years of gaming, I have been a terrible Min-maxer at times as a player, particularly in systems like Champions 2nd Edition. I've grown out of it, but I didn't apologize for it then, or act ashamed or angry when people pointed it out.
One of my current players has always min-maxed, he's actually really enjoying the lack of Arms Race in my current campaign.

[Elminster298]

You're building the blueprint for an optimized Kill-bot, then giving them a backstory to justify it. Plotting out characters to the last detail of their careers all the way to 20th level (which you won't arrive at) is a relic of 3.5/Pathfinder, where you had to meet an intricate map of requisites to qualify for the Next Great Thing.

In 5e, it's just silly "Optimizing" to use the polite term.

Edit: Those people in Pathfinder aren't hitting 20th level either.

Edit Edit: Oh and personally, I don't care if you map out your guy to 20th level, just don't show me the blueprint, it's the thing about your character I LEAST care about.

Look here you pompous blowhard... I have been playing all forms of RPG and LARP for 27 of my 34 years. I have also been amateur drama since high school with a fairly decent history in acting, screenwriting, and minor directing. I also have lived with "high functioning anxiety" my entire life which causes me to have suicidal thoughts at the first sign of failure. Role playing has kept me alive for this long by allowing me to take on a personality that isn't me. So character building IS A HUGE THING FOR ME! You want to demean my use of multiclassing as a way to build the SPECIFIC character that I want? You want to accuse me of playing "munchins"? You don't know a thing about me You arrogant self-centered *edit*. I simply stated my opinion and you attack me simply because I don't agree with you? You are a loser. Plain and simple. Have fun ruling your basement from behind your computer monitor you adolescent bully.

[Sabeta]

Actually, this right here would be a real and satisfactory answer, at least for me.

I actually agree. If IsDoritos had established that from the beginning I could easily respect it. I said as much early on that I don't mind if people don't allow Multi-Classing for various reasons. Having a lot of new players, not liking the potential for power imbalance (which is the only wrong answer really, since Multiclassing is statistically weaker 90% of the time for 90% of the game), or if it just clashes with your world flavor (ie: Barbarians actually go to a school to become that one thing in life, and an adventuring day is not a sufficient amount of time to become a druid without halting the entire story).

However, Doritos' original stance was:

"The majority of players wanting to multiclass so they can optimize combat effectiveness need to go find someone to run 3.Pleasebuymysplatbooks for them.

That's my opinion of multi-classing.

You think I disallow Multiclassing as a form of self-entertainment? No siree. I disallow Multiclassing because 99.9% of the time it's a munchkin's pursuit of "optimization" at the expense of the other players who might specifically want a breath of fresh air from 3.5/3.Pathfinder Munchkin Wars. And I get tired of rolling my eyes at the various convoluted "character backgrounds" that justify the existence of the awkward multiclass combo that the forums says is optimal."

He's not worried about flavor, he's worried about power-gamers (which I established as the only wrong answer). Disallowing it because you don't like it is fine; however like I said before, you're stifling creativity if the majority of your table wants to allow it and you don't. If it's only one player who wants to be a Rogue/Fighter, then yes he's probably powergaming and you can politiely tell him no. (as is in TCs case). I respect RX6Rob for making a very clear and concise post on why he felt he should disallow Multiclassing. I can even agree with most of his points (although I find ",and I'm the DM" heavy handed). In fact, I may try a Multiclass free campaign after my group finishes up LMoP just to see how I enjoy that. (I've never had too many players Multiclass since it's almost never worth taking at low levels, but it could provoke opportunities for me to play around with home brewing to get player concepts right.) I cannot however respect Doritos whose solution to every argument thus far has been "power gaming munchkins and special snowflakes".

[smcmike]

Again, I have zero problem with the party members being slightly more powerful than vanilla, I don't run modules, so balance isn't an issue.


Again, I don't have a problem with Feats, or even Multiclassing on the basis of it making characters "too powerful" (Which is impossible, you'll never get too strong for the stuff I can throw at you).

I agree. Does this guy though?


I don't want to encourage "dips" just to get a combo-mechanic for unbalanced damage.



My issue with multiclassing is the mental gymnastics and genre-bending necessary to let someone be a Paladin of the Great Fiend, or obligating the Barbarian to be a part-time Rogue just so he can be a Master Wrestler, when I can let him have a Feat for Athletics Expertise and +1 STR and be done with it, and keep his main class abilities on track.
...

My problem is that Multiclassing leads to hackneyed and illogical class combinations for which people have to cobble together some exceedingly silly justification for, all for the cause of low-level combat "advantage"

Hey, an second actual reason!

Of course "hackneyed" and "illogical" are both pretty subjective - I like multiclassing because single-classed mechanics can feel stale and hackneyed to me, but whatever floats your boat. I like a paladin that happens to have made a deal with a fiend - that sounds like great fun, even if you've seen it before.



There's really no argument that multi-classing adds to the fun and adventure of the game; it almost always boils down to 1st level Thief traits and stacking damage modifiers. Which is IMO a poor argument for humoring Multiclassing.

This is where you lose me. Of course there's an argument: many people enjoy doing it and find that it adds to their fun.

[Isidorios]

You want to demean my use of multiclassing as a way to build the SPECIFIC character that I want?

1. Yes, I think that mapping out your career in it's entirety before you start it sorta robs the spontaneity from it, and precludes you from evolving through the events of the game

2. You are clearly an emotionally fragile person, and my suggestion would be that you refrain from rolling up your sleeves and delving into threads that have already become a low-level internet fight.
In short, don't dish out what you cannot take. This will be my last post directed at you, I wish you luck.

[Isidorios]

He's not worried about flavor, he's worried about power-gamers (which I established as the only wrong answer).

You are close. Character power isn't so much an issue; there are even basic classes more powerful than others (which I try to help players with as I can).
My problem is players who come into the game having devoted the bulk of their thought process into Optimization, and very little into a fresh or entertaining concept.

As I've said before, if someone wants to be the Master Wrestler or Master of Religious studies, I'll meet them halfway with specialized Feats.

If the core of their idea is being the Master of Paladin/Warlock damage, I just laugh at them.

[Elminster298]

1. Yes, I think that mapping out your career in it's entirety before you start it sorta robs the spontaneity from it, and precludes you from evolving through the events of the game

2. You are clearly an emotionally fragile person, and my suggestion would be that you refrain from rolling up your sleeves and delving into threads that have already become a low-level internet fight.
In short, don't dish out what you cannot take. This will be my last post directed at you, I wish you luck.

My 1-20 maps out my character. Not my career. It maps out how I plan to portray him/her but in no way shoehorns me into anything. If the story leads to a place where I feel my character would deviate from "the plan" it will. You have this predetermined idea that you know what every single player has in mind. Then you restrict players options because of those misguided assumptions. How about you deal with the problem the way the rest of us DMs do? By talking to the players. Of a player is a power gaming killbot at my table I will talk to them and see if I can help them with the RP aspect. Of a character optimizes for a single shoehorned abilty, I'll design the next couple encounters to take away that then return to the normal game. Not to punish, just to show that the character is limited and a broader range would be more fun. It's real life. Not World of Warcraft. I assume you have so much experience with having to say no all the time because your players don't last very long. Any DM would his/her salt would eventually realize that the problem isn't with the players, the game, or the rules. The problem is the DM.

[BurgerBeast]

All this really comes down to is people being unable to accept the rules of 5e D&D, and being unable to take no for an answer.

1. Accept that multi classing is not a part of core 5e.

2. Accept no for an answer. No is not rude, nor is it heavy-handed. It's just no.


Meanwhile, I don't think big box retail is an appropriate model for gaming with my friends.

Go figure.

{slow clap for you} Congratulations! You have ignored my point, selected one of three examples to suit your needs, focussed on an oblique quality of it instead of the intended point, and come up with an obvious comment to make yourself feel good. I hope you feel clever.

The GitP readers are probably able to notice this sort of thing though. Either way, here's your gold star. Ad hominem is still ad hominem, no matter how much fun you have making yourself feel smart.


Yeah. Some people have come to think that if they ask a person - a friend they game with - a question, they actually deserve an answer. They actually expect that friend to answer their question.

As has already been pointed out, the answer was given and is "no." So it's not an answer they're looking for. They will not be satisfied until the DM can give them justification that they approve, or changes his mind.


You know what, you hit the nail on the head, BurgerBeast. This exactly is the problem. People talking to other people in the setting of a social game - and expecting a reply. We would all be better off without those people.

It's not my fault you can't differentiate between discussing the rules of a game with friends and socializing with friends. You realize that the only way you can make this mistake is if you assume that talking to others in the setting of a social game is the same thing as socializing right? You realize that you have admitted to not understanding what socializing is, right? It's not too often that people fail on this level. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you that all the time you've spent sitting with people and talking about D&D does not count as socializing. Don't worry. There's still time to figure it out.

But seriously, a reply is not the issue. The player expecting the DM's reply to meet their standards is the issue. "No" is a reply.


This is an interesting perspective to me. I tend to ask lots of questions, and never with the intention of making someone feel like they are wrong or whatever.

Ask all the questions you like. Just respect the answer. And before you ask the person to justify their answer, just think about it yourself and see if you can think of possible justifications, and give the person the benefit of the doubt that they've thought about it, too. If you are so exhausted of all possibilities that you can't think of a single reason why such a ruling would be okay (here's a hint: in this case, the multi-class rules are specifically optional), then ask go ahead and ask. But understand that questioning someone's judgment is not a polite thing to do.


I like to understand how they got to where they were and see if their perspective resonates me and influences mine.

So think about it more, first. If necessary, ask, but preface with the fact that you've thought about it and are curious.


Actually, this right here would be a real and satisfactory answer, at least for me.

Great. The problem is that these answers are all answers you could've thought up on your own. give the DM the benefit of the doubt that he has thought about them, too.


I actually agree. If IsDoritos had established that from the beginning I could easily respect it.

And you could probably think up a few other good reasons on the spot right now if you wanted to... so what does that say? It says that banning multi-classed characters is a reasonable thing to do for a variety of reasons. Done.

Beyond this, consider that the DM doesn't need any good reason anyway! I don't allow anything except the PHB. Why? Because I can't be f**ked to read the SCAG or Unearthed Arcane or whatever the f**k else is out there. Don't like it? Cool! Find a different game that you'll like. But don't tell me I need to change mine.

Maybe I don't want MC characters because I just don't like them. They're not to my taste. that's my prerogative.

If I play in a game that is not to my taste, here's what I do: I accept is as-is, or I move on. Simple. I don't lobby DMs to change their rules for my sake. That's because I'm not a d**k. I respect their right to run the game their way. I have confidence in their judgment about what works best for them and their table.


...however like I said before, you're stifling creativity if the majority of your table wants to allow it and you don't.

You could not be more wrong here. If you want a child to be creative, you don't give a toy soldier, car, boat, and airplane. You give him one block. It takes creativity to imagine a block as those four things. And the block can be other things, too. Contrary to (apparently) popular opinion, it is lack of options that inspires creativity.

Before D&D had a multitude of weapons with varying damage, everyone did 1d6 damage. That inspired creativity because you could wield a 2-handed sword, a whip, two daggers, or whatever you wanted. Now, people's creativity is restricted by the specific options.


I respect RX6Rob for making a very clear and concise post on why he felt he should disallow Multiclassing.

Well, you should have given him the benefit of the doubt to begin with. You should have understood that there are a variety of good reasons to begin with. You should feel foolish now for asking him to explain himself in terms that you should have already understood.


I can even agree with most of his points (although I find ",and I'm the DM" heavy handed).

It's like people think saying "I am the DM" is worse than the truth that they are the DM and they have final say. Get over it, already. The DM controls the rules. Who cares if they say so? It's true in either case.

[Sigreid]

I think I see part of the difference here. I only play these games with my actual friends and tend to assume that most others do as well. It sounds to me like some of the people here play with people that they don't actually particularly like and are only there to fill a slot.

To each his own.

I will point out that just because I can think of a reason to do or not do something doesn't mean that I can't benefit from someone else's reason. We used to call that a conversation. It's this thing we used to do to better understand each other, and not necessarily to try to change each other's minds.

[RickAllison]

I think I see part of the difference here. I only play these games with my actual friends and tend to assume that most others do as well. It sounds to me like some of the people here play with people that they don't actually particularly like and are only there to fill a slot.

To each his own.

I will point out that just because I can think of a reason to do or not do something doesn't mean that I can't benefit from someone else's reason. We used to call that a conversation. It's this thing we used to do to better understand each other, and not necessarily to try to change each other's minds.

No. Reasonable discourse is verboten. Go put your nose in the corner of shame.

[Elminster298]

I think I see part of the difference here. I only play these games with my actual friends and tend to assume that most others do as well. It sounds to me like some of the people here play with people that they don't actually particularly like and are only there to fill a slot.

To each his own.

I will point out that just because I can think of a reason to do or not do something doesn't mean that I can't benefit from someone else's reason. We used to call that a conversation. It's this thing we used to do to better understand each other, and not necessarily to try to change each other's minds.

^^^This...^^^ 👍