DMs only: Do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?

[Kurt Kurageous]

I generally don't. Unless the player can give me a reason why and a way how. Like during a six month downtime. Not just a long rest and a level up.

Why do you allow it? Strictly for optimization? Or what?

And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

[nickl_2000]

I allow it, it gives the player more options for where they can take their character. All I ask as a DM is that you at least have somewhat of an IC reason for it.

[tchntm43]

I don't, because 3 out of 4 players in my group have never played before, and the other player and DM (me) have not played in years prior to starting this campaign. It isn't so much that I don't allow multiclassing as it is that I never mentioned the option. None of the players have their own copies of the PHB and they've only skimmed a few parts of it. It's a complexity the group doesn't need and they already have a lot of data to keep track of.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I allow it, but no one has ever taken that option. I'd love for them to give me some form of story backing (including "I've been working towards that all along, practicing magic in the background and finally got it working"), but wouldn't demand it.

[Lyracian]

Normally I allow multi-class but running a game for new players including my 10 year old daughter so we started with single class characters.

I would put minor restrictions to stop sorsadin or Hexblade cheese but otherwise run as per the book.

[Ganryu]

As a munchkin player myself, I'm hesitant with it. Either when I allow it, it can break the game, or someone just neutered their character.

I pretty much talk it over with the players when they are looking it over. If they really want to, sure. But I try and dissuade it.

[MeimuHakurei]

I never saw any reason why I should not permit multiclassing in any way.

Multiclassing delays spell access (temporarily and sometimes permanently) and ASI/Feat progression, as well as occasionally making people miss out on certain class features depending on how many levels are gained. So there's a clear drawback to having several classes at once. The book calls it an optional rule, but to me that just means it's not required for play, same as with feats. A lot of character concepts, both by story and mechanics, are cut off by not having access to one of them, especially both. As for story justification - I didn't ask about the primary class' backstory in extensive detail, nor will I do so for any later classes. I find the fluff for spellcasters unnecessarily constraining already, so I never saw a problem with taking any levels in those classes for mechanical reasons.

Since many broadly applicable fighting styles and flairs are hogtied to certain classes (looking at you Monk) multiclassing is the only way for a Hexblade to learn advanced fighting techniques, for a Barbarian to break necks with their bare hands and for a Fighter to be exceptional at dungeoneering skills.

[Tiadoppler]

I allow it if the player's desired archetype (based on their backstory and ooc communications) matches their desired class choices (e.g. bard+paladin = singing religious warrior, fighter+ranger = nature-y weaponmaster).

I generally do not allow dips for specific class features (warlock 2/anything x, I'm looking at you).

Edit: I should say that I run a very RP-oriented long-term campaign. If I was running a more combat-centric game, I'd likely allow dips and only ban the most egregious cheese. My goal is not to block my players' choices, but rather to encourage them to make in-character decisions instead of metagame decisions.

[JNAProductions]

Yup. My players usually don't take it (they're simple, when it comes to D&D) but the option is always there.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I allow it, and I'll even go so far sometimes as to waive the attribute requirements. Mainly because it helps with character concepts, but I don't care if the reason for MCing is purely mechanical, storybased, or some other reason. It's their character, after all. That's their way to interact with the story. I have everything else.

[Keravath]

Character variety.

There are a range of character concepts that are difficult to represent in a single classed system. Many of these concepts can work both mechanically and from a role playing perspective.

Here are some examples:

-Sorcerer with warlock (someone who draws on their inner strength to affect the weave of magic but searches beyond themselves in the search for greater control, making a deal or having some other entity provide guidance)

-Paladin with sorcerer or warlock (A warrior who draws from within themselves, draws power from their oaths but goes beyond the oath pulling additional abilities from themselves or an outside source at the cost of their martial abilities)

-Monk with a wizard - an ascetic who focuses their mind and body on existence and on the weave, honing their mind and spirit simultaneously

-Fighter/Sorcerer/Wizard/Warlock - a character raised to be a guard in a repressive society, their thought liberated by an interaction saving a GOO from torture at the hands of those running the cult, escaping to the greater world and learning both to harness the power within through sorcery and the power without by honing their mind and mastering the weave. (This is a character I plan to play but at the moment they are only a level 1 fighter - unfortunately, this character idea isn't even possible without multiclassing).

- Knowledge or Arcana cleric of Mystra/wizard who decides they wish to be a magic practitioner more than a magic academic and turns to learning wizardry directly.

- some of the classics .. Ancients Paladin/Fey Warlock ... Vengeance Paladin/Fiend Warlock ... Shadow sorcerer/hexblade warlock ... fighter/rogue ... ranger/rogue (could go scout rogue perhaps but it doesn't necessarily have the same feel as a ranger), rogue/warlock (for a different take on a magic using rogue or to enhance the magic abilities of an arcane trickster ... could go bladelock as well for pact ranged weapons ... makes a cool rogue concept).

There is nothing wrong with the single classes. They are quite good and the archetypes provide quite a bit of choice. However, there are quite a number of players who have a character concept in mind, whose backstory fits better with several classes simultaneously and unfortunately the game constrains progression into one class at a time and trying to create a custom class to accommodate a character concept is both far too much work and far too hard to balance ... thus multi-classing.

As far as "time required to learn the new class", this has presumably been going on for months or years before the character was created. The game forces the choice of one character level at a time while the reality is that the character is likely progressing in all of the their classes simultaneously (the reason behind the 1e multclass model). Having a DM make some statement about having to take months of downtime to justify work that has been ongoing since the character was created is just the DM being short sighted and trying to limit the player choice because they don't like multi-classing.


As a another example, I have an 8th level warlock who is has been studying some music and oratory, as well as trying to focus their inner strength enough that they might cast spells and some other activities just as a part of their adventuring day. The main reason is because he may decide to multiclass into a bard or sorcerer at some point (level 13+ likely) and these activities lay a foundation for that progression if he decides to follow it. Mechanically, it has absolutely no impact on the game and the only reason I'd mention it to a DM is if they were the kind to say "You didn't mention it, it didn't happen, you can't choose to multiclass" which I find to be somewhat ignorant since if the character chooses to multiclass (assuming the DM allows the option) then the character OF COURSE was taking these actions for months or even years prior to the point that they multiclass ... it is essentially an integral part of the character backstory.

Anyway ...

tl;dr

I allow multiclassing because it increases variety and doesn't break anything. (It certainly doesn't create any situations that a reasonable DM can't handle).

[Man_Over_Game]

What's the most powerful Wizard? A Full Wizard.
What's the most powerful Cleric? A Full Cleric.
What's the most powerful Fighter? A Full Fighter.

Multiclassing usually adds versatility, customization, without increasing power levels. There are a few minor instances (Hexblade+Paladin) that are exceptions, but they shouldn't spoil the bunch. What overpowered build are you capable of making with Druid or Cleric levels?

[Sigreid]

Yep. Pretty much anything goes. Lots of fun for everyone.

[Vogie]

I allow Multiclassing, but don't want crazy shifts that don't mesh with the character.

I also encourage them to wait for specific breakpoints. I know the Swords Bard wants a level of hexblade, but I've got her to agree to not pursue that until she has extra attack at 6

[Ganryu]

What's the most powerful Wizard? A Full Wizard.
What's the most powerful Cleric? A Full Cleric.
What's the most powerful Fighter? A Full Fighter.

Multiclassing usually adds versatility, customization, without increasing power levels. There are a few minor instances (Hexblade+Paladin) that are exceptions, but they shouldn't spoil the bunch. What overpowered build are you capable of making with Druid or Cleric levels?

Moon Druid 17/Bear Barb 3 works well. Basically double HP on your forms.

Tempest Cleric 2/ Sorcerer 18 also is pretty terrifying. Maximize some potent lightning spells.

[Griswold]

I allow players to do it, for any reason, without justification. I'm a big proponent of classes as collections of abilities, not classes as themes or roleplaying guides.

A player creates a character they want to roleplay, and it might require them to take abilities from multiple classes. What if someone wants to play some sort of shapeshifting warrior? Are you going to deny them taking two levels of Druid so they can play a Druid 2/Fighter X?

[DMThac0]

Anything goes at my table, Monk/Lock, Barb/Pally, Ranger/Rogue, and that's just a few of the ones I've had.

Multiclassing has a bad rap. There are those people who put up these cheese/op/meta builds simply to test the boundaries of the mechanics. Then you get the try-hards who want to Win D&D that make that build in a game that generally doesn't support it. More often than not a multiclass build falls just behind a pure build until mid tier, if it's not a meta build, so there's no reason to not let it happen.

[Sigreid]

Moon Druid 17/Bear Barb 3 works well. Basically double HP on your forms.



This does give up the unlimited wildshape.

[Keravath]

Moon Druid 17/Bear Barb 3 works well. Basically double HP on your forms.

Tempest Cleric 2/ Sorcerer 18 also is pretty terrifying. Maximize some potent lightning spells.

Sure they work well. But is a 17 Druid/ 3 Barb better than a 20 Druid with unlimited wild shapes? I'd put my money on the 20 druid as they swap elemental forms as often as they want vs the 17/3 that runs out after one, admittedly with double the hit points. (I realize that the rage is pretty useful before level 20 ... but even then the 17 druid/3 barb will run 3 levels of spells behind. At 17 level the pure Druid is casting 9th level spells while the 14 druid/3 barb is still stuck on 7th level spells. Multiclassing is a trade off and your druid 17/barb 3 is a good example of that principle at work.

Tempest cleric 2/sorcerer 18 will run one level of spells behind a pure sorcerer throughout the character's career. This doesn't matter much at some levels and can be a big deal at others. However, the maximize on lightning or thunder damage 2 times/short rest is pretty useful depending on the circumstances.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And comparing builds at ECL 20 is rather silly. Heck, only a few games even get beyond T2, let alone T3. We focus so much on these forums on high-level stuff that most people never even see outside of one-shot silly games.

At lower levels, multiclassing is useful but not overpowered. Even sorlock or sorcadin multiclassing.

[Ganryu]

To be honest, there's only two classes I have a real problem with on the multiclassing:

Warlock and Paladin, both for similiar reasons. Both are completely frontloaded, and other classes can use resources for them.

Warlock's Eldritch blast, their trademark, levels up reguardless of what other class you take. Hell, a fighter warlock is just as effective as a magical blaster and a full warlock.

Paladins run off of spell slots, and get BETTER if you change to a full caster, particularly a sorcerer. They might have less defense, but Sorcerer gives them defensive spells to mitigate this.

Most other classes do have a significant trade off that does make multiclassing weird.

Ran a lvl 4 Warlock sorcerer the GM hated because they were untouchable. (I play and GM depends where.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be honest, there's only two classes I have a real problem with on the multiclassing:

Warlock and Paladin, both for similiar reasons. Both are completely frontloaded, and other classes can use resources for them.

Warlock's Eldritch blast, their trademark, levels up reguardless of what other class you take. Hell, a fighter warlock is just as effective as a magical blaster and a full warlock.

Paladins run off of spell slots, and get BETTER if you change to a full caster, particularly a sorcerer. They might have less defense, but Sorcerer gives them defensive spells to mitigate this.

Most other classes do have a significant trade off that does make multiclassing weird.

Ran a lvl 4 Warlock sorcerer the GM hated because they were untouchable.

Two levels of warlock (because otherwise EB is way worse than a martial attack) is a huge trade-off for any other class, especially at low levels. I'm playing a bardlock. Not having those 4th level spells (we're ECL 8) is annoying as heck, as is the reduced spell and feature selection.

Paladin multiclasses (at low levels) give up important things like Extra Attack and auras, making them much less effective at being paladins. They're also really only good at being able to nova really hard against single targets. So a change in encounter selection leaves them looking rather sad.

Not saying they're bad, just that at low levels it's a large tradeoff.

[BloodOgre]

As long as they aren't trying to break the game and they can justify it for their character. It doesn't need to be strong justification, either. We just need to make sure we can work it into the story. I generally like to know ahead of time. Let's say the fighter wants to MC into Wizard, I may let him find a spellbook and a diary of a wizard from his first couple years of arcane schooling. Or if the barbarian wants to tap into sorcerer, he may accidentally cast ray of frost or poison spray instead of just pointing his finger a few times before he levels up. The party thief may be giving thieving lessons to the monk, etc.

But also, as someone who has multi-classed, it can be frustrating a higher levels when everyone else is improving stats or taking a feat, or gaining some higher level abilities and you aren't there yet.

OTOH, there are some feats, like Magic Initiate, where you might just be better off multiclassing into sorcerer, wizard, or cleric, because not only do you get the spells, but you get some other first level abilities to go along with it.

On rare occasion I will allow third MC but so far, no one has been able to justify a fourth.

[NaughtyTiger]

Moon Druid 17/Bear Barb 3 works well. Basically double HP on your forms. This does give up the unlimited wildshape.

Even worse, it assumes you are raging... so you are giving up casting/concentrating on spells.
level 20 druid can already get multi-resistance and cast spells.


I run games for former AL folks. So we all expect it... and are all cool with it.

[Bundin]

Yep. Pretty much anything goes. Lots of fun for everyone.
This. And the people I play with (we switch DMs every mini-arc so everyone has a go at everything) all tend to optimize quite heavily. But everyone also keeps an eye on team mates and noone tries to hog the spotlight. So, for us, it works.

[Ganryu]

Two levels of warlock (because otherwise EB is way worse than a martial attack) is a huge trade-off for any other class, especially at low levels. I'm playing a bardlock. Not having those 4th level spells (we're ECL 8) is annoying as heck, as is the reduced spell and feature selection.

Paladin multiclasses (at low levels) give up important things like Extra Attack and auras, making them much less effective at being paladins. They're also really only good at being able to nova really hard against single targets. So a change in encounter selection leaves them looking rather sad.

Not saying they're bad, just that at low levels it's a large tradeoff.

The build was a Hexblade with 1 level, and 3 levels for admittedly stone sorcerer (UA). Would work with other types though.

Had Shield, Mirror Image, and Blur. I stumbled upon a CR 25 monster on my own. GM could not hit me. It had +15 to strike. I didn't win, too huge a difference, but the sheer AC tankiness of the bulld was ungodly. Don't think I really even bothered with higher level spells later on, I just kept to the above.

Hexblade got me better armor and shields I wouldn't have had otherwise, Hexblade's curse, and the ability to only care about a few stats. (Charisma and con, minor Dex.) Wasn't even using Eldritch blast.

Not the most broken thing, but both Warlock and Paladin are too good for MC.

Granted, like I said earlier, I don't ban it, I just try to dissuade it.

In the same campaign we had a Moon Druid/ Monk at lvl 6. We could not make it work. GM tried magic item after magic item, I ran numbers, we couldn't make them worth anything. The player was insistent until the GM showed them how each of the fights had gone. It was a flavor choice on the part of the player, but it just didn't work. We're not even all about combat. Out of combat she was just as bad, there was no synergy. In the end, GM told them pick one or the other.

I will admit, in my campaigns, I have yet to really have a player even ask. I would allow it, but would talk it over with them.

Suppose basic breakdown is MC'ing is weird. It can be really strong, or really pathetic, handle with care. I want my players to know this before they do it.

[darknite]

Sure thing. I've allowed it since 1980. I mainly run AL these days and it's allowed. I allow it in my personal games, too, though I'm more free to cook up whatever threats I want in the kitchen, which means it's not been a balance problem for me.

Forcing players to stick to a single, static class forces them into a narrow lane of options, though Archetypes help with this. Widening options due to multiclassing can lead to more complex character backgrounds, pursuits and histories. It also opens doors for folks who feel it would cool if they could do x and y. 5e does a servicable balancing job of stacking everything, too, in most cases.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Always have. I require my players to explain their newfound power within the narrative, but I'm a very narrative-focused DM. I usually ask my players up front if they ever plan on multiclassing so I can try and accommodate the story change if possible. I don't mind if they change their mind later, but understanding what the players want really helps.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The build was a Hexblade with 1 level, and 3 levels for admittedly stone sorcerer (UA). Would work with other types though.

Had Shield, Mirror Image, and Blur. I stumbled upon a CR 25 monster on my own. GM could not hit me. It had +15 to strike. I didn't win, too huge a difference, but the sheer AC tankiness of the bulld was ungodly. Don't think I really even bothered with higher level spells later on, I just kept to the above.


Wait...what? You can't have had a static AC (before shield) of more than 19 with that build, so 24 with shield. A +15 ATK hits your normal AC 85% of the time, so a mirror image dies basically every time it attacks one. With disadvantage, it hits your normal AC 72.25% of the time, so that doesn't really help. It hits your shield AC 36% of the time, so once per multiattack sequence.

CR 25 monsters also have other ways to strike. A single breath weapon from an ancient dragon (the prototypical CR 25) would nuke you, save or no save. And you wouldn't be able to save at all without a +4 DEX, since you don't have proficiency and the DC is 25.

Mirror image would only last a single round, since it doesn't get any benefit from your other spells or armor and the dragon's making 4 attacks (3 on its turn, 1 legendary) each turn. Plus, anything that gets through ends your concentration pretty much immediately. You only have 31 HP (assuming +2 CON), a single non-critical, average hit from the bite drops you immediately, two hits from a claw or tail drops you to zero.

So two rounds of normal, not even breath weapon and you're dead. 19 static AC isn't that high, and 24 (with shield, at the cost of serious resources) isn't that high either.

Plus, your offense is severely limited by burning all your slots for those defensive things so the enemies can just flat out ignore you.

I'm thinking someone did something wrong there.

[Phoenix042]

Remember, too, that a character is not his class.

Example one: I have a character who is a powerful martial, frontline support character. She was raised by barbarians, and channels her innate fury into whirlwinds of violence a few times a day. She was trained by monks, and calls upon their discipline to still her mind, as well as to gain the upper hand against physically superior foes. She is a natural leader, buffing her allies and defending them both physically and spiritually. Each of these descriptions correspond to a separate mechanical feature she has.

She could easily be a barbarian / monk / paladin multiclass, maybe even throw in a little bard.

She's a single-classed 7th level fighter. Resilient (wisdom) is from her monk training, action surge is her own version of channeled fury, and the rally, commander's strike, and other maneuvers she knows give her the power to support, defend, and embolden her allies.

Meanwhile, one of my players has this character whose whole concept was basically a medieval version of a melee-focused sith; insane physical power, mobility, and resilience against all kinds of attacks. Trained by a single master all her life, only knows one dark path, her power and sill comes from instinct and profound personal sacrifice more than anything. A razor-focused character with a single clear, cohesive concept.

The build for that character is (currently) Berserker Barbarian 6, Monk 2, Battlemaster 5.

At no point did her character ever "dabble in something different" or anything. Each level was simply the next step in this particular characters training.

She calls her powers "sacrifices," and carries a small carving knife in her palm at all times which she uses to carve runes into her skin when she uses any of her features. She describes the runes burning away and fueling her maneuvers, rage, step-of-the-wind, action surge, etc. They're all just different uses of the same character feature to her.

i
So yea, I allow multiclassing. I encourage my players to come up with character concepts they want to build, then to look at the features in the players handbook and other sources as tools to help them make their concept work.

The source material should serve the character, not the other way around.

[Man_Over_Game]

I liked multiclassing so much, I thought there wasn't enough of it, so I added a bunch of slight modifications to classes to allow some classic tropes that don't fit with the standard rules.

Monk/Sorcerer? Got it.
Druid/Bard? Got it.
Cleric/Paladin? Got it.

I cherry-picked requirements on each build, to prevent overpowered character building. Making one of these choices is a jump in versatility, not necessarily power.

The changes are pretty simple, with things like "Sorcerers can use Wisdom, as long as they don't have Cleric or Druid levels". There's a whole list of them. Take a look at the Prestige Options link in the signature if you're interested.

[Yora]

I think there are lots of interesting combinations that you don't quite get with the classes straight. Like a druid/barbarian, a rogue/warlock, or a cleric/rogue.

I wouldn't want to play a quadruple-class character myself, but I don't see any reason to prevent the players from doing it.

[Anderlith]

For me, race choices are a much harder sticking point for me than multiclassing. I’m tired of telling one player of mine that no furries exist in my campaign world. I allow anything that the player can justify. Everything is fair game but classes like Wizard would need you to find a spellbook or teacher, Paladin needs you to genuinely find faith, Warlock require some kind of access to a Patron, etc.

If you just suddenly come to me with “Hey my Sorcerer took a level in Druid, you’d better have found a Circle to teach you Druidic secrets or something. I started D&D with 3.0/3.5 which had a million splats. I feel like 5e is pretty skimpy on content, so I dont see any reason to inhibit players.
Granted, most of my players don’t even consider multiclassing.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think there are lots of interesting combinations that you don't quite get with the classes straight. Like a druid/barbarian, a rogue/warlock, or a cleric/rogue.

I wouldn't want to play a quadruple-class character myself, but I don't see any reason to prevent the players from doing it.

To be fair, the biggest no-no's of multiclassing in 5e is basically to not mix Barbarians or Rogues with casters. Almost anything else works.

[AHF]

Wait...what? You can't have had a static AC (before shield) of more than 19 with that build, so 24 with shield. A +15 ATK hits your normal AC 85% of the time, so a mirror image dies basically every time it attacks one. With disadvantage, it hits your normal AC 72.25% of the time, so that doesn't really help. It hits your shield AC 36% of the time, so once per multiattack sequence.

CR 25 monsters also have other ways to strike. A single breath weapon from an ancient dragon (the prototypical CR 25) would nuke you, save or no save. And you wouldn't be able to save at all without a +4 DEX, since you don't have proficiency and the DC is 25.

Mirror image would only last a single round, since it doesn't get any benefit from your other spells or armor and the dragon's making 4 attacks (3 on its turn, 1 legendary) each turn. Plus, anything that gets through ends your concentration pretty much immediately. You only have 31 HP (assuming +2 CON), a single non-critical, average hit from the bite drops you immediately, two hits from a claw or tail drops you to zero.

So two rounds of normal, not even breath weapon and you're dead. 19 static AC isn't that high, and 24 (with shield, at the cost of serious resources) isn't that high either.

Plus, your offense is severely limited by burning all your slots for those defensive things so the enemies can just flat out ignore you.

I'm thinking someone did something wrong there.

Seems like we'd need more detail to really assess the numbers. OP may not have gotten things right but magic items could have boosted static AC above 19 (which I assume means Half-Plate, Shield and +2 Dex).

Example:
Half-Plate +1
Shield +2
Ring of Protection
14+ Dex
= 23 AC

That would require an 8 to hit and a 13 with shield.

With disadvantage from blur, that would drop % to hit to something more like 42% against base AC and 16% against AC with shield spell active. Add mirror image on top of that for some degree of further protection.

In either case, I think your basic sentiment of "it's a matter of time before the CR 25 monster destroys you" is correct unless the character had some means of relatively quick escape as it would be unlikely to survive more than a few rounds.

[AHF]

To be fair, the biggest no-no's of multiclassing in 5e is basically to not mix Barbarians or Rogues with casters. Almost anything else works.

Yeah, I allow any multi-classing from sources we use (no UA). As DM, I am going to affirmatively give some options for consideration and some warnings to new players if they are considering multi-classing. Would hate to see it banned.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Yep, with no limitations. Granted, it's a group of older, more relaxed players who rotate DMing, and the desire to optimize isn't that huge for anyone, but I think multiclassing does let people build out character concepts as they go, rather than forcing them into whatever idea they had when they started. I started up a Fiendlock, and then, for the heck of it, went Bard. Didn't plan on it, and, sure, I really appreciate the flexibility three levels of Lore Bard gives me with the spell slots and Cutting Words, but it took the character from "plain Warlock" to "somebody who really wanted to be a Bard but wasn't dedicated enough, so they keep taking Warlock levels". It helped flesh out a unique character concept, and it makes it a lot more fun to play.

It's a big West Marches-style campaign with a shifting roster of maybe 30 players, and I'm guessing 20-25% or so have multiclassed, some to optimize a bit, some just because it fit the character.

[MaxWilson]

I generally don't. Unless the player can give me a reason why and a way how. Like during a six month downtime. Not just a long rest and a level up.

Why do you allow it? Strictly for optimization? Or what?

And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

Sure. I'm pretty permissive, and I like to err in favor of allowing anything the player might expect (from the rulebooks) to be able to do. A player says, "Do you allow Dragonborn?" and I say, "Sure, and because PHB Dragonborn are weak I'll even let you use your breath weapon as a bonus action, and recharge it after a minute of not using it."

5E multiclassing is really just custom class construction rules anyway, not "true" AD&D-style multiclassing. There's nothing that says a Fighter who intends to multiclass to Wizard eventually isn't already schooled in magic and practicing spell formulas in his off time--he's just not good enough yet to be a full-fledged wizard. A Paladin who will eventually take a couple levels of Celestialock might already have made a Pact before play begins. So on and so forth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Seems like we'd need more detail to really assess the numbers. OP may not have gotten things right but magic items could have boosted static AC above 19 (which I assume means Half-Plate, Shield and +2 Dex).

Example:
Half-Plate +1
Shield +2
Ring of Protection
14+ Dex
= 23 AC

That would require an 8 to hit and a 13 with shield.

With disadvantage from blur, that would drop % to hit to something more like 42% against base AC and 16% against AC with shield spell active. Add mirror image on top of that for some degree of further protection.

In either case, I think your basic sentiment of "it's a matter of time before the CR 25 monster destroys you" is correct unless the character had some means of relatively quick escape as it would be unlikely to survive more than a few rounds.

At level 4? That seems unlikely.

[MaxWilson]

Wait...what? You can't have had a static AC (before shield) of more than 19 with that build, so 24 with shield. A +15 ATK hits your normal AC 85% of the time, so a mirror image dies basically every time it attacks one. With disadvantage, it hits your normal AC 72.25% of the time, so that doesn't really help. It hits your shield AC 36% of the time, so once per multiattack sequence.

...snip...

I'm thinking someone did something wrong there.

I'm thinking the poster meant "could not hit me" = "DM's dice were cold that day", not "I was probabilistically invulnerable to the CR 25 monster."

[Wuzza]

If a player wants to do something, I'll go out of my way to accommodate it as an enabler of fun.

Fortunately we're not a power playing bunch, heck, the Sorc didn't even take Haste at 5. :P

[strangebloke]

Yes, of course. It doesn't hurt the newbs at all and the powergamers going for versatility over raw power isn't a bad thing in my book.

The only actual problem dips, IMO are hexblade 1 and cleric 1. Even those "Just" grant some armor proficiencies and cantrips.

Though I do run with Int-based warlocks so the hexblade dip is a lot less OP than it once was.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, I allow multiclassing.

Multiclassing allows D&D to mechanically support more classes than it can print.

So when the 12 base classes don't cover the character concepts, then my players can / do multiclass.

[Spiritchaser]

I absolutely allow it.

More fun concepts
More fun mechanics
And if optimizing is your thing? Why not? It doesn’t ruin anything for anyone else.

Now: with new players I typically don’t introduce the idea, but when a new player just happened to say they wanted to be a more magicky paladin, I certainly didn’t stop them.

The only real concern I have is that MC characters can exacerbate extreme power imbalance within the group. That’s possible to deal with, but it does create more work for me.

And hey, you can get extreme power imbalance just as quickly in the other direction with one non-optimized sorcerer.

[Yora]

For me, race choices are a much harder sticking point for me than multiclassing. I’m tired of telling one player of mine that no furries exist in my campaign world. I allow anything that the player can justify. Everything is fair game but classes like Wizard would need you to find a spellbook or teacher, Paladin needs you to genuinely find faith, Warlock require some kind of access to a Patron, etc.

I've long ago adopted the approach to use whitelists for character options. You can pick any of these seven races, and any of these seven classes. Do what you want with them, but no other races and no other classes exist in this campaign setting.

[moonfly7]

As a dm, I love it. The players always know it's an option, and since in character there isn't such a thiby as classes, it's easy to say " I've been working on being sneakier" or " I picked up some tutoring in magic from that library we stayed in for a month" or stuff like that. Ironically, in games we've played where it's restricted, we end up wanting it bad because we actually need it in game, but in games where no one cares, it's not an issue. Now, I personally like straight classing because I love the special high level goodies, but I have a couple characters that go above and beyond multiclassing norms, and then a few simpler, classic mixes. I am of the opinion that restricting these kinda things, things that players should get to choose, ruins the game a little for people. Like, many times I've known people so didn't want to do the prohibited thing anyways, but it's an rpg, everyone should have the choice if it says they can. So even if my world doesn't have something, lets say drow, and my players want to play one, I'm the kinda guy who'll say "well, drow don't exist anymore actually, it's a plot point. But you could totally be the last drow" and suddenly, the game is more fun for everyone. I guess I'm really influenced by this saying I found once:
Remember, it might be your world, but it's THEIR story.
I think that should be kept in mind a lot more often as dms

[Nhorianscum]

Yes. It adds another layer to character creation and progression, more that that multiclassing allows for characters to develop mechanically in a way that works with and accentuates their thematic development both internally and in relation to the world.

Some concepts just don't work single classed.

[Laserlight]

It's not my character, it's the player's. I get to control the whole rest of the world, I'm not enough of a control freak to need to control their character too.

If it's a newish player, I would ask what they want to get from MCing and might recommend that they stick to single class to simplify things. But my regular crew can do whatever they want; I may not even know what their build is.

[Arcangel4774]

I allow multiclassing almost always. The only exception being the situation were we have 1 optimizingly skilled player and multiple less optimizing players. In that case you occasionally end up with a player who dominates but never gets challenged and ends up not having as much fun. Even then its a provisional thing. People who optimize around an idea dont as often dominate as people who optimize just to do damage. Sometimes that optimization is just keeping them par with everyone else

[Rukelnikov]

I allow it, and don't use attribute requirements for it. But it has to make sense, a superstitious barbarian wouldn't be allowed to take a lvl of wizard out of the blue, but if he roleplayed learning magic to overcome his fears, or just spends a lot of time trying to do stuff with some spellbook he found it would likely be ok.

[KorvinStarmast]

Multiclassing allows D&D (5e) to mechanically support more classes than it can print. Bingo. Wins thread. :smallsmile:

PS: OP, we did this recently. This same thread.

[Lyracian]

To be fair, the biggest no-no's of multiclassing in 5e is basically to not mix Barbarians or Rogues with casters. Almost anything else works.
I can see why you would not want to mix Barbarian but would have thought a Rogue with something like bard or Arcane Trickster with some Wizard levels would work well?


And comparing builds at ECL 20 is rather silly. Heck, only a few games even get beyond T2, let alone T3. We focus so much on these forums on high-level stuff that most people never even see outside of one-shot silly games.
I think that is a good point. At Tier 1 and Tier 4 there can be some clear weakness to multiclass builds. However in the middle you can often get good benefits for the trade off.

A single level of Cleric at low levels does seem very strong. You get armour, Guidance, Bless and healing spells (which can make use of those higher level slots you do not yet have spells for). I have a Cleric of the Music God which makes for a great Bard/Cleric multiclass.

[Keravath]

I'm thinking the poster meant "could not hit me" = "DM's dice were cold that day", not "I was probabilistically invulnerable to the CR 25 monster."

IF the DM was rolling behind a screen, I think it was more likely "DM takes pity on poor little level 4 that will be little more than a splat if he doesn't pretend that every dice roll is bad"

[KorvinStarmast]

PS: OP, we did this recently. This same thread.
We've done it twice in the past month.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585574-Reasons-to-Restrict-Multiclassing&highlight=multiclassing

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586223-Comprehensive-List-of-Reasons-to-Multiclass&highlight=multiclassing

FWIW

[Laserlight]

I allow multiclassing almost always. The only exception being the situation were we have 1 optimizingly skilled player and multiple less optimizing players. In that case you occasionally end up with a player who dominates but never gets challenged and ends up not having as much fun. Even then its a provisional thing. People who optimize around an idea dont as often dominate as people who optimize just to do damage. Sometimes that optimization is just keeping them par with everyone else

As a player I am usually That Guy, so I normally build support characters and almost never build strikers. Nobody complains about "His character is overwhelmingly effective...at making me look awesome."

[Zhorn]

I allow it one one condition: It makes narrative sense for how you are playing your character in the story.
Tell me what you intend to level into and I'll do my best as a DM to make the story given your character the opportunity.
The character doesn't even need to make sense. Play as the loonie if you want. Barbarian Wizard? Sure. As long as you're having fun, and it isn't preventing the fun of others at the table, then I'm all for it.

[MeimuHakurei]

IF the DM was rolling behind a screen, I think it was more likely "DM takes pity on poor little level 4 that will be little more than a splat if he doesn't pretend that every dice roll is bad"

I don't think a soft/easygoing DM would have a Level 4 character fight a CR 25 monster to begin with...

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think a soft/easygoing DM would have a Level 4 character fight a CR 25 monster to begin with...

Or it was a paper tiget--theoretically a challenge but not stated right at all to be able to hang with the big boys.

[Kurt Kurageous]

We've done it twice in the past month.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585574-Reasons-to-Restrict-Multiclassing&highlight=multiclassing

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586223-Comprehensive-List-of-Reasons-to-Multiclass&highlight=multiclassing

FWIW

I was not aware. I knew it was out there, but not that it was so burnt over.

I wan't trying to create clickbait or hammer the issue. I was getting tired of 5e skipping optimization threads, all of which involve...Comments about optimization nearly derailed this thread anyway.

It tends to come around, like alignment, quite often.

And you picked the winner already. I concur.

[Demonslayer666]

I generally don't. Unless the player can give me a reason why and a way how. Like during a six month downtime. Not just a long rest and a level up.

Why do you allow it? Strictly for optimization? Or what?

And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

I allow it with restrictions. I don't like the power dips (like 2 levels of Warlock). They seem pretty cheesy. I encourage interesting characters over optimized.

I allow it because I want the players to have lots of choices.

[Man_Over_Game]

I can see why you would not want to mix Barbarian but would have thought a Rogue with something like bard or Arcane Trickster with some Wizard levels would work well?



Kinda?

The problem with casting as a Rogue is that the Rogue's primary class feature requires a weapon attack. Meaning that, in almost every situation, you're unable to be both a caster and a Rogue.

The Arcane Trickster kinda gets around this by:

Not having combat spells (Minor Illusion)
Having spells that don't interfere with a Rogue's attacks (Booming Blade, Fog Cloud)
Having a powerful feature that helps with debuffing enemies while also assisting with attacks (using spells like Hold Person).



But overall, you'll find that the list of spells that actually fit that bill get smaller and smaller the higher level spells you get. If you were to hybrid an Arcane Trickster with a caster, you'd eventually have to decide whether you want to be a Rogue or a caster. At that point, it ceases to be a synergistic relationship, and you're simply buying versatility (similar to a Cleric/Druid multiclass) instead of power and versatility (Fighter + Rogue).

Bard doesn't do much in combat, and many of the things that Bards do (Bardic Inspiration, Healing Word) don't interfere with a Rogue's primary feature. But just like with the Arcane Trickster, this will not be as true as you gain Bard levels.

The difference between, say, a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass, and a Bard/Rogue multiclass, is that a Barbarian/Rogue never has to choose between being either a Barbarian or a Rogue. He simply IS.

Although I would like to see that change. It's a damn shame that they missed the chance to make the Arcane Trickster have some sort of Sneak Attack spell scaling. Without that, Rogue/Caster multiclasses will almost always be a suboptimal choice.

[MaxWilson]

The difference between, say, a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass, and a Bard/Rogue multiclass, is that a Barbarian/Rogue never has to choose between being either a Barbarian or a Rogue. He simply IS.

I think you're underrating Rogue as a multiclass option. It works well for dips and in some cases even for deeper splits, even for spellcasters.

Barbarian/Rogue has a tradeoff similar to Rogue/spellcaster. E.g. if you want Sneak Attack damage, you can't be using Barbarian-style GWM at the same time.

Roguesinger (Rogue 2/Bladesinger X) is loads of fun and very durable and versatile while still remaining an almost-full spellcaster, and someday I'd love to try out the Friendster out as well (Arcane Tricker 9/Enchanter 11, sneak ahead of the party and spam doubled (Split Enchantment) Charm Monster at advantage from Magical Ambush to turn monsters friendly and then use them against other monsters, plus other stuff during combat like Split Enchantment: Tasha's or Suggestion, or Cunning Action (Hide) + Magical Ambush: Fear/Hypnotic Pattern).

Don't overlook the synergy between Sneak Attack and Greenflame/Booming Blade. You can hold your concentration on a big spell like Hypnotic Pattern, and still use your weapon + Sneak Attack + Greenflame/Booming Blade + Cunning Action (Disengage), which is way better damage than plinking away with Fire Bolt.

[Aidamis]

Hello.

Since I've mostly ran Dragon Warriors games where multiclassing didn't exist at all, I'm more used to single class player characters and therefore will politely ask all my players to understand me not using the optional rules in-campaign. I'm fine with Feats and Variant Human, though.

[KorvinStarmast]

It tends to come around, like alignment, quite often.
Concur. And for someone it might be the first time they see such a thread. Not everyone checks the site most days of the week. :smallsmile:

(Next time I am in San Antonio, I may PM you ahead of time to maybe meet for a coffee or a beer? I'll let you know by PM).

[Keravath]

Kinda?

The problem with casting as a Rogue is that the Rogue's primary class feature requires a weapon attack. Meaning that, in almost every situation, you're unable to be both a caster and a Rogue.

The Arcane Trickster kinda gets around this by:

Not having combat spells (Minor Illusion)
Having spells that don't interfere with a Rogue's attacks (Booming Blade, Fog Cloud)
Having a powerful feature that helps with debuffing enemies while also assisting with attacks (using spells like Hold Person).



But overall, you'll find that the list of spells that actually fit that bill get smaller and smaller the higher level spells you get. If you were to hybrid an Arcane Trickster with a caster, you'd eventually have to decide whether you want to be a Rogue or a caster. At that point, it ceases to be a synergistic relationship, and you're simply buying versatility (similar to a Cleric/Druid multiclass) instead of power and versatility (Fighter + Rogue).

Bard doesn't do much in combat, and many of the things that Bards do (Bardic Inspiration, Healing Word) don't interfere with a Rogue's primary feature. But just like with the Arcane Trickster, this will not be as true as you gain Bard levels.

The difference between, say, a Barbarian/Rogue multiclass, and a Bard/Rogue multiclass, is that a Barbarian/Rogue never has to choose between being either a Barbarian or a Rogue. He simply IS.

Although I would like to see that change. It's a damn shame that they missed the chance to make the Arcane Trickster have some sort of Sneak Attack spell scaling. Without that, Rogue/Caster multiclasses will almost always be a suboptimal choice.

I actually quite like my rogue/warlock (arcane trickster/fey warlock) multiclass (currently 8/5). Devil's sight is extremely useful for a rogue in the dark since you avoid disadvantage on those pesky perception checks to find traps. Faerie fire and darkness+devils sight contribute additional ways to obtain advantage and trigger sneak attack. Thirsting blade at level 5 allows for two sneak attack opportunities and improved pact weapon lets him use a long bow for it. (Hexblade might have been mechanically better but fey fit the character background better). In addition, the arcane trickster picks up two level 3 spell slots to supplement their casting ability.

Arcane trickster rogue/bladesinger wizard is another decent caster/rogue multiclass though it usually uses one or the other as a dip.

[Keravath]

One interesting thing about these threads is that they often seem to get started by people who are opposed to multiclassing for some reason as if they are looking for justification from the wider community for this viewpoint and then the threads typically come out overwhelmingly in favor of allowing multiclassing.

The majority of folks posting here appear to be quite open to multiclassing (myself included). So I am kind of curious about the folks who don't allow for multiclassing and why they would be opposed to it.

Are they concerned about OP builds? (I don't think there are any personally ... multiclassing has a significant opportunity cost in almost all cases)
Are they concerned about narrative? (I find that a decent background story can account for any combination of classes no matter how strange)
Are they concerned about complication? (I think this strongly depends upon the players and for a group of new players I agree multiclassing might not be the best idea)
Do they just prefer characters with better defined roles and find the provided archetypes to be sufficient?

Finally, in my experience, there is far more difference between characters created by players who optimize than players who don't than there is due to characters built with multiclassing than those built without. I agree that an optmized character in a party can make the other characters feel less effective but multiclassing isn't typically the cause of this issue so preventing multiclassing won't create more balanced characters if the players aren't also in agreement with how to build their characters.

[patchyman]

If a player wants to do something, I'll go out of my way to accommodate it as an enabler of fun.

Fortunately we're not a power playing bunch, heck, the Sorc didn't even take Haste at 5. :P

This is where I stand as well, but I tend to do this by refluffing or modifying existing classes rather than multiclassing.

I generally don’t encourage multi-classing, and permit players to multiclass only on an exception basis.

[MaxWilson]

The majority of folks posting here appear to be quite open to multiclassing (myself included). So I am kind of curious about the folks who don't allow for multiclassing and why they would be opposed to it.

To the extent I mind 5E-style multiclassing, it's because it's fiddly and mechanical instead of fiction-driven, and it tends to put more emphasis than I'd prefer on details which ought to be small such as whether you choose your subclass at level 1 or level 3.

I can certainly imagine running a campaign in which 5E-style multiclassing is disallowed in favor of AD&D-style multiclassing (split XP between multiple classes and advance in both simultaneously), and the only classes available are Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Rogue, with specific multiclass combinations allowed based on the game fiction. (E.g. elves are famous for being skilled at both swordplay and magic, so Fighter/Wizard would be valid for elves.)

This approach puts a lot more emphasis on the fictional archetypes involved and less on fiddly little mechanical details, and overall I like it better than 5E-style build-a-class multiclassing. But it's more work and more houserules, so I haven't ever done it this way, yet.

[Kurt Kurageous]

One interesting thing about these threads is that they often seem to get started by people who are opposed to multiclassing for some reason as if they are looking for justification from the wider community for this viewpoint and then the threads typically come out overwhelmingly in favor of allowing multiclassing.

Since you (sorta) asked, I was getting tired of passing over all the multiclassing optimization threads (because no personal interest) and wanted to see what the other DMs here thought. I wasn't specifically looking for (and don't expect to find) self-justification, but I was looking for other's justification for the use of a (barely?) optional rule that seems to take up much of the discussion in this forum.

I appreciate your meta analysis. It was insightful!

This thread has been also instructive to me.

[Man_Over_Game]

I actually quite like my rogue/warlock (arcane trickster/fey warlock) multiclass (currently 8/5). Devil's sight is extremely useful for a rogue in the dark since you avoid disadvantage on those pesky perception checks to find traps. Faerie fire and darkness+devils sight contribute additional ways to obtain advantage and trigger sneak attack. Thirsting blade at level 5 allows for two sneak attack opportunities and improved pact weapon lets him use a long bow for it. (Hexblade might have been mechanically better but fey fit the character background better). In addition, the arcane trickster picks up two level 3 spell slots to supplement their casting ability.

Arcane trickster rogue/bladesinger wizard is another decent caster/rogue multiclass though it usually uses one or the other as a dip.

I'm not saying you're wrong - those are some really good combinations - but I think those have more to do with a caster's ability to attack, not the Rogue's support for casters.

Or, put another way, casters have to find some kind of weapon-attack trick in order to justify Rogue levels. If the Warlock was focused on Eldritch Blast usage, it might be hard to figure out how Rogue fits in.

The reason Rogue/Caster ever works is because of some sort of sacrifice on the caster's part. On the other hand, though, a Fighter/Ranger/Monk/Barbarian + Rogue doesn't have to miss out on much at all. Even in the example of the Barbarian, they miss out on big weapons (+2 damage) to get Sneak Attack (+3.5 damage) and a shield.

[Zigludo]

I do, but only because my table is a bunch of freakin' NERDS who like reading all the rules and making weird mechanical stuff using the game's mechanics as a restraint. The classes and their abilities serve as inspiration to the adventure and the roleplaying; mixing and matching those abilities is kind of like mixing and matching flavors of ice cream or what have you. It works for us.

But I can totally understand why some (or even most tables) wouldn't bother with it. For starters, from what I understand, a lot of play happens at or around level 5, and if you managed to delay your access to 3rd level spells or Extra Attack you're likely to be out in the cold for a while. Not a lot of fun for most players.


What's the most powerful Fighter? A Full Fighter.
Well, that depends what level we're talking about.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm not saying you're wrong - those are some really good combinations - but I think those have more to do with a caster's ability to attack, not the Rogue's support for casters.

Or, put another way, casters have to find some kind of weapon-attack trick in order to justify Rogue levels. If the Warlock was focused on Eldritch Blast usage, it might be hard to figure out how Rogue fits in.

The reason Rogue/Caster ever works is because of some sort of sacrifice on the caster's part. On the other hand, though, a Fighter/Ranger/Monk/Barbarian + Rogue doesn't have to miss out on much at all. Even in the example of the Barbarian, they miss out on big weapons (+2 damage) to get Sneak Attack (+3.5 damage) and a shield.

I don't understan, which is the casters sacrifice? If you mean the casting level lost by getting rogue levels, well it may be more evident than the other classes, since those improve every lvl, but most classes lose something relevant by taking lvls in another class.

And on the Barbarian/rogue thing, they are also losing access to PAM or GWM which are pretty common picks for Barbs, so the loss of damage is greater.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't understan, which is the casters sacrifice? If you mean the casting level lost by getting rogue levels, well it may be more evident than the other classes, since those improve every lvl, but most classes lose something relevant by taking lvls in another class.

And on the Barbarian/rogue thing, they are also losing access to PAM or GWM which are pretty common picks for Barbs, so the loss of damage is greater.

Using the Warlock example, the Warlock took invocations, spells, and a pact boon that all are centered around attacking with a weapon. Another Warlock could be nearly as effective spamming Eldritch Blast at 120 feet with Hex, going full Warlock, while having a boon left over.

I'm not saying it doesn't have its merits, I'm saying that's what the BEST case scenario looks like.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Ironic, it's it?

This thread is now about comparative multiclassing.

Just like almost all of the others.

[Rukelnikov]

Using the Warlock example, the Warlock took invocations, spells, and a pact boon that all are centered around attacking with a weapon. Another Warlock could be nearly as effective spamming Eldritch Blast at 120 feet with Hex, going full Warlock, while having a boon left over.

I'm not saying it doesn't have its merits, I'm saying that's what the BEST case scenario looks like.

But now you are comparing different things, you are comparing a Bladelock to a EB spammer, you should compare a Bladelock with a dip in rogue against another Bladelock that got more lock levels instead of the Rogue dip. Before lvl 12, I agree Rog is not an improvement, sidegrade at best, after lvl 12, however, I think its pretty valid.

[JNAProductions]

I allow it with restrictions. I don't like the power dips (like 2 levels of Warlock). They seem pretty cheesy. I encourage interesting characters over optimized.

I allow it because I want the players to have lots of choices.

What about making a powerful character stops the character from being interesting?

There's no conflict between powerful, effective characters and good roleplaying or fun backstories.

[MeimuHakurei]

What about making a powerful character stops the character from being interesting?

There's no conflict between powerful, effective characters and good roleplaying or fun backstories.

Same with playing what's fun - to several players, optimizing their build is their fun. Or they just happen to have fun with a character concept that happens to be mechanically powerful.

[Bjarkmundur]

I disallow it, due to the trend of Players getting sucked into a rabbit hole of numbers and optimization. To still keep a similar number of character concepts available, I allow Multiclassing with Sidekick classes.
Works out great.

[BaconAwesome]

I don't see any downside. I might discourage a specific MC if I thought it was going to overshadow another character at the table. (So if we already had a pure warlock, a sorlock might not be a great idea, for example).

[Tanarii]

Not in my primary campaign.

Because it's competing with AL at other tables in the same game stores on the same nights, and it needed to be different. Being a persistent vaguely west marches style campaign helps, but not enough when it's open table.

Because I played a ton of 3e in home games, ran lots of official 4e, and played in 5e AL. I had plenty of first hand experience with how abusive many people could get with the multiclassing and feats rules. They aren't remotely balanced, and require active policing and/or tweaking by the DM. Some combinations are fine, others need to be powered down or powered up. That's fine in a single group of players for an entire game, where you can easily work one-on-one with them. Not so much for open table.

Because I was on a D&D Classic kick at the time, and I couldn't get a campaign started around it. No one wanted to do that, they all wanted to play 5e. And single class no feat matches the feel fairly well.


In one shots, meaning single adventures up to a few months of sessions, I've had character creation rules run the gamut. Many are freely multiclassing and feats. I've even done two where everyone had to start as a level of Rogue and Cleric respectively, then could multiclass into whatever. In both cases, it set the tone for most likely follow up levels, due to what the classes play nice with.

[OldTrees1]

I disallow it, due to the trend of Players getting sucked into a rabbit hole of numbers and optimization. To still keep a similar number of character concepts available, I allow Multiclassing with Sidekick classes.
Works out great.

What are Sidekick classes?

[EggKookoo]

I generally don't. Unless the player can give me a reason why and a way how. Like during a six month downtime. Not just a long rest and a level up.

Why do you allow it? Strictly for optimization? Or what?

And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

Technically, I allow it. None of my players have ever wanted to do it, so in practice it's never happened at my table.

I'm not a fan of it. I feel like it can get overly complicated, and many times you can get the same concept out of a subclass somewhere. I'd actually rather work with you to homebrew a new class entirely that encompasses your concept than go the mulitclass route. However, if you insisted and I couldn't convince you that you could get the same thing with another subclass, I'd allow it. I'd be strict on the ability score requirements, and I'd need you to really define your concept to justify the multiclassing. Probably even map out all 20 class levels ahead of time and hold you to them.

[sesimie]

As a New DM (about 10 sessions) I'm still wrapping my head around running the game enjoyably for my Players (Teens) and myself. I've come to the realization that I would run this current game to level 10 max. I tend to stick with the rules religiously and everything Variant is left alone. Simple Fast D&D. Less Struggling with Rules and more making my Players feel heroic.
With No multiclass or Feats my Players are very powerful at 4th level trivializing many of my best laid plans. That being said, I'm going to open up Multiclassing organically if the story unfurls that way. I may use multiclassing as an accidental manifestation of a curse or something that makes sense in the story. I already have a GOO patron, Secret Lycantropy and Drow Bounty Hunters from an Arcane Lab pursuing the Party. Perhaps i can add feats like this as well. I'm more into making my campaign tell a great story than optimal choices.

[Sindal]

I allow it, though many have not considered it

Personally as a player I would never. Most of the subclassrs fill the role of multiclassing to an extent. But hey, not my characters. I'd hope they can give me a neat story too.

[ZorroGames]

Snip
And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

Oooh, you noticed/mentioned us! TBH, if/when I create my own world I would still allow it. Few classes or subclasses are so weak (perhaps Beast Master to some DMs) that you don’t give up something when you choose multi-classing. And I do MC 90+% of the time. TINSTAAFL.

[BurgerBeast]

The majority of folks posting here appear to be quite open to multiclassing (myself included). So I am kind of curious about the folks who don't allow for multiclassing and why they would be opposed to it.

I’m not opposed to it. I just prefer the game without it. It’s a matter of taste. I don’t like Dragonborn, Tieflings, Gnomes, nor monstrous races, either.

I’m not interested in controlling people, either. If I’m DMing, those are (usually) the rules. If I decide to allow it - that’s my prerogative. If someone else DMs, I respect their rules.

[Tharkun]

Of course I allow it. There is zero reason to shut down that type of fun. It isn't abusive, it doesn't interfere with other players fun and it can provide for a lot of rp potential.

[MoiMagnus]

It depends.
I will always allow "balanced multiclassing", so if the player plan to take at least a third of its level in each class, then no problems.
I'm reluctant to just "pick the first few levels of a class and then never come back". But I'm open to change my mind on a case-by-case basis.

[Aergentum]

I allow it in my games, but the players must explain me why the character wants to "gain" another class. Usually I set up a two/three session quest where the character faces the difficulties of this change, and as reward at the end of the quest he gains the class.

[pothocboots]

What are Sidekick classes?

Sidekick classes were an unearthed arcana. Basically a way to have leveling npc companions.

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA_Sidekicks.pdf

[ZorroGames]

What about making a powerful character stops the character from being interesting?

There's no conflict between powerful, effective characters and good roleplaying or fun backstories.

This! Exactly. Players who go max mechanic optimization have fun just like role players like myself. I find there are other player problems like murder hoboes and a passive DM that remove fun quicker.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Wise DMs understand that there's many kinds of fun, and your goal is everyone at table, including yourself, is having fun nearly all the time playing.

It's a difficult goal. That's why DMing is a labor of love.

[BurgerBeast]

Of course I allow it. There is zero reason to shut down that type of fun. It isn't abusive, it doesn't interfere with other players fun and it can provide for a lot of rp potential.

These are not arguments for adding optional rules into the game. You could switch out “multi-classing” for feats, guns, dragon-characters, spaceships... etc. and apply the same criteria. They’re not relevant.

What is in and what is out is ultimately arbitrary. That doesn’t mean that you get whatever you want.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. The DM decides.

No gnomes is not oppressive. Neither is Core-only. Neither is no XGtE. Neither is no space-ships or lasers. They are simply matters of taste. DM’s call. If you don’t like it, don’t play in that particular game.

Or, annoyingly beg and complain about how you wish things were done your way... Here’s an idea: if you want it done differently: you DM it.

[DMThac0]

These are not arguments for adding optional rules into the game. You could switch out “multi-classing” for feats, guns, dragon-characters, spaceships... etc. and apply the same criteria. They’re not relevant.

What is in and what is out is ultimately arbitrary. That doesn’t mean that you get whatever you want.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. The DM decides.

No gnomes is not oppressive. Neither is Core-only. Neither is no XGtE. Neither is no space-ships or lasers. They are simply matters of taste. DM’s call. If you don’t like it, don’t play in that particular game.

Or, annoyingly beg and complain about how you wish things were done your way... Here’s an idea: if you want it done differently: you DM it.

You say that what is in or out is arbitrary and that optional rules aren't relevant. That's perfectly fine, that's the reason it's optional rules.

However, telling your players that you disallow Gnomes, Dragonborn and Tiefling is not a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules either. You're actually taking out core mechanics of the game rather than optional mechanics. That is significantly different.

[Man_Over_Game]

You say that what is in or out is arbitrary and that optional rules aren't relevant. That's perfectly fine, that's the reason it's optional rules.

However, telling your players that you disallow Gnomes, Dragonborn and Tiefling is not a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules either. You're actually taking out core mechanics of the game rather than optional mechanics. That is significantly different.

Maybe? Only if your players have the expectation that those things are available. And setting that precedent before the characters should be rolled will clear that up.

Personally, I'm fine with any changes my DM makes, as long as I know of them before I roll my character. Once his opinion impacts my long-term investments that I can't change, then there might be some conflict. Heck, he could remove all the martial classes from the game and I'd still find a way to make it into lemonade. (Although I wouldn't recommend doing the opposite (removing all casters), as strictly martial combat can be really repetitive.)

[DMThac0]

Maybe? Only if your players have the expectation that those things are available. And setting that precedent before the characters should be rolled will clear that up.

Personally, I'm fine with any changes my DM makes, as long as I know of them before I roll my character. Once his opinion impacts my long-term investments that I can't change, then there might be some conflict. Heck, he could remove all the martial classes from the game and I'd still find a way to make it into lemonade. (Although I wouldn't recommend doing the opposite (removing all casters), as strictly martial combat can be really repetitive.)

I'm not saying that he's wrong for making those clarifications. As has been pointed out numerous times, every DM has the right to run their games as they see fit.

The point I was trying to get at is that he started off by saying that the quote he used wasn't a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules. Then follows up with an argument for removing "core" races. The quoted post is closer to a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules than the example he used.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not saying that he's wrong for making those clarifications. As has been pointed out numerous times, every DM has the right to run their games as they see fit.

The point I was trying to get at is that he started off by saying that the quote he used wasn't a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules. Then follows up with an argument for removing "core" races. The quoted post is closer to a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules than the example he used.

Gotcha, my bad.

[furby076]

i have no reason against it. there are benefits and drawbacks and my campaigns tend to go to 20 and last years (longest was 10 years). If it makes the player happy, and doesn;t outright destroy the game (pathfinder), then go for it. Sorcadin is easy enough to handle and i'm ok with a player not having to agonize if he should smite now or smite later if the big bad shows up.

[Tharkun]

These are not arguments for adding optional rules into the game. You could switch out “multi-classing” for feats, guns, dragon-characters, spaceships... etc. and apply the same criteria. They’re not relevant.

yes you could and I would except that some of those conflict with the agreed upon setting. Multi-classing, Feats and flint-lock pistols are already part of Forgotten Realms and not a stretch at all


What is in and what is out is ultimately arbitrary. That doesn’t mean that you get whatever you want.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. The DM decides.

No gnomes is not oppressive. Neither is Core-only. Neither is no XGtE. Neither is no space-ships or lasers. They are simply matters of taste. DM’s call. If you don’t like it, don’t play in that particular game.

Or, annoyingly beg and complain about how you wish things were done your way... Here’s an idea: if you want it done differently: you DM it.
I responded with how I DM. And you seem to be trying to prove the trope that No D&D is better than bad D&D. My rules are players should be respectful of each other and the DM. They should allow each other to have fun and not be an pita. In your case, I would never play with you as a DM or a player since you obviously have control issues and want to stop your nominal friends from having fun.

So if any of my players see this, please note, I want you to have fun.

[Ronnocius]

I generally don't. Unless the player can give me a reason why and a way how. Like during a six month downtime. Not just a long rest and a level up.

Why do you allow it? Strictly for optimization? Or what?

And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

I don't because I worry that some characters will become much more optimized than other characters. I allow feats because I think they give more customization options but can't be abused as easily. I could very well be wrong in this but it is the way I've run my games so far and I won't change it in the immediate future.

[BurgerBeast]

You say that what is in or out is arbitrary and that optional rules aren't relevant. That's perfectly fine, that's the reason it's optional rules.

I never said that optional rules aren’t relevant. (What? They’re the entire point of the thread. Of course they’re relevant.)

I said that these specific arguments:

(1) I allow X because there is zero reason not to shut down that type of fun. -> is not an argument for allowing X.

(2) I allow X because it isn’t abusive. -> is not an argument for allowing X.

(3) I allow X because it doesn’t interfere with other players’ fun -> is not an argument for allowing X.

(4) I allow X because it can provide for a lot of rp potential -> is not an argument for allowing X.

- Are not arguments for allowing X.

I said this because plenty of things can meet these criteria and are still reasonably excluded from games.


However, telling your players that you disallow Gnomes, Dragonborn and Tiefling is not a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules either.

Agreed. I never made this argument.


You're actually taking out core mechanics of the game rather than optional mechanics. That is significantly different.

1. races are not mechanics.

2. What’s wrong with a setting that doesn’t have particular races? See Dark sun, for example.


The point I was trying to get at is that he started off by saying that the quote he used wasn't a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules. Then follows up with an argument for removing "core" races. The quoted post is closer to a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules than the example he used.

1. You didn’t understand what I was saying in the first place (see above). So whether or not I was right is still apparently an open question.

2. I never made an argument for removing “core” races. I said that all “core” races are arbitrary, and so the expectation that every core race must appear in every D&D game is an unjustified expectation. You should always check with the DM. So you didn’t seem to understand that, either.


yes you could and I would except that some of those conflict with the agreed upon setting. Multi-classing, Feats and flint-lock pistols are already part of Forgotten Realms and not a stretch at all

So what? Who said we’re talking about Forgotten Realms? And who says a DM can’t tailor his Realms however he wishes? I like the FR setting better as it existed in 2e. So I play my 5e FR in the 2e setting. Who cares? You don't have to play it.

Also, as you mentioned, we're talking about the agreed upon setting. If I’m DMing, I’m not agreeing to a setting with Dragonborn, Tieflings, or Gnomes. So the setting is not agreed upon. Problem solved.


I responded with how I DM. And you seem to be trying to prove the trope that No D&D is better than bad D&D.

I’m not trying to prove any trope. That’s you talking, not me. However, it should be pointed out that there is a probably a threshold below which bad D&D is worse than no D&D, whether it's a trope or not.


My rules are players should be respectful of each other and the DM. They should allow each other to have fun and not be an pita. In your case, I would never play with you as a DM or a player since you obviously have control issues and want to stop your nominal friends from having fun.

This is not an argument. It’s a slur. And a bad one, at that.

[Luccan]

I'll allow it, but I notice outside theory crafting and forum games, most people seem to stick to one class. I dislike keeping it from my players because not allowing it represents an inability to learn other class's abilities that... doesn't make sense to me. Especially more mundane things like weapons, armor, and skills, but also why couldn't you, with practice, be a Wizard? Or make a deal with a powerful entity and become a Warlock? I like an IC justification if it happens mid-game, but that doesn't always need to be super in depth.

I think if you want to restrict players to one class that's fine, but I think I'd only do that if I were striving for something very specific, like a game where the PCs were the only people capable of certain class or subclass abilities.

[FabulousFizban]

yes. I’m god, no amount of min/maxing can stop me from balancing the game

my players also know that they don’t have the expertise to out munchkin their DM

[BurgerBeast]

I think if you want to restrict players to one class that's fine, but I think I'd only do that if I were striving for something very specific, like a game where the PCs were the only people capable of certain class or subclass abilities.

I'm good with everything you said, I just want to point out this one nitpick: It's not about wanting to restrict players. Players are already restricted. You can't play a dragon PC by the core rules. You can't play the Tallfellow race of halfling by the core rules. You are restricted to twelve classes (or whatever number it is) by the core rules... a player might want to play a 4e Warlord - sorry, they don't exist in this oppressive, restricted world! Some players may want to play a warforged on Athas. PHB high elves do not exist on Athas. Drow are "ask your DM first" by the core rules, etc.

The rules are restrictive because they are finite. What optional rules you choose to allow is up to you, including invented rules. The idea that it is restrictive to "disallow" things is only tenable if you first assume that they are permitted in the first place. It is always better to let go of this assumption and ask first. The answer is almost always yes, anyway. If it's not, well then you didn't waste time on a character that is not permitted. Problem solved.

[Luccan]

I'm good with everything you said, I just want to point out this one nitpick: It's not about wanting to restrict players. Players are already restricted. You can't play a dragon PC by the core rules. You can't play the Tallfellow race of halfling by the core rules. You are restricted to twelve classes (or whatever number it is) by the core rules... a player might want to play a 4e Warlord - sorry, they don't exist in this oppressive, restricted world! Some players may want to play a warforged on Athas. PHB high elves do not exist on Athas. Drow are "ask your DM first" by the core rules, etc.

The rules are restrictive because they are finite. What optional rules you choose to allow is up to you, including invented rules. The idea that it is restrictive to "disallow" things is only tenable if you first assume that they are permitted in the first place. It is always better to let go of this assumption and ask first. The answer is almost always yes, anyway. If it's not, well then you didn't waste time on a character that is not permitted. Problem solved.

Even as I was typing that I was thinking about how multiclassing had been made an optional rule, yet managed to type a reply that acted like it wasn't.

[Shuruke]

I allow it but I dint give free reign on it

Players have to give me reason for what they want from the class and we negotiate how they can fit that into their characters story/journey

Its a lot of fun and my personal favorite was the Swashbuckler rogue whom took a small wizard dip for war wizard

They studiously studied for how to always be one step ahead of enemies. To have different tricks and how to use magic for the some purpose of a weapon.

Before they took wizard they bought an old worn spellbook and we essentially had some small rp of the equivalent of Karra and water scrolls from avatar last airbender


Edit: I allow it but I generally only have roleplayers at the table andfew times I have had minimaxer I said no to certain things and laid rules out. I like optimizing and for me I love making an effective character with the restrictions I have. And my players whom I restrict feel the same. But then again I still use the pre errata divine smite that limited it to paladin slots

[ZorroGames]

I DM AL. Yes I would adjust things in my world. Isn’t that what we are talking about? Anything not AL is by definition a DM defined world?

Sure I would run “my” world somewhat differently. Yes, some races are played more than I feel reflects the avowed world setting but it is a big world and lots of “minor” races can be founded in just one city the size of Waterdeep. Maybe all adventurers come from Waterdeep. Just Kidding.


As a player in AL almost 100% of my PCs are designed to MC. My exceptions? A MD War Wizard. A MD ST based Rogue. MD Shepherd Druid (possibly subject to change.) A Earth Genasi BM Fighter (and that is not set in stone, talk to me when I hit level 12 or 13.) MD ST based Ranger. MD ST Fighter. MD DE fighter. And... that’s it. Out of 17 characters, 7 not MC at most. Several others are about to MC but are technically one level shy of where I want them to MC so I counted them as MC.

Would I not play in a game without MC? Yes. One with no Feats? Hell yes. Race restrictions? No MD, yes; no Gnomes, yes; no Elves, yes though I do not play them; no humans, yes; any other race restrictions, maybe, especially Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half Elf, Half Orc and Halfling exclusions. Does that make it bad? No, just wrong for me. Your non-AL world... well, it is your world.

[Spriteless]

I allow it because the players love the theory craft and will talk about level up options for hours at a time, and because I can make long rests a pain to find when they go fighter/warlock/pali.

[Porkslope]

I allow limited multiclassing, primarily to discourage the resident minmaxer in my group (who just so happens to be an absolutely excellent roleplayer and storyteller) from trying to break the game over his knee, but also because I'm a big fan of single-class characters (and especially now that in 5e, subclasses bake plenty of versatility right into classes and are relatively easy to alter or homebrew up if an existing subclass doesn't quite fit).

The limited part comes from the fact that I tell my players they have to track down an experienced member of the class they want to take levels in. I'd allow a player to take levels in a class that another party member belongs to relatively easily, provided that party member is willing to train that PC, but anything else requires seeking out someone else. I'm not too picky about time constraints, but they're not gonna gain their first level on day one of training. That being said, my game will have long stretches of wilderness travel, so the PCs will have opportunities if they really want to multiclass.

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.

[ZorroGames]

snip

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.

Good up until this. 😲. People say working in the intelligence arena before I retired made me bleak about people’s fallen nature... 🙄

There are other people who MC for fun. 😎 And trade one aspect for another in character design. 👨🏼*🎨

Since 1973 I have not had a Player, AL or not, that could not be persuaded to remember this is a social cooperative game. Rather than restrict or nerf everyone else I would just flat send such a person packing. Not Tough Love but removing a disruptive player. 🤴🏼

Edit: run it anyway you want but seriously about black and white statements. 🤯. That’s usually my role on this forum. 😉

[Porkslope]

It's cool. Some people like to roll a few more dice than others. I've just gotten snake eyes more than a few times with public groups, so that's how I do things when I run.

[Tanarii]

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.
Unlike ZorroGames, uber-optimization (although not necessary game breaking exploits) was something I commonly experienced in AL. And in 4e official play. Such players aren't inherently disruptive players, and many are quite good at not trying to overshadow others, especially older players. But despite that, the mechanical disparity between exceptionally optimized and not very optimized can still be quite off-putting, especially to newer players.

[Trustypeaches]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.

Spoken like a true player! You are absolutely correct in desiring every mechanical advantage you can lay hands on.

This is why I asked DMs.

[MaxWilson]

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.

There's a lot of room between "infinitely good" and "cripplingly bad". :)

[Particle_Man]

I don't allow it in the game I run. It is easier for me not to have to play "whack-a-mole" banning with various multi-class power ups or gimpings. I have more confidence that the non-optional rules are balanced than adding the optional rule. And my players have enough options as it is to have fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, This is where you and I will part company. Best wishes, and have fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.

If abilities were separate from the narrative, and abilities are primarily for combat, then it's akin to saying that combat/mechanics are separate from the narrative.

It's kind of like the difference between introducing truly random encounters (you come across a snow yeti on the plains!) and improvised encounters (the cave you happened to be using in the mountains belongs to a snow yeti, who just arrived home!).

There's a big difference there.

The first treats the mechanics, combat, classes, etc., as a board game. It's all tactics and planning. No emotion put into it.

The second treats the mechanics and such as part of the overall experience. Combat becomes a means to an end, not the goal or a separate experience.

One's a video game, and the other's a play.

I'd strongly recommend you check out 4th edition DnD. It's perfectly designed for the kind of playstyle I suspect you might be looking for. 5e can be made to play like that, but 4e perfected it.

[MaxWilson]

If abilities were separate from the narrative, and abilities are primarily for combat, then it's akin to saying that combat/mechanics are separate from the narrative.

It could just be saying that narrative and mechanics don't correlate well--which is mostly WotC's doing, probably deliberately. From a narrative standpoint, you could model Aragorn as an Outlander Battlemaster Fighter with a Secret, or a Ranger, or even a Barbarian. Or he could be a Fighter 5/Rogue 3, or a Ranger 6/Cleric 1. This is not OD&D where "Fighter" would be the obvious and only choice. There's a bunch of different mechanical options for the same fluff.

[Man_Over_Game]

It could just be saying that narrative and mechanics don't correlate well--which is mostly WotC's doing, probably deliberately. From a narrative standpoint, you could model Aragorn as an Outlander Battlemaster Fighter with a Secret, or a Ranger, or even a Barbarian. Or he could be a Fighter 5/Rogue 3, or a Ranger 6/Cleric 1. This is not OD&D where "Fighter" would be the obvious and only choice. There's a bunch of different mechanical options for the same fluff.

But every one of those is narratively justified. "I want to play a really talented warrior that's good in the wilderness". There's a lot of ways to make that happen.

But a "warrior of light" fitting in a level of Hexblade? I'm not really sure how using the powers of a Shadowfel entity to drain the souls of your enemies qualifies as a "warrior of light" narrative device. Even if it's something as simple as "I killed enough demons to get some of their dark power, and I use it against evil to show them their own wickedness", that'd fit a lot better than "I just really like Shield and Short Rest spell slots, and I don't care about having dark magic in my white knight narrative".

If you stop caring about the narrative, then...what's important?

That's not necessarily that this is a bad way to play the game, but it does set a precedent that's different at most tables. Things would be a lot easier to gauge if people were honest and said "I don't really care all that much about the narrative, I just want to level up and kill stuff".

[Corran]

If abilities were separate from the narrative, and abilities are primarily for combat, then it's akin to saying that combat/mechanics are separate from the narrative.

I can't answer for Trustypeaches. I don't think he meant that. Mechanics are not separate from the narrative. Nor do they have to be. On the other hand, not every mechanic needs to draw narrative focus on it, meaning how the character got it, evolved it over time, etc, though this last thing probably varies from DM to DM (for example, some DM's might not allow leveling up till the player finds a compelling justification and roleplays getting their new powers; I wouldn't go into that territory, and I don't like that style of play, but I respect that other people might do). Anyway, back to the point I would like to make, the implication that I at least get from what Trustypeaches said, is that messing around with the standard package of mechanics does not necessarily separates mechanics from narrative. More simply, that it is equally likely to have believable and well suited to the setting characters when you cross the limit that a single class imposes and when not. And yeah, this is something I can agree with.

[ko_sct]

I've always allowed multi-classing in my games. I like the increased options. The only REALLY out there build I've seen was a shadow monk / warlock 2 (for the eyes of shadow invocation) for a one shot. It was agreed that while strong, the build was really not suited to teamplay and hence wouldn't be played in a campaign unless everyone agreed.

When I'm a player I also like to multiclass. I wouldn't mind if someone where to forbid multiclassing but what annoy me is when people want an extraordinary background for multiclassing... "Sure Bob, you can do a warrior mage (eldtrich knight) but ko_sct, I'm gonna need a good justification before I allow your warrior mage character (Fighter 1/Wizard2/FighterX)"

[MaxWilson]

But every one of those is narratively justified. "I want to play a really talented warrior that's good in the wilderness". There's a lot of ways to make that happen.

But a "warrior of light" fitting in a level of Hexblade? I'm not really sure how using the powers of a Shadowfel entity to drain the souls of your enemies qualifies as a "warrior of light" narrative device.

Oh, on that score I absolutely agree with you. In that sense classes (especially paladins) are coupled to narrative, because supposedly their mechanics derive from their narrative. I don't even like non-Devotion paladins in my games, although I don't ban them, I just wince internally. That's a case of a subclass clashing with a class, instead of a multiclass combination clashing with a class.

I didn't think that's what Trustypeaches was saying, but maybe I'm wrong.


When I'm a player I also like to multiclass. I wouldn't mind if someone where to forbid multiclassing but what annoy me is when people want an extraordinary background for multiclassing... "Sure Bob, you can do a warrior mage (eldtrich knight) but ko_sct, I'm gonna need a good justification before I allow your warrior mage character (Fighter 1/Wizard2/FighterX)"

This is what I perceived Trustypeaches as criticizing. Might be confirmation bias though because I happen to agree with ko_sct on this one. :-) Trustypeaches may have been saying something different.

[EggKookoo]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.

I think if I'm being honest with myself, I see classes as bundles of mechanics, but they're also more than that. Ideally, they're a mix of strengths and drawbacks, where the drawbacks make their strengths interesting. A wizard that can fight with martial weapons as well as a fighter is uninteresting. The wizard is interesting because he has to rely on spells and cannot really rely on his martial prowess. Conversely, a fighter is interesting because he can't rely on spells and must rely on his martial prowess.

When these line are blurred, for example with an EK, it's done in a way that, at least in theory, tries to preserve the interesting qualities of the class. Yes, the EK is now a fighter who can rely on spells, but only so many and only certain types. Done right, that little mix in of spellcasting at the cost of some martial strength (no superiority dice) should preserve the interesting aspects of the character.

For the most part, to my mind, multiclassing is too blurry. I find the whole idea of dipping repugnant. Picking a class is supposed to be about making a choice and playing within the parameters of that choice. At least IMO. That's the entire appeal of a class-based system. I am X because I am not Y. You are Y because you're not X.

I'm probably tainted here. The only players I've ever played with who wanted to multiclass were the self-absorbed, "make it all about me" types. I'm reminded of the South Park episode where the kids pretended to have super powers, and Cartman waited until everyone described their powers and then said he had the same powers they did, "but just a little bit better."

Cartman would MC the hell out of D&D.

[Tanarii]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.It is you and your table's right to view them that way.

But you should be aware that the designers didn't design the classes with that in mind. From the sage advice "Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand in hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others."

In other words, your table is going to have to draw it's own lines about what's mechanical and what's not mechanical for each class, as well as make the decision that non-mechanical can be freely ignored.


=MaxWilson;23945000]There's a lot of room between "infinitely good" and "cripplingly bad". :)Hahaha truth. It's easy to get sucked into black and white thinking, especially in forum discussions. Not directed at me, but insightful comment appreciated anyway.

[OldTrees1]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.
Spoken like a true player! You are absolutely correct in desiring every mechanical advantage you can lay hands on.

This is why I asked DMs.

Honesty, I don't see how their opinion is much different than the DM's one you concurred with (see quote balloon below). Seeing the printed classes as bundles of mechanics lets you use those bundles to create more classes than D&D (5e) can print.

Multiclassing allowed someone to play a Goliath Tribesman class. More athletic & educated but less brutal than an Orc/Human Barbarian.
Multiclassing allowed someone to play a magic user class that used passive magic rather than active spellcasting.

It does these by seeing what mechanics exist and combining them together (via multiclassing) into a cohesive new class.






Multiclassing allows D&D (5e) to mechanically support more classes than it can print.
Bingo. Wins thread. :smallsmile:
And you picked the winner already. I concur.

[Tanarii]

Multiclassing allowed someone to play a Goliath Tribesman class. More athletic & educated but less brutal than an Orc/Human Barbarian.

Single class Barbarian Sage starts with Athletics, Arcana, History, & Nature and Int 12 as their 4th score after Str, Con, Dex. If they're Vuman they can add Investigation, and Religion via Prodigy or Skilled if they like. Sounds pretty athletic and educated to me. No Multiclassing required.

[OldTrees1]

Single class Barbarian Sage starts with Athletics, Arcana, History, & Nature and Int 12 as their 4th score after Str, Con, Dex. If they're Vuman they can add Investigation, and Religion via Prodigy or Skilled if they like. Sounds pretty athletic and educated to me. No Multiclassing required.

You missed "Goliath" so they did not qualify for Prodigy despite Prodigy being ideal for the character representation*. A human Barbarian would not need Expertise for it to be thematically appropriate. But Goliath culture includes a large part about being athletic to an extreme.

Skilled was considered (because 4 skills is not educated in 5E in our table's POV) and they might take that too.

*I also considered relaxing the requirement on Prodigy. But that would be an example for a different topic.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Multiclassing: yes, your character is not a class their a suite of abilities that make you effective at your role if grabbing a level of Hexblade is meant to make you a better striker, go for it. I actively discuss with my players what is mechanically better for what they want to do, if the fluff doesn't match then let's change the fluff.

With that being said though if you are multiclassing for one thing only, I'd rather give it as a quest reward. Expertise in athletics, ask the mercenary guild leader if they can introduce you to anyone really good at it as part of your reward. Stuff like that.

My thought is the stronger my players are the more wild crap I can throw at them. In my current campaign they have to travel to the city of Dis at level 6-7.

[StoicLeaf]

I allow multiclassing but demand a story driven reason for it happening.
I feel that characters that are warlock/paladin/sorc/fighter MCs really, really need a good backstory..

[Tanarii]

You missed "Goliath" so they did not qualify for Prodigy despite Prodigy being ideal for the character representation*. A human Barbarian would not need Expertise for it to be thematically appropriate. But Goliath culture includes a large part about being athletic to an extreme.

Skilled was considered (because 4 skills is not educated in 5E in our table's POV) and they might take that too.

*I also considered relaxing the requirement on Prodigy. But that would be an example for a different topic.I didn't miss Goliath. I addressed it first. And expertise is not a part of "character concept", that's "I want a specific mechanical bonus". A character with primary Str and Athletics is already athletic to an extreme.

[MeimuHakurei]

I didn't miss Goliath. I addressed it first. And expertise is not a part of "character concept", that's "I want a specific mechanical bonus". A character with primary Str and Athletics is already athletic to an extreme.

Not if the Gnome Bard next to you is consistently better at grappling enemies than you.

[Tanarii]

Not if the Gnome Bard next to you is consistently better at grappling enemies than you.
Because Gnome Bards often invest in Str ...

[JNAProductions]

Because Gnome Bards often invest in Str ...

If they want to grapple? Then yeah, they'll invest.

[Tanarii]

If they want to grapple? Then yeah, they'll invest.Thats two different No True Scotsmans in a single attempt to justify expertise.

[Anthiondel]

Sure, I allow it. It gives players more freedom, and I love multiclassing as well.

A Paladin that swore an Oath of Conquest, who has "Strengh above all" as a tenant, decides to gl Hexblade, well, he is keeping his oath, he is looking for strengh (that's a character I play). A Cleric of a deity like Azuth, Selune or Corellon, who decides the best way he can serve his god is by going deeper into the art of magic wielding and multiclasses to Wizard is just perfect, or a Barbarian who comes from a culture where poetry and songs are the way they use to pass their lore and becomes a Bard as well... (Blth concepta i've had as a DM)

Most players will have a logic as to why their PCs got their "new" powers, and if not, you as a DM can work in one with them (a Paladin/Sorcerer may be a holy warrior that suddenly discovers his deity has blessed his soul, for example, and if your playerscan't figure it out on their own, you should help them out)

Multiclassing is fun, but you lose some crucial abilities. Versatility > raw power

[OldTrees1]

I didn't miss Goliath. I addressed it first. And expertise is not a part of "character concept", that's "I want a specific mechanical bonus". A character with primary Str and Athletics is already athletic to an extreme.

You and I have different points of view on the 5E skill system (which is its own thread beaten to death). Based upon those differences it made sense to create a Goliath Tribesman class that was more athletic & educated but less brutal than a pure Orc Barbarian. The Giant can wrestle with Giants while the Orc can brutalize Giants. Multiclassing is the mechanic that allows class based systems like D&D to support these customized classes.

Your solution, for my group, was worse than allowing multiclassing, for my group. For your group it might be the reverse.

[diplomancer]

I might be completely wrong here, but I think one of the strongest incentives for dip multi-classing is uninspiring capstones.

Even though most games don't reach level 20, having uninspiring capstones as a "carrot" makes people consider dips.

I want to make clear that the argument I am making here is more psychological than a matter of considering what is more powerful at each level.

It is obvious that a Knowledge Cleric 1/ Lore Bard 19 is better than a Lore Bard 20, but this is not so clear for all levels before level 18. Still, having such an uninspiring (pun not intended) capstone makes Lore Bards consider dips in cleric (if their wis allows it) or hexblade (if their wis doesn't).

So, to all DMs out there, if you want to discourage dips, without just banning them outright (which might upset your players) homerule better capstones. Even if they are too powerful, you probably won't seem them in action, and even if you do it will not be for long. But many players will think twice about dipping if the capstone is powerful enough.

[Xetheral]

If abilities were separate from the narrative, and abilities are primarily for combat, then it's akin to saying that combat/mechanics are separate from the narrative.

It's kind of like the difference between introducing truly random encounters (you come across a snow yeti on the plains!) and improvised encounters (the cave you happened to be using in the mountains belongs to a snow yeti, who just arrived home!).

There's a big difference there.

The first treats the mechanics, combat, classes, etc., as a board game. It's all tactics and planning. No emotion put into it.

The second treats the mechanics and such as part of the overall experience. Combat becomes a means to an end, not the goal or a separate experience.

One's a video game, and the other's a play.

I'd strongly recommend you check out 4th edition DnD. It's perfectly designed for the kind of playstyle I suspect you might be looking for. 5e can be made to play like that, but 4e perfected it.


But every one of those is narratively justified. "I want to play a really talented warrior that's good in the wilderness". There's a lot of ways to make that happen.

But a "warrior of light" fitting in a level of Hexblade? I'm not really sure how using the powers of a Shadowfel entity to drain the souls of your enemies qualifies as a "warrior of light" narrative device. Even if it's something as simple as "I killed enough demons to get some of their dark power, and I use it against evil to show them their own wickedness", that'd fit a lot better than "I just really like Shield and Short Rest spell slots, and I don't care about having dark magic in my white knight narrative".

If you stop caring about the narrative, then...what's important?

That's not necessarily that this is a bad way to play the game, but it does set a precedent that's different at most tables. Things would be a lot easier to gauge if people were honest and said "I don't really care all that much about the narrative, I just want to level up and kill stuff".

You appear to be equating viewing classes as refluffable packages of abilities with not caring about narrative at all. I think instead it would be more accurate to instead say that those who view classes as refluffable packages of abilities don't care about the default narrative. They might well still care about a new narrative they've created.

For example, a cleric/warlock/bard might be defined narratively as a character who went through several mid-life crisises that caused them to change the direction of their life. That would be accepting the default narrative of each class and narratively describing the transitions between those defaults.

A second cleric/warlock/bard might be narratively defined as a decendent of a mortal and a divine muse, exploring and figuring out the powers of their heritage in a manner akin to the default narrative for a sorcerer. That would treating the classes as refluffable packages of abilities and narratively describing the resulting whole entirely differently than its component pieces.

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the player of the second cleric/warlock/bard is necessarily less focused on narrative than the player of the first.

[Trustypeaches]

If abilities were separate from the narrative, and abilities are primarily for combat, then it's akin to saying that combat/mechanics are separate from the narrative.

It's kind of like the difference between introducing truly random encounters (you come across a snow yeti on the plains!) and improvised encounters (the cave you happened to be using in the mountains belongs to a snow yeti, who just arrived home!).

There's a big difference there.

The first treats the mechanics, combat, classes, etc., as a board game. It's all tactics and planning. No emotion put into it.

The second treats the mechanics and such as part of the overall experience. Combat becomes a means to an end, not the goal or a separate experience.

One's a video game, and the other's a play.

I'd strongly recommend you check out 4th edition DnD. It's perfectly designed for the kind of playstyle I suspect you might be looking for. 5e can be made to play like that, but 4e perfected it.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.

To me, classes are bundles of mechanics, tools to realize an abstract character concept. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about flavor, it just means I don’t care about adhering to the flavor the game provides.

I’m not saying people are wrong to assign narrative weight to the mechanical decisions players make, but as a DM I don’t agree with exercising absolute control over what those narrative implications are. I don’t think of classes as immutable concepts whose flavor is sacred and inalterable; players should be allowed to toy with them to make characters they want to play.

[OldTrees1]

I might be completely wrong here, but I think one of the strongest incentives for dip multi-classing is uninspiring capstones.

Even though most games don't reach level 20, having uninspiring capstones as a "carrot" makes people consider dips.

I want to make clear that the argument I am making here is more psychological than a matter of considering what is more powerful at each level.

The same idea holds true for lower levels when the players understand the game won't reach 20th. In an upcoming game I have told the players that the game will likely end around level 11. So for that campaign, the 10th, 11th, and 12th levels have a similar effect. If those levels are uninspiring then the players might consider more multiclassing than they would otherwise.

[sithlordnergal]

I've always allowed multiclassing, as it adds some variety to players and classes. As a player and DM, I find straight classes to be boring and uninteresting. Sure, I could be a Paladin of the Ancients, but if I'm really out to be a stalwart guardian of Nature and Good, a Paladin/Druid does it so much better. A straight paladin just lacks everything I'd need to make such a thing work, from Druidic magic to wild shapes. I find it also allows for more variety in games, and more entertaining builds.

[Constructman]

I've always allowed multiclassing, as it adds some variety to players and classes. As a player and DM, I find straight classes to be boring and uninteresting. Sure, I could be a Paladin of the Ancients, but if I'm really out to be a stalwart guardian of Nature and Good, a Paladin/Druid does it so much better. A straight paladin just lacks everything I'd need to make such a thing work, from Druidic magic to wild shapes. I find it also allows for more variety in games, and more entertaining builds.

Isn't Paladin Druid a really bad combination? You're multi-ability dependent in at least four directions, you can't use your plate proficiency, you're either delaying your extra attack or your higher level spells...

[sithlordnergal]

Isn't Paladin Druid a really bad combination? You're multi-ability dependent in at least four directions, you can't use your plate proficiency, you're either delaying your extra attack or your higher level spells...

As someone who has an AL Legal one, I'll be totally honest and say that it is a really tough combo to pull off. But if you manage to pull it off, it is amazing. You do need to do a few things though. For example, you'll need to start as a Half Elf for their ability score bonuses, and you'll need to decide if you want to be a better Paladin or better Druid. Once you make that choice, you need to stick with it. I personally went for Druid, and maxed out my Wisdom while leaving my Charisma at 16 and Strength at 15. I'm only level 15 total right now, so I'll be able to boost my Charisma to 18 by level 20.

I use Shillelagh for my main attack, which makes it so I do't need strength for anything but armor requirements. I also snagged Polearm Mastery, which gives me a third attack option to smite on. As for armor, you'll need to have a nice DM who lets you use metal armor as a Druid, which is DM dependent, or do what I did and find the Scorpion Armor from ToA. You can take a single level of Sorcerer for Shield if you want, but you don't have to.

As for the extra attack and higher level spells, that's sort of an issue any Paladin Multiclass has. I'd suggest starting as Paladin, grabbing one level of Druid for Shillelagh, then finishing off your Paladin levels before finishing Druid. Though that assumes you plan on making Druid your core spell casting class which...if you aren't then its better to go Paladin/Sorcerer.

After saying all of that though, I will admit my Paladin/Druid is probably my favorite character. It was tough to pull off, but I managed to make a very impressive build that is great with battlefield control, at will healing, burst damage, and is incredibly fun to play. The Dream Druid fits nicely with Paladin of the Ancients, both RP wise and ability wise. Plus I laugh at any and all Wisdom saves since I have a +15 to Wisdom saving throws.

[Corran]

Plus I laugh at any and all Wisdom saves since I have a +15 to Wisdom saving throws.
That doesn't sound right. Did you add proficiency bonus twice perhaps? Or is it because of a combination of good stats, high prof bonus and magic items?

[JNAProductions]

That doesn't sound right. Did you add proficiency bonus twice perhaps? Or is it because of a combination of good stats, high prof bonus and magic items?

Aura of Protection. Add Charisma to all saves.

But, that pretty much REQUIRES great rolled stats-you'd need either +6 prof, +5 Wis/Cha, and +4 Cha/Wis, or +5 Prof and +5 Wis and Cha.

[sithlordnergal]

Aura of Protection. Add Charisma to all saves.

But, that pretty much REQUIRES great rolled stats-you'd need either +6 prof, +5 Wis/Cha, and +4 Cha/Wis, or +5 Prof and +5 Wis and Cha.

Used a 27 point buy only, with AL rules, I had to use the Half Elf though. I do have 22 Wisdom from one of the books, a 16 Charisma, and a few items that help. But even without the items or book I'd have a 13 Wisdom save from 20 Wis, 5 proficiency bonus, and 16 Charisma. And I fully plan on boosting that Charisma to 18 before I hit level 20.

[verbatim]

Answering OP:

I'm running a game with new players right now, and while I haven't banned multi-classing I also haven't brought it up as an option much. If any of them ask about it then I intend to allow them to do so, but I don't want to dump the potential to complicate things even further on everyone.

[Xetheral]

I generally don't. Unless the player can give me a reason why and a way how. Like during a six month downtime. Not just a long rest and a level up.

Why do you allow it? Strictly for optimization? Or what?

And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

I actively encourage multiclass characters at my table. I find it helps promote more-diverse and more-nuanced character concepts. I value such characters because to me they feel more verisimilitudinous and also because I find that when players make their characters into unique creations they end up being more invested in both their characters and the campaign.

I don't care whether players start with a fun thematic concept and then pick classes based on which mechanical abilities will most-enjoyably express that concept, or whether they start with a fun mechanical build and then weave a corresponding thematic concept that will be enjoyable to roleplay. I only care that both the thematics and the mechanics are fun for the player, and that the character's mechanical abilities are a good match for the thematic concept.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes, I allow multiclassing.

Multiclassing allows D&D to mechanically support more classes than it can print.

So when the 12 base classes don't cover the character concepts, then my players can / do multiclass.

Well, this very nicely explains my counter-position. I don’t want the game to include more classes than can be printed. Therefore I don’t allow multi-classing.

Again, I point out that everyone plays with limits, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Do you let players play laser-wielding dragons and start as gestalt 20th-level wizards / 20th level clerics?

Why not?

Because you play with limits, that’s why.

You can play with the Basic Rules, allowing only champion fighters, life clerics, evoker wizards, and thief rogues, and you can have a fun game. Limitations on options do not automatically reduce fun, and expansion of options does not automatically increase fun. There is unlimited variety to be found within the play experience.

[Misterwhisper]

Yes, except for warlocks.

It is far too after a dip for power class.

If you want in, find a patron and ask.

If you want out you have to have fulfilled your bargain.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Yes, except for warlocks.

It is far too after a dip for power class.

If you want in, find a patron and ask.

If you want out you have to have fulfilled your bargain.

I've always found it thematic when players dip Warlock for power. As I see it, that's sort of the point of the whole class. It's making a pact with a powerful entity for a substantial short-term gain in power. So long as my players understand that they're going to have to do more than just lip service in order to receive and maintain said powers (note: this also applies to Clerics when I DM), this seems to me like Warlock functioning as intended.

[Misterwhisper]

I've always found it thematic when players dip Warlock for power. As I see it, that's sort of the point of the whole class. It's making a pact with a powerful entity for a substantial short-term gain in power. So long as my players understand that they're going to have to do more than just lip service in order to receive and maintain said powers (note: this also applies to Clerics when I DM), this seems to me like Warlock functioning as intended.

Everyone just taking 2 levels and leaving is not working as intended.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sorry, I should have been more clear.

To me, classes are bundles of mechanics, tools to realize an abstract character concept. That doesn’t mean I don’t care about flavor, it just means I don’t care about adhering to the flavor the game provides.

I’m not saying people are wrong to assign narrative weight to the mechanical decisions players make, but as a DM I don’t agree with exercising absolute control over what those narrative implications are. I don’t think of classes as immutable concepts whose flavor is sacred and inalterable; players should be allowed to toy with them to make characters they want to play.

Ah, gotcha! In that sense, I agree!

I pretty much ignore any of the original fluff, and only use the mechanics the option provides to generate new fluff.

The Hexblade no longer is about a sentient Shadowfel-Sword-thing, but it's now about curses and draining souls!

The Redemption Paladin is now a martyr, one who convinces others not to fight and receives pain on behalf of their allies.

The Long Death Monk is a psionic that drains the psychic energy of those that die around him.

Stuff like that.

[Corran]

Everyone just taking 2 levels and leaving is not working as intended.
Definitely. But then again, when you see what they did with hexblade makes me wonder if they just gave up on solving the problem about warlock dips.

[EggKookoo]

To me, classes are bundles of mechanics, tools to realize an abstract character concept.

To me, classes represent choices. To be a fighter is to not be a wizard. Choices that impose limits and provide tools are interesting to me.

I find Superman boring as superheroes go. Not because he's extremely powerful, but because (at least in his classic Silver Age sense) he can do anything. Literally. If the writer thought of an ability, it would get "Super-" tacked onto it and given to Superman.

I prefer D&D characters to work more like the Flash. Flash basically has one power -- speed. Everything he does is an extrapolation of his ability to move at super speed. He's not tough or strong. He can't really fly. While Flash can hold his own, he works best as a member of a team, where he'd fight alongside someone super strong, maybe someone else super smart. Perhaps a third person with some esoteric ability like shapechanging. These characters, maybe powerful in their own right, work even better as a team because their abilities compliment each other.* This is a good thing. It makes the team important. And D&D is a team-based game.

* Yes, Superman is also often a member of the team, but usually the writers had to get him out of the picture as soon as possible, since he could do everything his teammates could do as well. Narrative and logical gymnastics were employed to make the others feel useful.

[PhoenixPhyre]

These characters, maybe powerful in their own right, work even better as a team because their abilities compliment each other.* This is a good thing. It makes the team important. And D&D is a team-based game.

This part is key. In fact, it's part of the D&D 5e Style Guide--there's a sidebar about what makes D&D special. It specifically calls out teamwork. That it's about people working together to do things they can't do alone. I've come to the idea that the basic unit of D&D is not the character. It's the party. Characters are like subatomic particles. Without the neutrons, the protons don't stick together. And without the electrons, the nucleus can't really interact well to form compounds. Everyone has their part to play, and there's no part for loners or "do everything myself" men.

[Misterwhisper]

Definitely. But then again, when you see what they did with hexblade makes me wonder if they just gave up on solving the problem about warlock dips.

Actually that is because they refuse to go back and fix things they messed up that would take a reprint.

I am more and more thinking that the D&D section of Hasbro is only like Miker, Jeremy and 3 other people.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've come to the idea that the basic unit of D&D is not the character. It's the party. Characters are like subatomic particles. Without the neutrons, the protons don't stick together. And without the electrons, the nucleus can't really interact well to form compounds. Everyone has their part to play, and there's no part for loners or "do everything myself" men. That's the idea.

Unfortunately, 25 years worth of video game culture has changed a lot of people's entering assumptions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's the idea.

Unfortunately, 25 years worth of video game culture has changed a lot of people's entering assumptions.

Then it's high time we disabuse people of that false notion, rather than feeding and enabling it. I'm willing to do my part as both a DM (encouraging teamwork) and as a player (not trying to do it all myself and enabling the party to work together).

[Trustypeaches]

To me, classes represent choices. To be a fighter is to not be a wizard. Choices that impose limits and provide tools are interesting to me.

I find Superman boring as superheroes go. Not because he's extremely powerful, but because (at least in his classic Silver Age sense) he can do anything. Literally. If the writer thought of an ability, it would get "Super-" tacked onto it and given to Superman.

I prefer D&D characters to work more like the Flash. Flash basically has one power -- speed. Everything he does is an extrapolation of his ability to move at super speed. He's not tough or strong. He can't really fly. While Flash can hold his own, he works best as a member of a team, where he'd fight alongside someone super strong, maybe someone else super smart. Perhaps a third person with some esoteric ability like shapechanging. These characters, maybe powerful in their own right, work even better as a team because their abilities compliment each other.* This is a good thing. It makes the team important. And D&D is a team-based game.

* Yes, Superman is also often a member of the team, but usually the writers had to get him out of the picture as soon as possible, since he could do everything his teammates could do as well. Narrative and logical gymnastics were employed to make the others feel useful.
I disagree with this whole metaphor to be honest.

Using superman in your analogy implies Multiclassing are good at everything; that they outclass specialized characters. But multiclassed characters are not strictly better than single-class characters. There is always a sacrifice in core progression. A choice to be made.

Secondly, multiclassing characters does not inherently mean you're stepping on the toes of another character. You can plenty of party diversity with a group of multiclassed characters. Players that are concerned about preserving party roles and niches can exercise the same discretion when multiclassing as they would when creating new characters.

[MeimuHakurei]

I disagree with this whole metaphor to be honest.

Using superman in your analogy implies Multiclassing are good at everything; that they outclass specialized characters. But multiclassed characters are not strictly better than single-class characters. There is always a sacrifice in core progression. A choice to be made.

Secondly, multiclassing characters does not inherently mean you're stepping on the toes of another character. You can plenty of party diversity with a group of multiclassed characters. Players that are concerned about preserving party roles and niches can exercise the same discretion when multiclassing as they would when creating new characters.

Also, the Justice League heroes were initially designed to be competent as standalone heroes, including Batman, Green Lantern and even the notably more niche Aquaman. Proves that you can make good teams out of people who can stand on their own, which the whole "party role/spotlight sharing" mentality absolutely prohibits.

[EggKookoo]

Using superman in your analogy implies Multiclassing are good at everything; that they outclass specialized characters. But multiclassed characters are not strictly better than single-class characters. There is always a sacrifice in core progression. A choice to be made.

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.


Secondly, multiclassing characters does not inherently mean you're stepping on the toes of another character. You can plenty of party diversity with a group of multiclassed characters. Players that are concerned about preserving party roles and niches can exercise the same discretion when multiclassing as they would when creating new characters.

This can be true, yes. If you're joining a party with a rogue and a wizard, no one's niche is threatened if you make a fighter/cleric. At the same time, a war cleric or paladin would easily fit with the same concept. The only objection you could really have would be based on the mechanics.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Everyone just taking 2 levels and leaving is not working as intended.

I respectfully disagree. There's nothing thematically wrong with a 2-level dip in Warlock for power, and there's actually a lot right about it. And again, this is only if you actually have consequences and are held accountable by your patron to support their schemes. But if you're doing that, then I think you'll find a lot of people who'd otherwise dip Warlock'll be more reluctant to do so.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.

Mechanics have flavor too, and it is impossible to change them, without changing them. You might attempt to refluff a Paladin's Aura of Warding as a Counterspell. But your refluff will have major holes in it because the mechanics tell a story themselves. They tell of the difference between a passive an a reactive. They tell the difference between mitigation and negation. They tell the difference between always available vs limited resources. Yes, you can do a lot with refluffing. But Eldritch Knight only exists because someone realized some concepts take multiclassing. If Eldritch Knight was not initially possible without multiclassing, what other concepts exists that still cannot be done without multiclassing?

-Magical Bodyguard-
Single Classed: Eldritch Knight or Paladin or War Wizard or Abjurer or Diviner
Multiclassed: Paladin / Abjurer or Paladin / Diviner
In this case the single classed characters are stronger, but the multiclassed ones fit the character concept better in ways refluffing does not handle.

PS: If you find yourself going "But you can do it single classed if you squint. Sure it will just be a shoddy representation, but it is technically possible." then I think you see the point.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices

I have to disagree with that as well. Mechanics are an integral part of how a character is flavored. I can make a Fighter, and reflavor him as a Paladin or Cleric, but without the mechanics to back it up the flavor falls flat. And certain mechanics are tied far too closely to their class. For example, I have a Paladin of the Ancients/Wild Magic Sorcerer. Fluff wise, he gained his Wild Magic after having an encounter with a ton of wild magic within a pyramid. The magic ended up corrupting his Aura that defended him against Magic, and manifested as Wild Magic Sorcerer powers.

Now, you can fluff that as a Paladin, but without access to the Wild Magic Table then you don't really have any Wild Magic. And sure, a DM could grant you certain class features from different subclasses, but that can get messy really fast.

[EggKookoo]

-Magical Bodyguard-
Single Classed: Eldritch Knight or Paladin or War Wizard or Abjurer or Diviner
Multiclassed: Paladin / Abjurer or Paladin / Diviner
In this case the single classed characters are stronger, but the multiclassed ones fit the character concept better in ways refluffing does not handle.

I'm not sure why the MC versions would fit the concept better. I mean, is a magical bodyguard something specific that makes Pal/Abj work better than EK?

At their most basic, all D&D creatures are collections of values like ability scores (and their descendant saves and checks), HP, AC, and so on. All features just affect those "pure" values. This is how the DMG presents customizing encounter balance, and it makes a lot of sense. Magic missile could easily be a form of "divine smite" that deals 1d4+1 in three blasts of supernatural energy. Or an eldritch effect where you launch out three screaming, wailing spirits that "curse" their target for 1d4+1 each. The mechanics are presented with a flavor, but you're no more bound to that than you are bound to playing in a strict FR setting or bound to giving elves pointed ears (assuming your the DM in this case).

I don't think one can say mechanics carry their own flavor while at the same time viewing classes as just bundles of mechanics.

[MeimuHakurei]

Here's a few concepts 5e hasn't been able to replicate, except maybe with excessive multiclassing:

-Tough guy grappler who crushes skulls between thighs like sparrow's egg. Do this with Monk? Sorry, you'll be hideously fragile if you want to focus on Strength and your Ki abilities are largely anti-synergistic with grapples. Barbarian? Enjoy throwing punches that deal effectively no damage once you're past Tier 1. Rogue? They can't do the tough guy thing well, but with Sneak Attack and access to Expertise, they can actually wrestle better than either of the other classes.

-Clever trickster who confounds enemies with various devices, social manipulations and tricky manuevers. Rogues? Arcane Trickster doesn't have much in the way of misdirecting combat manuevers, hidden items with diverse effects and so on - also, most of the Rogue's kit is focused on stabbing people with high damage. Wizard? Actually cares about Intelligence a lot, but you're no good at feinting, distracting or beguiling others unless you throw your limited spells at the problem (which is something I usually put up with because D&D has no other mechanics for unusual abilities). Bard? You still have all the supporter/musician baggage to go with it.

-Something I actually play: A strange magician who can absorb/drain magic from others and steal the power of spells for her own use. The only thing that scratches the concept in the slightest way is an Abjuration Wizard, who cares more about being tanky than absorbing and stealing spells. Plus, she's more charismatic than intelligent, so there's that.

In general I'd welcome it if D&D optimized the amount of concepts achievable without exploding the page count. 12 classes that can be combined in pairs for instance enables 66 combinations already - which is far less difficult to read through and write than 66 individual classes.

[EggKookoo]

Here's a few concepts 5e hasn't been able to replicate, except maybe with excessive multiclassing:

-Tough guy grappler who crushes skulls between thighs like sparrow's egg. Do this with Monk? Sorry, you'll be hideously fragile if you want to focus on Strength and your Ki abilities are largely anti-synergistic with grapples. Barbarian? Enjoy throwing punches that deal effectively no damage once you're past Tier 1. Rogue? They can't do the tough guy thing well, but with Sneak Attack and access to Expertise, they can actually wrestle better than either of the other classes.

Monk. Maybe Open Fist just to keep things simple. Don't worry about Str, just focus on Dex and Con. I mean if you're going MC you'll need high ability scores anyway, right? A high-Con monk shouldn't be fragile. And he doesn't strictly need a high Str to come off as a "tough guy." Just describe him as well-muscled and play him with what feels like the appropriate attitude. Maybe deck him out with piercing and tats? Maybe give him the Soldier background to get proficiency in Intimidation.

Of course you won't literally be crushing skulls like eggs but no class lets you do that. But just flavor your Unarmed Strike (using your nice high Dex) as Thigh Crush. Sure, we know you're using your Dex when it comes to rolling, but does that matter? You could even have RP fun with that. "Yeah, I crush them with my thighs but believe it or not it's not really about leg strength. It's about positioning. See, you have to get the cranium just so..."


-Clever trickster who confounds enemies with various devices, social manipulations and tricky manuevers. Rogues? Arcane Trickster doesn't have much in the way of misdirecting combat manuevers, hidden items with diverse effects and so on - also, most of the Rogue's kit is focused on stabbing people with high damage. Wizard? Actually cares about Intelligence a lot, but you're no good at feinting, distracting or beguiling others unless you throw your limited spells at the problem (which is something I usually put up with because D&D has no other mechanics for unusual abilities). Bard? You still have all the supporter/musician baggage to go with it.

I'm not sure why some flavor of bard (Lore?) wouldn't work here. You don't have to sing, just describe that stuff as verbal misdirection. And flavor your spells as "devices" or "gizmos" that maybe you rapidly assemble or unfold/unpack/activate. As long as the mechanics jive with spellcasting it should all work out. Maybe an Entertainer background?


-Something I actually play: A strange magician who can absorb/drain magic from others and steal the power of spells for her own use. The only thing that scratches the concept in the slightest way is an Abjuration Wizard, who cares more about being tanky than absorbing and stealing spells. Plus, she's more charismatic than intelligent, so there's that.

This one's interesting. How do you define "absorb/drain magic from others" in a mechanical sense?


In general I'd welcome it if D&D optimized the amount of concepts achievable without exploding the page count. 12 classes that can be combined in pairs for instance enables 66 combinations already - which is far less difficult to read through and write than 66 individual classes.

Yeah, I'm not saying you can create any concept you could imagine with D&D classes. I just mean I don't think multiclassing gives you any concept that you can't get from a single class and some creative fluffing. My preference would have been for fewer core classes and lots more subclasses hanging off those (turning some existing classes into subclasses, I guess?).

[EggKookoo]

-Tough guy grappler who crushes skulls between thighs like sparrow's egg. Do this with Monk? Sorry, you'll be hideously fragile if you want to focus on Strength and your Ki abilities are largely anti-synergistic with grapples. Barbarian? Enjoy throwing punches that deal effectively no damage once you're past Tier 1. Rogue? They can't do the tough guy thing well, but with Sneak Attack and access to Expertise, they can actually wrestle better than either of the other classes.

Revisiting this, it looks like what you're asking for is someone good at unarmed fighting who is also Str-based so they're good with grappling. Going the MC route, you could be a monk/fighter or monk/barb. You would need minimum Dex and Wis of 13, and a minimum Str of 13 if you're going barb. Or you could just go with a monk with a Dex and Str of at least 13 and use variant human to get the Grappler feat. You can fluff Unarmored Defense as "toughness" and if you can get your Wis high enough (you'd need it to be at least 13 to MC anyway) you have a respectable starting AC of at least 12. Leg crushes count as unarmed attacks so you get to apply them multiple times to your grappled target.

If you then want to be sneaky (given your rogue reference) just go with Way of the Shadow at 3rd level. Or you could have Way of the Open Thigh (with Open Thigh Technique and Quivering Thighs... I might have to play this myself...).

[Anthiondel]

Revisiting this, it looks like what you're asking for is someone good at unarmed fighting who is also Str-based so they're good with grappling. Going the MC route, you could be a monk/fighter or monk/barb. You would need minimum Dex and Wis of 13, and a minimum Str of 13 if you're going barb. Or you could just go with a monk with a Dex and Str of at least 13 and use variant human to get the Grappler feat. You can fluff Unarmored Defense as "toughness" and if you can get your Wis high enough (you'd need it to be at least 13 to MC anyway) you have a respectable starting AC of at least 12. Leg crushes count as unarmed attacks so you get to apply them multiple times to your grappled target.

If you then want to be sneaky (given your rogue reference) just go with Way of the Shadow at 3rd level. Or you could have Way of the Open Thigh (with Open Thigh Technique and Quivering Thighs... I might have to play this myself...).

To each their own, but I wouldn't want to not do what I find fun, and more often than not, it involves multiclassing

[EggKookoo]

To each their own, but I wouldn't want to not do what I find fun, and more often than not, it involves multiclassing

Of course, and you should. I'm just speaking to the (IMO often misguided) idea that one needs to multiclass to realize a concept.

[OldTrees1]

Of course, and you should. I'm just speaking to the (IMO often misguided) idea that one needs to multiclass to realize a concept.

I was just replying to the idea that multiclassing is never used to better represent character concepts. Nobody ever needs to do anything.

Perhaps we are not disagreeing anymore?


I'm not sure why the MC versions would fit the concept better. I mean, is a magical bodyguard something specific that makes Pal/Abj work better than EK?

Imagine someone trying to defend their charge. That is what they are trained for. They have some magical and some martial training in order to better suit that role.
Pal/Abj makes the choice to sacrifice offensive potential in exchange for being better at defending their charge.
EK makes the choice to be better at offense at the expense of being able to defend their charge.
The excessive offense and deficient defensive capabilities of the EK would not have been a faithful adaptation of the character concept into the mechanics of 5E. As a result the Pal/Abj multiclass better mechanically represents the character concept the person was looking for. This is not to say you couldn't do a single classed character, it is saying that multiclassing can sometimes create a better representation of a character concept than single classing can with the limited number of classes that can be printed.


At their most basic, all D&D creatures are collections of values like ability scores (and their descendant saves and checks), HP, AC, and so on. All features just affect those "pure" values. This is how the DMG presents customizing encounter balance, and it makes a lot of sense. Magic missile could easily be a form of "divine smite" that deals 1d4+1 in three blasts of supernatural energy. Or an eldritch effect where you launch out three screaming, wailing spirits that "curse" their target for 1d4+1 each. The mechanics are presented with a flavor, but you're no more bound to that than you are bound to playing in a strict FR setting or bound to giving elves pointed ears (assuming your the DM in this case).
I agree that some flavor can be refluffed. In your example you refluffed Magic Missile from 1d4+1 magical force damage to 1d4+1 supernatural force damage. However you did not even attempt refluff the "automatic hit" part of Magic Missile because you knew that it cannot refluffed to not being automatic without also changing the mechanic. No matter how much refluffing you do to Magic Missile, it will always have the "unerring attack" flavor.


I don't think one can say mechanics carry their own flavor while at the same time viewing classes as just bundles of mechanics.
It is because flavor comes in two parts with a blurry line inbetween*. There is the mechanics with all of their consequences. And then there is the description on top of the mechanics. You can see this most clearly if you try to refluff Fireball as an icy wind without changing the mechanics. Your icy wind will burn with fire damage. So instead you homebrew a cold damage version of Fireball so that the flavor of the mechanics and the flavor of the description matched. You have now done 2 things of note. 1) You saw the spells as bundles of mechanics that could be recombined. 2) You recombined those mechanics and gave it a new description. That is exactly how I see multiclassing used to create new classes. You have a description in mind (the character concept), you see the existing bundles of mechanics (classes), and your recombined those existing mechanics to suit the description (multiclass to suit the character concept).

This is kind of like your preference for there being more subclasses and fewer classes. Definitely check out Pathfinder as a case study. They did a lot of experimentation with using subclasses & alternate class features as an alternative to multiclassing.

*Druid Armor prohibition is Mechanics IMHO but some say it is Fluff / Description. There are plenty of cases like this over the years that ride that border.


Monk. Maybe Open Fist just to keep things simple. Don't worry about Str, just focus on Dex and Con. I mean if you're going MC you'll need high ability scores anyway, right? A high-Con monk shouldn't be fragile. And he doesn't strictly need a high Str to come off as a "tough guy." Just describe him as well-muscled and play him with what feels like the appropriate attitude. Maybe deck him out with piercing and tats? Maybe give him the Soldier background to get proficiency in Intimidation.

Of course you won't literally be crushing skulls like eggs but no class lets you do that. But just flavor your Unarmed Strike (using your nice high Dex) as Thigh Crush. Sure, we know you're using your Dex when it comes to rolling, but does that matter? You could even have RP fun with that. "Yeah, I crush them with my thighs but believe it or not it's not really about leg strength. It's about positioning. See, you have to get the cranium just so..."


Revisiting this, it looks like what you're asking for is someone good at unarmed fighting who is also Str-based so they're good with grappling. Going the MC route, you could be a monk/fighter or monk/barb. You would need minimum Dex and Wis of 13, and a minimum Str of 13 if you're going barb. Or you could just go with a monk with a Dex and Str of at least 13 and use variant human to get the Grappler feat. You can fluff Unarmored Defense as "toughness" and if you can get your Wis high enough (you'd need it to be at least 13 to MC anyway) you have a respectable starting AC of at least 12. Leg crushes count as unarmed attacks so you get to apply them multiple times to your grappled target.

If you then want to be sneaky (given your rogue reference) just go with Way of the Shadow at 3rd level. Or you could have Way of the Open Thigh (with Open Thigh Technique and Quivering Thighs... I might have to play this myself...).

I am glad you revisited that example. The initial solution did not look adequate to represent the character concept. Personally, in the latter case, the Monk/Barbarian seems a represent the character concept better than the straight Monk. The description of Rage can be refluffed but the mechanics of rage lend to the crushing skulls flavor the character concept was looking for.

[EggKookoo]

I was just replying to the idea that multiclassing is never used to better represent character concepts. Nobody ever needs to do anything.

Perhaps we are not disagreeing anymore?

I doubt we disagree much. I suspect we're mostly refining our positions.


Imagine someone trying to defend their charge. That is what they are trained for. They have some magical and some martial training in order to better suit that role.
Pal/Abj makes the choice to sacrifice offensive potential in exchange for being better at defending their charge.
EK makes the choice to be better at offense at the expense of being able to defend their charge.
The excessive offense and deficient defensive capabilities of the EK would not have been a faithful adaptation of the character concept into the mechanics of 5E. As a result the Pal/Abj multiclass better mechanically represents the character concept the person was looking for. This is not to say you couldn't do a single classed character, it is saying that multiclassing can sometimes create a better representation of a character concept than single classing can with the limited number of classes that can be printed.

Sure, but that gets back to my point that you'd be going the Pal/Abj route for mechanical reasons. Conceptually, an EK who focuses on abjuration spells, and takes the Healer feat or Magic Initiate and picks some cleric healing or defense spells, works just as well for a "supernatural defender."


I agree that some flavor can be refluffed. In your example you refluffed Magic Missile from 1d4+1 magical force damage to 1d4+1 supernatural force damage. However you did not even attempt refluff the "automatic hit" part of Magic Missile because you knew that it cannot refluffed to not being automatic without also changing the mechanic. No matter how much refluffing you do to Magic Missile, it will always have the "unerring attack" flavor.

Right, but I don't think it retaining its unerring attack is a strike against it when refluffed to some other theme. There's no real thematic reason the vanilla magic missile auto-hits. It just does out of tradition and a desire on the part of the devs to give it a signature feel.


It is because flavor comes in two parts with a blurry line inbetween*. There is the mechanics with all of their consequences. And then there is the description on top of the mechanics. You can see this most clearly if you try to refluff Fireball as an icy wind without changing the mechanics. Your icy wind will burn with fire damage. So instead you homebrew a cold damage version of Fireball so that the flavor of the mechanics and the flavor of the description matched. You have now done 2 things of note. 1) You saw the spells as bundles of mechanics that could be recombined. 2) You recombined those mechanics and gave it a new description. That is exactly how I see multiclassing used to create new classes. You have a description in mind (the character concept), you see the existing bundles of mechanics (classes), and your recombined those existing mechanics to suit the description (multiclass to suit the character concept).

Luckily for me, there are a number of alternate spells in sources like Xanathar, so I could just do a swap. Which I agree is recombining mechanics at a different level.

My aversion to multiclassing is more along the lines of ROI. It's one thing to say "fireball is now iceball and does cold damage instead of fire damage." That's a simple thing that has (mostly) predictable outcomes. Saying you want to make, say, a fighter/wizard rather than an EK is, to me, putting in a lot more effort than is necessary.

In any event, just to restate what I'm getting at and to avoid miscommunicating, I'm skeptical of the need to use multiclassing to realize a concept. I think efforts in that direction are really driven by a desire for specific mechanics, and those mechanics are then used to define a "concept" in a rather concrete way. Maybe I'm just using a particular definition for "concept" but to me it should be fairly general and be able to fit into a number of different manifestations.


This is kind of like your preference for there being more subclasses and fewer classes. Definitely check out Pathfinder as a case study. They did a lot of experimentation with using subclasses & alternate class features as an alternative to multiclassing.

Speaking of ROI... :smalltongue:

[Trustypeaches]

I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.

If you're joining a party with a rogue and a wizard, no one's niche is threatened if you make a fighter/cleric. At the same time, a war cleric or paladin would easily fit with the same concept. The only objection you could really have would be based on the mechanics.And are mechanical objections not valid?

What if the player doesn't want to play a cleric or a paladin? Are they not entitled to realize their character concept in the way that would be the most enjoyable for them to play?

People can have mechanical preferences that go beyond optimization; mechanics inform how you interact with the game and are an important element of realizing a character concept.

[KorvinStarmast]

Then it's high time we disabuse people of that false notion, rather than feeding and enabling it. I'm willing to do my part as both a DM (encouraging teamwork) and as a player (not trying to do it all myself and enabling the party to work together). One table at a time. It's what I do ... :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

I find Superman boring as superheroes go. Not because he's extremely powerful, but because (at least in his classic Silver Age sense) he can do anything. Literally. If the writer thought of an ability, it would get "Super-" tacked onto it and given to Superman.

But in practice, he doesn't do anything except use super-strength, because actually using all of his abilities (especially super-speed) would wreck the dramatic tension. :-/

(Also, he's apparently rubbish against magic. No Super-Wizardry for you, Superman! That's for your knockoff, Captain Marvel a.k.a. Shazam!)


I'm not sold on that. Frankly I'm not sold on the idea that one makes a MC character for pure concept reasons. There's no MC concept that can't be realized with any of the existing single classes (and subclasses). You just need to be willing to reflavor the mechanics. The only reason to go multiclass is for mechanics, or a lack of understanding that you're free to reflavor an existing class. And you wouldn't do that unless there was a net benefit despite any nominal sacrifices.

For that matter, there aren't even many classes that can't be achieved by reflavoring a handful of core classes. There's certainly nothing stopping you from scrapping everything but the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Wizard. Bards are either learned Rogues or talkative Wizards, depending on what your concept is. Clerics are religious Wizards. Paladins are virtuous Fighters. (If you're into multiclassing, you could let a Paladin be a Fighter/Wizard, either with 5E-style mix-and-match multiclassing or AD&D-style true multiclassing.)

[Man_Over_Game]

But in practice, he doesn't do anything except use super-strength, because actually using all of his abilities (especially super-speed) would wreck the dramatic tension. :-/

(Also, he's apparently rubbish against magic. No Super-Wizardry for you, Superman! That's for your knockoff, Captain Marvel a.k.a. Shazam!)



For that matter, there aren't even many classes that can't be achieved by reflavoring a handful of core classes. There's certainly nothing stopping you from scrapping everything but the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Wizard. Bards are either learned Rogues or talkative Wizards, depending on what your concept is. Clerics are religious Wizards. Paladins are virtuous Fighters. (If you're into multiclassing, you could let a Paladin be a Fighter/Wizard, either with 5E-style mix-and-match multiclassing or AD&D-style true multiclassing.)

Or just break it down into 4 "spheres":

Force vs. Finesse
Light vs. Dark.

So something like this:

Forceful : Fighter
Finesse : Rogue
Light: Priest
Dark: Sorcerer

Forceful + Light: Paladin
Forceful + Dark: Barbarian

Finesse + Light: Monk
Finesse + Dark: Bard

[EggKookoo]

And are mechanical objections not valid?

What if the player doesn't want to play a cleric or a paladin? Are they not entitled to realize their character concept in the way that would be the most enjoyable for them to play?

Ok, please understand that I'm not trying to tell you that you can't multiclass. I'm explaining why I'm not a fan of it. Sure, it's coming across as a kind of objective criticism of multiclassing as a concept and how the arguments of its advocates don't work for me, but that's just because I'm a jerk and I also feel like my own reasoning is sensible. :smallsmile:

I'm not going to show up at your table and judge you for being a dirty multiclasser. I'll just do it across the internet...


People can have mechanical preferences that go beyond optimization; mechanics inform how you interact with the game and are an important element of realizing a character concept.

Totally agree. In my various homebrews I steal my favorite mechanics all the time (I love dice-based features like Bardic Inspiration). In fact if you wanted to play a given concept with a radically reflavored existing class -- like a tough-guy warrior type using, say, a bard -- because you love the gameplay, great!


For that matter, there aren't even many classes that can't be achieved by reflavoring a handful of core classes. There's certainly nothing stopping you from scrapping everything but the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Wizard. Bards are either learned Rogues or talkative Wizards, depending on what your concept is. Clerics are religious Wizards. Paladins are virtuous Fighters. (If you're into multiclassing, you could let a Paladin be a Fighter/Wizard, either with 5E-style mix-and-match multiclassing or AD&D-style true multiclassing.)

A.K.A. AD&D Second Edition. Well, to a degree, anyway. Four (what we now think of as) classes, with many (what we now think of as) subclasses.

[OldTrees1]

I doubt we disagree much. I suspect we're mostly refining our positions.
Sounds right. I re ordered a bit for tone.


My aversion to multiclassing is more along the lines of ROI. It's one thing to say "fireball is now iceball and does cold damage instead of fire damage." That's a simple thing that has (mostly) predictable outcomes. Saying you want to make, say, a fighter/wizard rather than an EK is, to me, putting in a lot more effort than is necessary.

I understand your aversion even if I don't share it. I am very glad 5E made more single class support for concepts that used to be multiclass. It allows players with your preference to still play things like Bards or Eldritch Knights. Your aversion is perfectly rational and reasonable.

Speaking of ROI:

EK exists as a subclass now because enough people multiclassed Fighter / Wizard. WotC made a very wise choice of making it easier to create each edition. In 3rd edition EK was printed in the core books as a prestige class to minimize the multiclassing to just the first 5 levels of the character concept. Now it is a subclass so you can do it straight out of the Fighter class.

I LOVE the 5E Arcane Trickster. I have a Dungeon Guide character concept (skilled professional that uses a mixture of magic & mundane tools to allow customers to tour dungeons in relative safety). It was a nightmare to try to create in 3rd edition (partially because the AT prestige class was not helpful). I enjoyed the character concept enough to find it worth it, but I am surely an outlier in that regard. 5E just has a subclass. Both versions still have way too much sneak attack for the concept, but I am still very very happy WotC did that.


In any event, just to restate what I'm getting at and to avoid miscommunicating, I'm skeptical of the need to use multiclassing to realize a concept. I think efforts in that direction are really driven by a desire for specific mechanics, and those mechanics are then used to define a "concept" in a rather concrete way. Maybe I'm just using a particular definition for "concept" but to me it should be fairly general and be able to fit into a number of different manifestations.

I would agree that with the 5E classes they do have a good job of allowing single classed instantiations of character concepts that previously required multiclassing. I do believe your definition of concept is underselling the emergent flavor mechanics can have.

I have been arguing that multiclassing can support more concepts than the number of printed classes. This is primarily because I have seen concepts like EK that used to not be base classes until a lot of base classes were printed. Now it is possible that there are no synergistic emergent flavors that result in a character concept that can't be done in a partial form as a single class. In the example below, while I have said Pal/Abj fits the concept better, I agree that EK does a partial fit. But there are some concepts that might be hard to pull off in a single class:

An Imp and its pet Bear. (Druid / Warlock)


Sure, but that gets back to my point that you'd be going the Pal/Abj route for mechanical reasons. Conceptually, an EK who focuses on abjuration spells, and takes the Healer feat or Magic Initiate and picks some cleric healing or defense spells, works just as well for a "supernatural defender."

The EK that focuses on those things still has a lot of unneeded offensive boosts and has much less defensive capabilities. The Pal/Abj has Auras (Protection & Warding are a big deal), Protection Fighting Style, Clerical Healing, Defensive Spells, and Countermagic. The EK has half of that at most and also attacks 4 times in a round.

So now to observe the emergent flavor:
The EK blesses their charge. Then stands next to their charge, imposes disadvantage on 1 attack per round, and then casts Healing Word to stabilize their charge. After combat they use the Healer's Kit to heal the charge via the Healer feat. Their charge spends most of the combat a death's door while the Fighter is hacking the enemies to pieces.

The Pal/Abj shields their charge with Aid + Inspiring Leader. They cast Aura of Vitality. Then stands next to the charge, they have 3 good reactions they can take as needed (Protection, Ward, Counterspell). Furthermore merely by being nearby their charge, the Pal/Abj negates 25% of saves and further 50% of spell damage. The Pal/Abj can protect the charge against Fireballs. Every turn the Pal/Abj is able to heal some of the residual damage. The fight takes longer but the charge remains away from death's door because their Bodyguard can actually guard their body rather than primarily stabilizing it after the fact.

So looking at that emergent flavor we see EK is a one man army that was put on escort duty and the Pal/Abj is a bodyguard.



Right, but I don't think it retaining its unerring attack is a strike against it when refluffed to some other theme. There's no real thematic reason the vanilla magic missile auto-hits. It just does out of tradition and a desire on the part of the devs to give it a signature feel.
You don't have to change everything when you refluff something. However every refluff of magic missile with either change the mechanics OR will retain the signature feel or "flavor" of magic missile's unerring attack flavor.


Luckily for me, there are a number of alternate spells in sources like Xanathar, so I could just do a swap. Which I agree is recombining mechanics at a different level.

With no good way to print a custom spell system (WotC has failed several times before), I am extremely glad WotC does print more spells (like in Xanathars).

[MaxWilson]

An Imp and its pet Bear. (Druid / Warlock)

Tiefling Beastmaster?

[OldTrees1]

Tiefling Beastmaster?

Imp, not Tiefling.
Imps are the tiny flappy devils that can go invisible and usually have targets masters. This one is between masters but stuck on the material plane.

Come to think of it, perhaps the weakest point of 5E support for character concepts is the available races.

[MaxWilson]

Imp, not Tiefling.
Imps are the tiny flappy devils that can go invisible and usually have targets masters. This one is between masters but stuck on the material plane.


But aren't we talking about refluffing? There's already a flying Tiefling option. Just refluff it as a flying imp. The absence of Master can be an adventuring hook.

Besides, you said you wanted the Imp to be the master. ("An imp and its pet Bear.") If you go Chainlock/Druid, you wind up with the bear as the Master.

[Man_Over_Game]

But aren't we talking about refluffing? There's already a flying Tiefling option. Just refluff it as a flying imp. The absence of Master can be an adventuring hook.

Besides, you said you wanted the Imp to be the master. ("An imp and its pet Bear.") If you go Chainlock/Druid, you wind up with the bear as the Master.

Maybe all Tieflings are just master-less imps?

[OldTrees1]

But aren't we talking about refluffing? There's already a flying Tiefling option. Just refluff it as a flying imp. The absence of Master can be an adventuring hook.

Besides, you said you wanted the Imp to be the master. ("An imp and its pet Bear.") If you go Chainlock/Druid, you wind up with the bear as the Master.

Huh, I had not heard of that new racial option.

Imps always have pets. Sometimes their pets are victims masters.

[patchyman]

But there are some concepts that might be hard to pull off in a single class:

An Imp and its pet Bear. (Druid / Warlock)


To be fair, you are glossing over the difficulties with that concept even with multiclassing. For the first 3 levels of the campaign, your main character isn’t even in the picture. Then, you need 3 levels before the druid can even transform into a black bear.

If instead you play a half-orc warlock, you can just refluff the warlock as a bear.

[EggKookoo]

If instead you play a half-orc warlock, you can just refluff the warlock as a bear.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKMRM9WcsRAv1OU/giphy.gif

[OldTrees1]

@patchyman

Some campaigns start at 5th level. You are right I did not explicitly state what I expected the reader to know (Wildshape + Pact of the Chain). I have been optimistic about the reader on both sides of the topic. Has that been in error?


https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7TKMRM9WcsRAv1OU/giphy.gif

So a bipedal medium sized humanoid refluffed as a quadrupedal large sized animal?

I have to ask, could you refluff Cleric into being any character concept? What about refluffing Fighter into being any character concept? Because you are stretching refluffing beyond my understanding of the term, and if I stretch it beyond your understanding of the term, I think you end up with only 1 Class. Well, until a new innovation comes along.

Of course, if we take this too far, then the character sheet is is just a "1d20 + refluff" like some other gaming systemsXD

[OzDragon]

Yes, what ever makes the game fun for the players. My job is to challenge them no matter what they choose. That is my fun.

Everyone has fun and that is the point.

[EggKookoo]

So a bipedal medium sized humanoid refluffed as a quadrupedal large sized animal?

I have to ask, could you refluff Cleric into being any character concept? What about refluffing Fighter into being any character concept? Because you are stretching refluffing beyond my understanding of the term, and if I stretch it beyond your understanding of the term, I think you end up with only 1 Class. Well, until a new innovation comes along.

Back in December I posted a thread around extreme refluffing. The idea was to break out of class and race flavor and create concepts that are fairly radical. I won't post a link to it so as to not necro it, but we had some great ideas. Like an overzealous big game hunter cursed by a powerful druid and turned into a twisted beast-man, enthralled to the druid's deity (hexblade or achfey warlock; tiefling with antlers instead of ram/demon horns). Or an enchanted suit of plate (warforged fighter). Or an enchanted sword that animates and maintains a corpse to wield it (hexblade warlock -- warlocks seem pretty versatile). I myself suggested an alchemy-using ninja built off a wizard.

So yeah, I have a pretty liberal definition of refluffing. I don't know if I could refluff any class into any concept, but that's just a limitation of my own imagination. I suspect anything could be done by a sufficiently creative person.

[OldTrees1]

Back in December I posted a thread around extreme refluffing. The idea was to break out of class and race flavor and create concepts that are fairly radical. I won't post a link to it so as to not necro it, but we had some great ideas. Like an overzealous big game hunter cursed by a powerful druid and turned into a twisted beast-man, enthralled to the druid's deity (hexblade or achfey warlock; tiefling with antlers instead of ram/demon horns). Or an enchanted suit of plate (warforged fighter). Or an enchanted sword that animates and maintains a corpse to wield it (hexblade warlock -- warlocks seem pretty versatile). I myself suggested an alchemy-using ninja built off a wizard.

So yeah, I have a pretty liberal definition of refluffing. I don't know if I could refluff any class into any concept, but that's just a limitation of my own imagination. I suspect anything could be done by a sufficiently creative person.

With that context, I think the extreme with which you do refluffing is close to what I consider light homebrewing. Which in turn is an even more flexible tool than multiclassing. With that context I agree, your definition of refluffing can mechanically represent more character concepts than multiclassing can.

PS:(Wise move to not link it. I think I can find it from that description without risking necroing)

[Tanarii]

You guys aren't fighting hard enough. Clearly if you're in favor of Multiclassing you're a munchkin player who can't roleplaying his way out of a sack. And just as clearly if you hate it you're an elitist fufu actor-roleplayer player or stick-in-the-mud grognard DM who won't let the players have any fun.

[patchyman]

@patchyman

Some campaigns start at 5th level. You are right I did not explicitly state what I expected the reader to know (Wildshape + Pact of the Chain). I have been optimistic about the reader on both sides of the topic. Has that been in error?

Some campaigns start at 1st level. If you are assuming campaigns starting at higher levels, you should say so, especially when starting at a higher level allows you to sidestep some of the challenges of the build.



So a bipedal medium sized humanoid refluffed as a quadrupedal large sized animal?


Is this more or less immersion-breaking than the fact that after taking X damage, your totally normal bear turns into a human with Y hit points? What about the fact that your imp can only cast spells when his bear companion is not in bear form?

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the best way to make this concept work would be to homebrew an imp race (based on the flying variant of the tiefling) and take the Beastmaster ranger class.

Edit: I reread your original comment and I think you misunderstood my comment. My point about “glossing over stuff” was not directed at your not mentioning that the build was Warlock/Druid, but that for the first three levels, the imp would not be in the picture and that for the next two levels, the imp’s companion would not be able to turn into a bear.

[OldTrees1]

Edit: I reread your original comment and I think you misunderstood my comment. My point about “glossing over stuff” was not directed at your not mentioning that the build was Warlock/Druid, but that for the first three levels, the imp would not be in the picture and that for the next two levels, the imp’s companion would not be able to turn into a bear.

My reply was that I was intentionally "glossing over stuff" on both sides because I expected the ChrisBasken (and lurkers like yourself) to not need a reminder of all the details. We always choose the level of specificity in our comments. I do not think I was being too optimistic (especially based on the others that replied).