How common is multiclassing?

[Vorenus]

I'm a relatively new DM for 5e. I've been DMing for a group of five players, and we have now completed 12 sessions. The characters are currently level 3 (they reached level 3 at the end of the 9th sesion so they will likely hit 4th level in a couple more sessions). So far, none of my players has shown any interest whatsoever in multiclassing. This leads me to wonder: Since multiclassing is an optional rule, I'm curious how many DMs use it. I am also curious how many players take advantage of it when the option is available, and how many players choose not to even though the DM might allow it. At least one of my players has said during a session that he has no interest in multiclassing because he would lose out on his level 20 abilities, and although his character is currently only level 3 he does hope to make it to level 20 someday to unlock those powerful high-level (esp. 20th level) abilities.

I would try to set up a poll but I don't know how to do that on this site, so if someone else knows how to set up a poll and can either tell me or set one up in this thread that would be cool. In the absence of a poll I would like to hear from players and DMs alike.

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and thanks in advance if you take the time to respond, I look forward to your thoughts and insights.

Best,

--Vorenus

[RickAllison]

In general, unless there is something specific they are trying to accomplish (getting heavy armor/Con saves on a wizard, Sorcadin, Sorlock), it's rare to see a multiclass before level 5. Level 5 is where you get Extra Attack or 3rd-level spells, so MCs before then are nerfed for however long it takes to make up the difference. That being said, multiclassing even then is still rare. From the D&D Beyond statistics we have (which aren't exactly the most representative of actual tables), it still only reaches up to about a quarter of characters at level 20, and that is heavily influenced by class.

Fighters and Rogues show up a lot in multiclasses, with a third of Fighter characters being a part of a multiclass and only slightly less for Rogues. This makes a lot of sense since both classes have a lot of frontloaded features (armor and weapon proficiency and a Fighting Style, Expertise and Cunning Action) and you often have to get to L9 or higher before you start getting more cool features, so these show up a lot. Full casters don't multiclass nearly as much until you get to tier 4; any level away from the class delays the next level of spellcasting, plus then you have features like Wizard 18 which are too good to pass up. The last two or three levels do see more multiclassing in general for those classes, however. A similar situation happens with Monk, with the dependence on ki for features resulting in the martial artists being encouraged to stay in the class until L17.

As a DM, I don't think there is anything wrong with allowing multiclassing, however they should be on the lookout for notable combos that can indicate troublesome behavior. Goodberry + Life Cleric, Coffeelock, etc. These are usually easy to spot and easily curtailed.

As a player, I'm mixed. I would never do a full multiclass, but I've dipped for low-level features. Two of my favorites are in Cleric: for Life, you get some handy low-level spell access such as healing spells and Bless, and heavy armor; for Knowledge, you get some good skill stuff, medium armor, and still have access to the spells, you just don't have them as domain.

[Darc_Vader]

Across ~2 1/2 years of dnd and 4 separate campaigns - 2 fairly large (5+ players) and 2 small (3 players) parties with a decent amount of character rotation (one of those large parties was in Tomb of Annihilation, so deaths abound) I’ve seen a total of 3 multiclass characters in play. One was disliked and dropped, one was liked, but died in a tpk after 2 sessions, and one is currently alive and seems to be enjoying the character. I’ve personally never played a multiclass character, but I have played a character that was going to multiclass before the campaign petered out.

Overall I’d say I prefer single classing, but I think it’s mostly because I usually make characters as a concept before picking a class, and it’s often easy enough to fit that concept into an existing class/subclass. If I had an idea that worked better as a multiclass then I would have no issue with doing so. The aforementioned almost multiclass character was being built as a duelist that was going to be fairly evenly split between Swashbuckler and Battlemaster.

[Nhorianscum]

Depends on the table and the tier of play.

In low OP tables you may never see a multi or they'll just happen for flavor whenever.

In charOP tables tiers matter. Tier 1 has very few multi's that are viable, tier 2 has a ton of super viable dips, and tier3+ it is almost always optimal to multi.

As a DM I see no reason to disallow multi's and as a player I enjoy them.

[Composer99]

I'm a relatively new DM for 5e. I've been DMing for a group of five players, and we have now completed 12 sessions. The characters are currently level 3 (they reached level 3 at the end of the 9th sesion so they will likely hit 4th level in a couple more sessions). So far, none of my players has shown any interest whatsoever in multiclassing. This leads me to wonder: Since multiclassing is an optional rule, I'm curious how many DMs use it. I am also curious how many players take advantage of it when the option is available, and how many players choose not to even though the DM might allow it. At least one of my players has said during a session that he has no interest in multiclassing because he would lose out on his level 20 abilities, and although his character is currently only level 3 he does hope to make it to level 20 someday to unlock those powerful high-level (esp. 20th level) abilities.

I would try to set up a poll but I don't know how to do that on this site, so if someone else knows how to set up a poll and can either tell me or set one up in this thread that would be cool. In the absence of a poll I would like to hear from players and DMs alike.

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and thanks in advance if you take the time to respond, I look forward to your thoughts and insights.

Best,

--Vorenus

I am running a campaign now that allows multiclassing. Indeed, I built a character for my wife to play based on one of her favourites from fantasy fiction (Alanna of Trebond), a multiclass paladin/celestial-pact warlock. Two other of the six players have multiclass characters so far - a bard/rogue and a fighter/warlock. Hard to say whether the others will multiclass, but I suspect not.

I allow it for three reasons:
(1) I used to DM AD&D 2e, 3.5 D&D and d20 Star Wars (which used the 3.5 engine), so multiclassing/dual-classing (depending on edition) has just been part of the game.
(2) I feel it allows the easier realisation of certain character concepts. For instance, for my wife's character, based on her description of Alanna and my own research into the character, celestial pact warlock was a more apt representation of her relationship to the Great Mother Goddess than was, say, cleric, but paladin was also suitable for the martial capabilities combined with additional magic.
(3) Some players may find that the way they conceive of their character changes over time. A roguish cad might have a life-changing moment and develop inborn magical powers (multiclassing into sorcerer), enter into an eldritch pact (multiclassing into warlock), devote themselves to a deity (multiclassing into cleric or perhaps paladin), and so on.

As a player, I would not say that I have any great preference one way or the other.

[Keravath]

It varies a lot depending on personal player preference.

From a DM perspective, I don't generally see any issue with it. The player usually gives up higher level progression for utility or other features. There aren't any really broken combinations using official published materials (and the AL +1 rule) as long as you leave out things like Coffeelock. Even life cleric goodberries and healing word aren't broken, they just change the healing dynamic and encounter balance so that you don't count on the players being down hit points after every encounter though they will be spending their other resources.

From a player perspective, almost every 5e character I have ever played is either a multiclass or is likely to become one and in my case many multiclassed before 5th level.

warlock 2/bard 11
warlock 5/rogue 10
fighter 1/warlock 2/sorcerer 2
warlock 9/sorcerer 1
cleric 1/wizard 7
ranger 7/cleric 1
sorcerer 3/warlock 2
monk 5 - likely taking either 3 ranger or 1 cleric later on
barbarian 5 - likely taking rogue X next
Fighter 4 - possibly taking warlock 2/rogue 7 or other options later
Ranger 3 - planned to go rogue X after level 5

For some reason I have a fascination with warlocks since I find them a bit unique and interesting. In all cases, the mutliclass choices are supported by the character backstory and make sense for that character as a direction for development.

I find the single class characters a bit bland though I am tempted to try a dex paladin at some point.

[ImproperJustice]

It’s rare in our groups. We have something like 24 characters that have been in a two year, level 1-20 campaign that is currently level 14, and I can only think of three multiclass characters in the group.

Party Leader: Level 5 Battlemaster / Level 9 Paladin of Devotion.
Changed for personal story Reasons

Level 6 Gloomstalker Ranger / Level 8 Circle of Land (UnderDark) Druid
Again, for story reasons

Level 1 Barbarian/ Level 13 Brute Fighter
Optimizer, wanting that sweet damage resist and damage boost.

And that’s about it.

It’s been cool to see the story based guys do just as well as the optimizers.
That Paladin, seeing him riposte and smite is a cool combo move.

[firelistener]

I allow multiclassing, but I never recommend it to newer players, which is mostly who I DM for and have over the years. I do, however, require players to justify it for their character because I try to encourage role play and characterization (I believe this helps players tell their own stories better than the DM having to do all the storytelling). It can be as simple as, "my character studied for a year with a powerful wizard", so I'm not asking much of them. That said, I have only had one player ever show an interest in it.

[RickAllison]

I allow multiclassing, but I never recommend it to newer players, which is mostly who I DM for and have over the years. I do, however, require players to justify it for their character because I try to encourage role play and characterization (I believe this helps players tell their own stories better than the DM having to do all the storytelling). It can be as simple as, "my character studied for a year with a powerful wizard", so I'm not asking much of them. That said, I have only had one player ever show an interest in it.

I really like to get faction ideas from multiclassing. Looking at the PeteNutButter's guide for inspiration, there are crosses between Warlock and Bard, Fighter, and Paladin. An order of knights who secretly consort with powerful otherworldly beings for the power to fulfill their oaths, a bardic college with safeguards forbidden knowledge, but may only pass it down by word of mouth (and a great way to introduce an Allip as an antagonist). Paladin/Sorcerer and Warlock/Sorcerer are also there, maybe a good thing for elitist orders which only accept a pure bloodline or some such.

These are factions which can quite easily work with other (single-classed) concepts. The knights could easily include Eldritch Knights, Hexblades, Bladesingers, and more. The college of forbidden knowledge could feature a Knowledge Cleric or Arcane Trickster, or a Monk whose duty is to prevent abominations from escaping their enchantments. Still, it's a fun thought-exercise.

[Misterwhisper]

Where I live only people who play a paladin or warlock multiclass.

Nobody has ever played a warlock past level 2 but once.

[Kane0]

Typical pattern i've observed is 1 or 2 people per group/game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

3 of the 4 characters that I've built that have played for more than 5 sessions have been multiclassed. In 2 of the games that those characters were in there was at least one more player multiclassing at least one level. In all of the games I've DM'd I have yet to have a player choose to multiclass. Obviously that's just my experience.

In the streams of DND that I've watched (different rules, players and length), there have been just 4 multiclassed characters out of roughly 16 different characters. From my admittedly limited viewpoint, I think multiclassing (or at least dips into other classes for early level features) are pretty common.

Further but unrelated fun fact, I've seen multiclassing out of Ranger more than anything else.

[Witty Username]

in 5e I am 1/3 on multi classing (one-multi, three characters that have seen play) warlock/bard because I wanted to shore up bards martial ability with hexblade and it worked well for a member of a demon cult. I like multi classing when it allows me to realize the character better than a single class would, or allows for an archetype that isn't handled well by any of the classes.

I think multi classing is something I would allow in any game I run, It makes characters more interesting and it gives players more tools to realize their concepts.

[Spo]

In my casual, adult player gaming group that did CoS and Waterdeep Heist and now in Mad Mage, not one multiclass amongst the 7 players. In my gamestore groups that attract younger player base, about half of them optimize through multiclassing (usually with warlock). I get my role playing fix with one group and my video gaming mentality fix with the other group.

[ad_hoc]

Our table doesn't use multiclassing.

My guess over the entire player population is somewhere under half of all tables.

[elyktsorb]

I love multiclassing, but I usually always do it more for the character or to see what I can do, than just taking 1-3 level dips for maximizing their benefits.

[EggKookoo]

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?

1: I don't outright prohibit it but I heavily discourage it. Or, rather, i would if any of my players ever expressed an interest, which none has in all the time I've been DMing. I play mostly with grognards who are already a bit unsure single 5e classes aren't a tad too complicated. I discourage it for similar reasons -- not enough bang for the buck.

2: I have yet to play 5e as a player, but I would want to exhaust the single-class/subclass options first before thinking about multiclassing. Also, as has been said, for many players and builds multiclassing has little value below 5th or 6th level, and I think by the time I got there I would have internalized a lot of my character class's quirks and features. If I was unhappy with my character I'd probably ask to respec or recreate him entirely rather than try to patch it with some other class levels.

I think the devs left it in 5e reluctantly because a lot of 3e players liked it.

[Spiritchaser]

In the three campaigns I’m currently involved in:

1: One of four characters may (likely will) multiclass

2: All three of three characters either have multiclassed or will multiclass

3: Neither of the two character is likely to multiclass.

I’ve no idea if this is typical, but here’s some data anyway.

[Mordaedil]

Multiclassing was always one of those things I loved doing in earlier editions, like 3.5, but after I had one idea of making a rogue/fighter in 5e, I was pointed in the direction of the swashbuckler subclass and I realized that multiclassing in 5e is just kind of unnecessary. If there's something another class has that you really want, you are probably either a feat away from getting it or there is probably a subclass that could give you exactly what you want.

I find that there are certainly cases where multiclassing could be encouraged, such as grabbing wizard levels as an eldritch knight, but for most tables, as long as you have access to most of the books (and frankly there is little reason not to, with dndbeyond and everything being digital) there is almost no good reason to not just stay your same class. The late game benefits usually also pay off immensely well, so I always have to make a consideration if I am willing to give that up for anything at an earlier level.

So, yeah...

[Contrast]

I would say somewhere in the region of 1/10-1/20 of the characters I've played with have been multiclassed (most of those having been in AL).

I would tend to discourage people from haven't played much before from multiclassing. There's so many classes to try out single class to get a new experience without faffing about and particularly as low level its one of the few ways to build a character who is actually significantly and unfixably behind the power curve in 5E. I wouldn't ban it in a game I played in or ask players to jump through hoops to do it but I would sit down and have a chat with them about why they're doing it and if there's another way to achieve what they want through a rebuild, feat or reflavouring of something (I'm currently playing with a Monk 3/Sorc 1 that would have been much better as a Monk 4 with magic initiate but the player was insistent so *shrugs*).

I'm currently playing with a Fighter 3/Warlock 2 who mostly dipped for flavour and is now desperate for us to level up some more because he's slowly realised extra attack is another 2 levels away still.

[OgataiKhan]

I usually multiclass, though not always, because I find pure classes a bit boring. When I do not it's because I'm using a very unusual build.

I would not play with a DM who doesn't allow both feats and multiclassing, I consider it a major red flag.

[Alhallor]

In a campaign I played a Cleric that got to multiclass as a Fighter (I wanted the Surge ability and it seemed fitting.)

One of the other players was a sorcerer that through strange circumstances got to multiclass as a Paladin.

I also wanted to play an Elemental Water Monk / Fey Warlock with ice and/or water spells, but he never saw the light of day.

The other two players were single-classed.

I would allow multiclassing as a GM but I think I would ask the players why they wanted to multiclass, just to be on the safe side. (And if they don't want to tell, they probably want to make a strange broken combo.)

[Sigreid]

We allow it. Of the 5 of us, 1 does it with any regularity.

[darknite]

I have a mono-class Battlemaster and two Monks. All the rest have at least one level of MC. It's fun, adds flavor and options to the game that you don't get with a single class. Works for me. As for how common, well in my neck of the woods, very.

[Willie the Duck]

Multiclassing was always one of those things I loved doing in earlier editions, like 3.5, but after I had one idea of making a rogue/fighter in 5e, I was pointed in the direction of the swashbuckler subclass and I realized that multiclassing in 5e is just kind of unnecessary. If there's something another class has that you really want, you are probably either a feat away from getting it or there is probably a subclass that could give you exactly what you want.

Interestingly, fighter-rogue is the TSR-era character concept that people really like in my groups, and we don't really feel that swashbuckler (or ranger or valor bard) cuts it. Fighter with criminal/urchin background and feats like skilled and prodigy works acceptably, but in general we like Fighter-rogue MC.

More generally, multiclassing is definitely allowed... there's just a real table acknowledgement that there are some things that are 'cheeze' and generally no one wants to 'be that guy.' You probably all know the drills -- the sorcadin, the coffeelock, the paladin with just enough hexblade to get Cha-based attacks for the type of weapon you want to use, one level of Forge cleric on your wizard, etc. All of these are allowed, but you'd get a look of 'we know what you did there' that you wouldn't if you wanted to play a monk-wizard or druid-rogue for flavor reasons.

[Sutekh]

To my mind, multiclassing, be it in the current rules, or something like 3.x and prestige classes allows the player to create a greater, more realised character. In the real world, very few people keep the same job over the course of their lives, so it makes sense for characters to try new things. Admittedly, some dips are a bit of a stretch (1 level of cleric?? 1 level of Bard??), but if the player can make a viable reason for it, or it serves the greater vision of the design, then 1 level of cleric can work under the guise of some kind of divine favour rather than priestly faith.
All bar one of my favourite characters in D&D over 30 years have been multiclass in some way, shape or form, and that exception was a Knight of Solamnia that ended up as a Knight of the rose, so even it had elements of multiclassing.
I have never, would I ever deny a player the choice to multiclass, so long as it fulfilled the character vision.

[Cibulan]

I despise multi-classing as a player and DM. I have PTSD from 3.5 and AD&D multi-classing. I don't allow it when I DM, I feel that between subclasses and backgrounds you can cover 99% of concepts.

In the one game I play, there's one multi-classed character.

[LentilNinja]

I honestly can't understand D&D without multiclassing. Yes the single classes offered are full of options & flavour, and there's plenty of mileage a player can get out of them. But all that is why I think multiclassing is necessary: Being able to combine 2 or more of these well crafted classes gives players lets them enjoy each one in unique ways.

I know above posts have talked negatively about multiclassing due to older systems (3.5 in particular) due to the different flavours of cheese they produced. While the issues with them is subjective, the prejudice should be reserved for those systems. 5e has it's own cheese, but it's definitely not on the level of those older systems (Coffeelock exempt) & as such doesn't deserve the same scrutiny.

[sithlordnergal]

I've always allowed multiclassing in my games. Part of it is that I have no choice since I tend to run Adventure League games, but I allow it even in homebrew games. It makes for more interesting and varied characters.

Heh, I have about 15 to 16 characters currently, again thanks to playing AL, and only one is single classed. Even then, its a single classed, level 17 Moon Druid that will soon hit 20 and be nearly unkillable sooo...special exception to my usual method of playing. I just find multiclassing to give more interesting options.

[GlenSmash!]

Typical pattern i've observed is 1 or 2 people per group/game.


We allow it. Of the 5 of us, 1 does it with any regularity.

Same here.

[KorvinStarmast]

In our original group, out of six people nobody did.
In our second group, my nephew did.
In my third group, the Rogue Swashbuckler multiclassed into Warlock at level 12 or 13. We discussed my Champion multiclassing into rogue for expertise in Athletics to knock down and grapple things even bettter, but he's still a straight Chammpion.
In my 4th group, noody multiclassed.
In my fifth group, no multiclass.
In our ToA group, that went into suspension at 5th level due to DM burnout .. no MC.

In the dozen or so one shots (various levels 4 through 12) almost all of us tried out a MC.

In the SaltMarsh game I am running, no MC so far but we are still in Tier 1.

[MaxWilson]

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?

Yes, because might as well. The players' window into the game is normally very narrow (only what comes out of the DM's mouth, whereas the DM can see everything inside of their own head) so I normally go out of my way to give the players as much information and freedom as possible. I don't particularly love the way 5E does multiclassing--I think the AD&D way is far superior--but it's there in the PHB and it doesn't do any harm so I might as well allow it.

It takes a lot of player confidence to embrace multiclassing though, and I'd say probably less than 40% of PCs wind up being multiclassed, although I'm not really sure because honestly I don't pay that much attention to players' character sheets anyway--their character sheets are their problem, and running the world is mine. But from what I have happened to notice I feel like 40% is maybe about the right number.

As a player, it depends on the class. I will not multiclass a Moon Druid, and usually won't multiclass a Fighter, but most other classes benefit from some level of armor upgrades or offensive upgrades via multiclassing. Again, I'd prefer AD&D-style multiclassing if it were available because it feels more organic than 5E-style build-a-class-from-other-classes multiclassing, but it isn't usually available at most 5E tables.

[Buji]

Our DM lets our group multiclass. I think the first person to reply said everything best though, it's generally better to multiclass at level 5 when you gain more stuff.

I've only been in 2.5 different campaigns (2.5 because first one was with one DM, second DM is doing the other one in a world that has 2 different story paths, so we have different characters who will eventually group up) and have yet to multiclass, been kinda thinking about it.

A lot of it does come down to what class you currently are and what you will gain or lose from multiclassing.

For you being a DM wanting to encourage multiclassing, just bring it up in different instances, like if someone rolls a 19 and are like, "argh, almost crit" say like, "if you multiclass into a Champion Fighter, you can crit on 19s at level 3"
or if someone finds an instrument, you can encourage them to be part bard, jokingly include a "barding for idiots" book with the instrument.

Or you can just ask your players what their other choices in characters were when they originally made them, and for what reasons, and see if they are interested in including some of those class features into their current one

[MilkmanDanimal]

I run a home game for my kids and a friend and his kids, and they're all largely pretty inexperienced, and none have thought of multiclassing. I play in a bigger West Marches group with a whole bunch of players, and I'd say by and large the experienced players multiclass more often than not, because we're all comfortable enough to where we understand how to really customize and tweak for a build.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Back when I DM'd, I allowed it but nobody wanted to.

As a player, about 2/3 of my characters are multiclassed. And I'm a shameless optimizer about it, too (well...maybe slightly red-faced at times, but hey...). And I never worry about level 20 capstones, because no campaign I've ever been in has gotten anywhere close to level 20. Or even into tier 4.

My absolute favorite character of all time was a single classed character with almost zero backstory, but lots of RP regardless. My least favorite character was also a single classed character with an extensive and world-involved backstory, and some good RP moments. My 2nd and 3rd most favorite characters are absolute cheese builds (hexadin and barb/druid), with solid backstories and my best RP efforts yet.

So, there's that. For whatever it's worth.

EDIT: Oh, and my very least well-designed character was a badly-conceived multiclass light cleric with a fighter dip. My first 5e character, it was basically a mess from start to finish. I'll jump on the bandwagon of not recommending a multiclass until you know what you're doing.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I'm somewhat of a compulsive multiclasser. Loved playing a Fighter/Thief or Fighter/Mage/Thief in ad&d 2nd, loved dipping rogue or fighter or ranger or all three in 3.5, even as an otherwise full caster, and now I love all sorts of crazy mashups in 5e. I think the last time that I played a single-class character was a bard in 3rd edition, and they were kinda built-in multiclass casters/skill monkeys in that edition.

[MaxWilson]

EDIT: Oh, and my very least well-designed character was a badly-conceived multiclass light cleric with a fighter dip. My first 5e character, it was basically a mess from start to finish. I'll jump on the bandwagon of not recommending a multiclass until you know what you're doing.

There was a PC in my first 5E game who was a 4/4 Fighter/Arcane Trickster, at an 8th level table. She was... not effective. Wasn't my PC, but count me on the bandwagon too.

[Xetheral]

In the absence of a poll I would like to hear from players and DMs alike.

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and thanks in advance if you take the time to respond, I look forward to your thoughts and insights.

Best,

--Vorenus

As a 5e DM I encourage my players to multiclass and I remove the ability score restrictions on doing so. I find it leads to a more diverse set of characters that are defined by more than the default archetypes for their race and class. I don't care if they want to start with the mechanics and then flesh out the character, or start with a concept and find mechanics to match. I just ask that in the end the mechanics be a good fit for the concept, regardless of whether the player opts to multiclass or not.

When everyone at the table is playing a well-developed character that feels like a real person, I find it makes the game more fun for everyone. I've also found encouraging multiclassing to be a useful tool for achieving that, even though not all my players decide to. Ultimately, between half and two-thirds of the characters I've DM'd for in 5e have been multiclassed.

In my campaign world, most NPCs with class levels are also multiclassed, especially the high-level ones. Finding an NPC single-minded enough to be a high-level singled-classed character is a very rare occurrence.

As a 5e player, all of my PCs have been multiclassed. The only times I've played a single-classed character are when I've been invited to make a guest appearance playing a pre-built NPC at another DM's table.

As a player, I enjoy the intellectual exercise of finding the exact combination of abilities that brings a concept to life. Because D&D abilities come pre-packaged in classes and subclasses, getting mechanics to fit my original concept will often get other abilities too, and including them leads me to adapt the concept so that they fit. That leads to reconsidering previous mechanical choices in a recursive fashion. I can spend days happily tweaking a PC until the concept and the mechanics fit with each other to my satisfaction.

[Laserlight]

As a DM, I allow it except for new players.
As a player, I'd be wary of joining a table where the DM didn't allow it.

Of 11 players, 3 have not MCd that I know of, 7 have MC'd in at least one campaign but usually stay single class. I'm #11 and MC more often than not. I'm also twice the age of most of the rest of the group, with more experience in RPGs, and also with more free time to tinker with designs.

I suppose it also depends on tiers. Our campaigns usually end around L8, although once we made it to L9 for the last session. Less room there for MCing than if we were in tier 3 or 4.

[Arkhios]

Judging from the sheer amount of help requests to "build" characters and the optimization guides in this forum and others in the world wide web evaluating all different kinds of class combinations, I would say that Multiclassing is pretty much the norm that almost every D&D player gravitate towards, even though designers tried (however futile it was) to make it an optional rule. I also feel that there are very few DM's who have the guts to say NO to multiclassing at their tables, as if afraid of losing players.

Also, just recently I posted a thread about making a character and did not mention anything about multiclassing, and almost every suggestion that dug deeper into mechanics involved multiclassing. That said, I'm not exactly against it, it just proves my point.

As to your poll:

I would try to set up a poll but I don't know how to do that on this site, so if someone else knows how to set up a poll and can either tell me or set one up in this thread that would be cool. In the absence of a poll I would like to hear from players and DMs alike.

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?

1. In general, when I sit behind the DM screen I don't exactly highlight the option to multiclass, but if a player asks to use it, I would prefer there to be a good reason for it, as in I'd like the transition to different class appear and feel like natural character growth instead of munchkin-y powergaming just because a combination of two or more class mechanics appears powerful. (Now, I know everything can be made to work flavor-wise, I just prefer to keep character growth an important part of player characters - for both parties involved).

2. I'd like to think I have no preference towards either direction. But usually when I multiclass, first and foremost I prefer the multiclass to "make sense" in regards to who the character is and why they are who they are. For example, I have no qualms about mixing classes that use entirely different ability scores for their relevant features, as long as the multiclass fits the character concept flavorwise.

[Lyracian]

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
I am happy to allow it but would have some restrictions to stop abuse such as converting Warlock spell slots into Sorcery points and Paladin smites with full caster slots.
At the moment I am running two game where we have bee introducing children (mine and friends) to the game in which everyone is single class. Half the players are aged 8-12 and the rest of us are in our forties. Everyone has been quite happy with single class characters to learn the game but if any of them asked I would let them.


2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?
In older editions almost all my characters where multiclassed; I really like Fighter/Rogue and Wizard with a Cleric level for armour as multiclass options but overall with Fifth Edition I have a preference for single class characters but keep ending up with multiclassed ones!
My Bard took a level of Cleric as we had no healer and I really wanted to play a bard.
In another game starting at nines two of us wanted to play pure Arcane Trickster so I relented and went with AT/Battlemaster (which is a combo I like).

[Jophiel]

Judging from the sheer amount of help requests to "build" characters and the optimization guides in this forum and others in the world wide web evaluating all different kinds of class combinations, I would say that Multiclassing is pretty much the norm that almost every D&D player gravitate towards, even though designers tried (however futile it was) to make it an optional rule. [...]
Also, just recently I posted a thread about making a character and did not mention anything about multiclassing, and almost every suggestion that dug deeper into mechanics involved multiclassing. That said, I'm not exactly against it, it just proves my point.
I think that's more of a reflection on the sort of people who haunt D&D internet places and how optimization mechanics are more objective to talk and find a "right" answer about than softer topics like background stories or character motivation. And people who are into D&D enough to frequently be on forums, etc are the sort to try to squeeze all the options out of it versus more casual players.

As a DM, I've only been running Adventurers League so multiclassing is a valid option. However, in the last three games I ran (tables of 4-6 with different players), I think I only had one multiclassed character. If I was running a homebrew campaign, I'd allow it mainly because I doubt it would be a popular choice.

As a player, I take a dip now and then but, if a DM didn't want it, it wouldn't bother me too much. I'd be more worried about losing Feats (since they sort of go hand-in-hand in regards to DMs fear "powergaming"). I rarely see them in the AL games I play though and the homebrew campaign I'm in has eight players and none have a MC yet at level 5. My last table had six players and I was the only MC (Wizard with a cleric dip) by level 7.

[EggKookoo]

I would not play with a DM who doesn't allow both feats and multiclassing, I consider it a major red flag.


As a player, I'd be wary of joining a table where the DM didn't allow it.

Just want to point out that a DM not allowing multiclassing is not a sign of Nefarious Up To Somethings. DMs allow/disallow optional rules all the time for a bunch of reasons that mostly have to do with the kind of game they want to run. Flavor, mechanics, or even just plain old simplicity. They're not bad DMs for doing so.

In my current campaign, tieflings are synonymous with druids. All druids are tieflings, and all tiefling PCs are druids. You wanted to play that wood elf druid? Sorry, not this game. Doesn't mean I'm out to screw with you. It means I have an in-setting reason for it. Same could be said for any rule, especially optional ones.

[Protolisk]

Just want to point out that a DM not allowing multiclassing is not a sign of Nefarious Up To Somethings. DMs allow/disallow optional rules all the time for a bunch of reasons that mostly have to do with the kind of game they want to run. Flavor, mechanics, or even just plain old simplicity. They're not bad DMs for doing so.

In my current campaign, tieflings are synonymous with druids. All druids are tieflings, and all tiefling PCs are druids. You wanted to play that wood elf druid? Sorry, not this game. Doesn't mean I'm out to screw with you. It means I have an in-setting reason for it. Same could be said for any rule, especially optional ones.

At least for Laserlight, though, they didn't say that that is wrong, just that they wouldn't want to play at that table. I know I wouldn't like race-class choice locked, so I'd walk from your table with rules like that. Not saying your rules are outright bad, but I wouldn't play, because that wouldn't mesh well with my style.

[deljzc]

I'm old-school and love multi-classing for themes and flavor.

I must admit that 5th edition, with the numerous sub-classes, fills in many of the traditional genres of multi-classes and sprinkles in spellcasting into the traditional classes (fighter and rogues) or provides variations on spell-casters to make them more melee oriented (and not just weak, distance fighters). Bards also fill an interesting niche of "support" roles.

I'm so old school that I kind of believe that multiclassing only makes sense for some long-lived demihumans (where time is not a restriction to learning multiple fields of expertise).

What I don't like about current multi-classing is the "1-2 level(s) and done" tactics to gain some optimization of your main character profession. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's hard to limit that as a DM if you allow multiclassing and I don't want to do that.

Again, I think it's important for every table and group of players to hash out extreme optimization vs. roll playing and how to handle all of that before the campaign starts. And that leads to a discussion on multi-classing and what makes sense for your group.

[Yunru]

I think that's more of a reflection on the sort of people who haunt D&D internet places and how optimization mechanics are more objective to talk and find a "right" answer about than softer topics like background stories or character motivation. And people who are into D&D enough to frequently be on forums, etc are the sort to try to squeeze all the options out of it versus more casual players.
I'd say it's more the challenge.
Making an effective character is trivially easy, whereas seeking the cutting edge is a fun thought exercise.

[MaxWilson]

At least for Laserlight, though, they didn't say that that is wrong, just that they wouldn't want to play at that table. I know I wouldn't like race-class choice locked, so I'd walk from your table with rules like that. Not saying your rules are outright bad, but I wouldn't play, because that wouldn't mesh well with my style.

Yeah, "wouldn't play at your table" doesn't mean "hope you die in a fire."

I wouldn't play long-term at a table that used standard PHB initiative rules, but that doesn't make people who use them bad people. It just makes the game too predictable for my taste and there's a whole world of other people out there competing for one's attention.


I'd say it's more the challenge.
Making an effective character is trivially easy, whereas seeking the cutting edge is a fun thought exercise.

Good insight. You occasionally see people trying to make the least-effective 20th level character possible, also as a thought exercise. It's pretty hard to create something that can't beat DMG-recommended adventuring days unless you do something like create a party of four 20th level (Sage background) standard human Champion 19/Druid 1 with Str 9 Dex 9 Con 9 Wis 13 and all ASIs into Intelligence and Charisma.

[Skylivedk]

All my campaigns both as a player and DM have have at least one MC character. Only exception was a campaign that didn't go above level 3.bThis is true ever since 3e. My latest campaign didn't start with one, but the first reroll was one.

As for preference; it depends on what characters I/we have tried to build. I prefer it if it makes sense. I love playing with MCs as a thought exercise, and I've thought of hundreds combinations (mechanically) and dozen of characters (in fiction) I'll probably never get to play. I'm not as thorough as some; ie LudicSavant. Big part of that being that my thought exercises are usually in between other activities (transit, waiting for meetings, dozing off etc)

[ProsecutorGodot]

Good insight. You occasionally see people trying to make the least-effective 20th level character possible, also as a thought exercise. It's pretty hard to create something that can't beat DMG-recommended adventuring days unless you do something like create a party of four 20th level (Sage background) standard human Champion 19/Druid 1 with Str 9 Dex 9 Con 9 Wis 13 and all ASIs into Intelligence and Charisma.

Inconsequential nitpick, that character cannot multiclass Druid because they lack the Str 13 or Dex 13 to MC out of Fighter.

I get the point and I agree though, one of the favorite characters I've played is a Blood Hunter Wizard (currently Blood Hunter 5/ Wizard 7 split) and it's been a lot of fun. The character would be functional even without the strong stat rolls I had but I had the option after rolling stats to play anything and I think the experience was more rewarding creating a character that wasn't taking advantage of those stats to try and be optimal.

[MaxWilson]

Inconsequential nitpick, that character cannot multiclass Druid because they lack the Str 13 or Dex 13 to MC out of Fighter.

Ha! Good point. I'm honestly not sure whether dropping druid or increasing Dex to 13 would un-weaken the hypothetical PC more. It's a painful dilemma.

[RickAllison]

Ha! Good point. I'm honestly not sure whether dropping druid or increasing Dex to 13 would un-weaken the hypothetical PC more. It's a painful dilemma.

Hmmmm... I'd say dropping Druid. For your attack stat, you can rely on one of the Strength-changing items to charge your four attacks.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, "wouldn't play at your table" doesn't mean "hope you die in a fire."

How hot does a major red flag burn?

I mean I do have to dig pretty deep to conjure up the level of dickishness one would have to display for me to state I wouldn't play at their table because of a rule decision. Maybe I've played with too many different GMs over the years to let something that be a barrier. If you're a good DM (i.e. we're having fun and no one is being a deliberate jerk), I'll play at your table whatever custom rules you set and consider myself lucky to have the experience.

[Laserlight]

Just want to point out that a DM not allowing multiclassing is not a sign of Nefarious Up To Somethings.

I disagree. A DM not allowing multiclassing MAY not be a nefarious sign--but then again, it MIGHT. Which is why I would be wary.


At least for Laserlight, though, they didn't say that that is wrong, just that they wouldn't want to play at that table.

I didn't even say that. Maybe I'd agree with the DM's reason, but I'd have to ask some questions about it first.

Maybe the DM has some noobs at the table and wants to keep everyone on the same footing. Fair enough.
Maybe the DM is new-ish himself. Also fair, everyone's got to learn some time.
Maybe the DM doesn't trust his players. That may be a problem.
Maybe the DM is a paranoid control freak. Been there, done that, tore up the charsheet.
Maybe there's some other reason. I'd want to know about it before I committed to that table.

[MaxWilson]

How hot does a major red flag burn?

Hot enough to demand an explanation, followed by a decision. It's something that could potentially be a deal-breaker.

[EggKookoo]

Hot enough to demand an explanation, followed by a decision. It's something that could potentially be a deal-breaker.

"I don't want to use this optional rule" demands an explanation aside from "I don't want to use this optional rule"?

We're all clear here on what "optional" means, right?

This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign.

"I don't feel like using the optional sanity rules from the DMG..."

Red flag status: MAJOR

Please don't (mis-)interpret this as me saying you must play at a table that doesn't offer the optional rules you like. I'm reacting to the notion that a DM declining to use such rules is any more suspect than a player wanting to include them. I mean, a player wants multiclassing...

Maybe the player just utterly loves the mix & match thingy. Fair enough.
Maybe the player is a noob and doesn't understand what they're getting into. Also fair, everyone's got to learn some time.
Maybe the player sees an advantage they can leverage over the rest of the party. That may be a problem.
Maybe the player is an obnoxious snowflake min-maxer who is looking for a way to be the center of attention. Been there, done that, tore up the charsheet.
Maybe there's some other reason. I'd want to know about it before I allowed multiclassing at that table.

...see how it works?

[MaxWilson]

"I don't want to use this optional rule" demands an explanation aside from "I don't want to use this optional rule"?

We're all clear here on what "optional" means, right?

I think Laserlight already explained why this particular issue is a major red flag for him.


Please don't (mis-)interpret this as me saying you must play at a table that doesn't offer the optional rules you like. I'm reacting to the notion that a DM declining to use such rules is any more suspect than a player wanting to include them. I mean, a player wants multiclassing...

Maybe the player just utterly loves the mix & match thingy. Fair enough.
Maybe the player is a noob and doesn't understand what they're getting into. Also fair, everyone's got to learn some time.
Maybe the player sees an advantage they can leverage over the rest of the party. That may be a problem.
Maybe the player is an obnoxious snowflake min-maxer who is looking for a way to be the center of attention. Been there, done that, tore up the charsheet.
Maybe there's some other reason. I'd want to know about it before I allowed multiclassing at that table.

...see how it works?

You might want to check with Laserlight before jumping to the conclusion in bold. For all you or I know, Laserlight would also consider it equally suspect/a major red flag for players to push for multiclassing when the DM has already disallowed it. Everybody picks their own red flags, based on experience, and investigates accordingly.

[ad_hoc]

Judging from the sheer amount of help requests to "build" characters and the optimization guides in this forum and others in the world wide web evaluating all different kinds of class combinations, I would say that Multiclassing is pretty much the norm that almost every D&D player gravitate towards, even though designers tried (however futile it was) to make it an optional rule. I also feel that there are very few DM's who have the guts to say NO to multiclassing at their tables, as if afraid of losing players.


This is a result of frequenting the places where this discussion happens.

There are somewhere around 20 000 000 5e players in the world. A small subset of people who socialize with each other in a small corner of the internet because they have shared interests one of which is creating character "builds" doesn't expand to the rest of the player base.

If we went by the demographics here we could say the same thing about feats but Mearls has commented that less than half of all tables use them.

This forum is not the norm, not even for the internet. Go to somewhere like ENWorld and you'll fine different discussions and people playing the game differently.

[EggKookoo]

You might want to check with Laserlight before jumping to the conclusion in bold. For all you or I know, Laserlight would also consider it equally suspect/a major red flag for players to push for multiclassing when the DM has already disallowed it. Everybody picks their own red flags, based on experience, and investigates accordingly.

I must be slow. I don't understand how one could state that they're suspicious of anyone who doesn't like X, and expect it to be inferred that they also must be suspicious of anyone who does like X.

If I say disallowing multiclassing must be (or is likely to be) a sign of nefariousness on the part of the DM, but I don't say anything about players who insist on multiclassing, are you really suggesting it's reasonable to assume that I hold a similar opinion about the latter? Wouldn't that view negate the one I hold on the former?

Unless I guess maybe if I thought all D&D players were jerks, DMs included. :smallsmile:

[Laserlight]

"I don't want to use this optional rule" demands an explanation aside from "I don't want to use this optional rule"?


Yep, but if I asked a potential DM about it and got that kind of response, I would move on. He's not at all obligated to make his rules appealing to me, and I'm not obligated to play at a table that isn't appealing. No harm, no foul.

In the same vein, once I ran game where I asked everyone to play a martial, no casters at all. But that was with players I already knew, and I got buy in at the beginning of session zero. If everyone hadn't gotten on board with it, either I'd have figured out a way to refluff what they wanted to play so it would work with my campaign concept, or I'd have gotten a new campaign concept. Some ability to give and take is necessary.

Also, of course, "this is a red flag" only applies to DMs you're not familiar with. One of the guys who's been at my table since 5e came out, and he wants to try a game with no MC? Sure, no problem.

[Comaward]

I’ve yet to play or DM at a table where multiclassing doesn’t happen.
Every single table has or had at least one person who multiclassed.

Usually it’s my dad, as he is incapable of playing D&D without multiclassing.

[MaxWilson]

I must be slow. I don't understand how one could state that they're suspicious of anyone who doesn't like X, and expect it to be inferred that they also must be suspicious of anyone who does like X.

There are two possibilities under consideration:

1.) Laserlight is suspicious of DMs who ban multiclassing but not players who ask for multiclassing when the DM has disallowed it.
2.) Laserlight is suspicious of DMs who ban multiclassing and also of players who ask for multiclassing when the DM has disallowed it.

You jumped to conclusion #1, and now you're asking me to defend conclusion #2, but what I said is that you don't have enough information to conclude #1 or #2. Both are possible.


If I say disallowing multiclassing must be (or is likely to be) a sign of nefariousness on the part of the DM, but I don't say anything about players who insist on multiclassing, are you really suggesting it's reasonable to assume that I hold a similar opinion about the latter? Wouldn't that view negate the one I hold on the former?

Yes, it's possible to be suspicious of both. Frankly the same sorts of red flag issues (e.g. control issues as a DM, desire to socially dominate the table) could plausibly manifest differently when the same person is acting as a player (e.g. munchkin tactics, desire to socially dominate the table). If Laserlight hypothetically were suspicious of both, that wouldn't be crazy.

[Guy Lombard-O]

I guess I'll say one additional thing about multiclassing: it allows people to try dipping their toes into classes (or even whole play styles) that they might not otherwise be willing to try out.

I, for instance, really like the idea of being able to cast spells in a fantasy game. I'm basically never going to run a character that can't cast spells. I have zero interest in playing a fighter (except possibly a EK) or a barbarian or a rogue. I was curious about paladin, since they're at least a 1/2 caster. But the only ones I'd actually seen played were all run as smite-machine melee warriors little different than a fighter (I mean, our paladins didn't even bother preparing more than one or two spells!). So despite some luke-warm interest, I wasn't really willing to try a paladin, either.

I'll add that our table tends to run charactesr from 1 to at least 10, but punt before 15. And they discourage (not disallow) switching out characters much. So if I committed to trying a melee class, it'd be a significant risk of long-term boredom for months at a time.

Knowing that I could multiclass in some caster levels made me far less reticent to try out a melee class. And now, after playing and loving my hexadin, I'd be far more willing to attempt a pure-paladin build in the future.

I think that's one small (possibly niche?) factor in favor of allowing multiclasses.

[Sigreid]

IMO the cost of multi-classing is almost always higher than the benefit received so I don't really see a need to block it. In fact, my observation is that it's a kick up in power at lower level at a very high cost on the other end.

[Zevox]

1. DMs, do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?
2. Players, do you prefer multiclassing when it is allowed? Or do you prefer staying single class? Why or why not?
I don't generally DM outside of short adventures in between other DM's campaigns (though that may change), but I would allow multiclassing personally, albeit with the caveat that the players run any multiclassing by me first. Both so that I could see if the build is some kind of ridiculous cheese they're doing strictly for power-gaming purposes, and so I could figure out how best to work it into the game, if any sort of explanation for how the character picks up their new training is appropriate.

My current DM on the flip side disallows it entirely, seeing it as unnecessary for anything but cheesy power-gamed builds. Probably doesn't help that the only time anyone from our group asked him about playing one, it was exactly that, some kind of cheesy build he'd found on Reddit somewhere (I forget what exactly).

For #2, I very much liked having the option when I played 3.5, but in 5e I find I'm good without it. Pretty much anything I liked doing with it in 3.5 (usually mixing martial and casting classes in various ways) has a subclass somewhere I can go to for a similar effect in 5e, so just staying single-class is a lot more appealing in this edition. I'd also be fine with it being an option, but am not sure if I'd take advantage of it. None of the characters I've played so far in this edition feel like it would make sense for them, personally.

[EggKookoo]

There are two possibilities under consideration:

1.) Laserlight is suspicious of DMs who ban multiclassing but not players who ask for multiclassing when the DM has disallowed it.
2.) Laserlight is suspicious of DMs who ban multiclassing and also of players who ask for multiclassing when the DM has disallowed it.

You jumped to conclusion #1, and now you're asking me to defend conclusion #2, but what I said is that you don't have enough information to conclude #1 or #2. Both are possible.

Such literalism doesn't help us much. You communicate as much by what you omit as much as what you include.

Question: "Who here likes mustard on their hamburgers?"

Response: "I find anyone who doesn't to be suspect."

Wouldn't a sensible observer conclude that the person making that response feels there's nothing inherently suspect about liking mustard-burgers? I know you can get literal and say there's no way to know that from the information provided, but use some context. Dismissing context is a very typical way to conjure an argument on the internet, or anywhere, but let's not do that.

If Laserlight says "As a player, I'd be wary of joining a table where the DM didn't allow it" the implication by context is that they wouldn't automatically be wary of a player that asked to multiclass. If they were wary of such a player, then there would be no reason to be wary of the DM that didn't allow it because the DM would simply just be sharing that wariness.

If I also wanted to be literal, I could just turn this around and say I never said anything about anyone wishing a no-MC DM would die in a fire. I was just reminding folks that there's nothing particularly suspicious about a DM not wanting to allow multiclassing. IMHO it's significantly less worrisome to have a DM decline to use multiclassing than to have a player insist on it. The DM has the excuse of simply not wanting to deal with the added complexity, and really no more explanation is needed (especially since it's explicitly an optional mechanic). If anyone's N.U.T.S., it's the player insisting on it in the face of that.

[Laserlight]

I am bemused to find my stance apparently worth more than a sentence and a half discussion from anyone else, but...the key is not "To MC or not to MC", the key is "whether he's a jerk about it." If I want a Bard/Cleric and he says "No MC, that's my rule, take it or leave it", then I'm probably going to walk. If he says "Well, how about a Cleric with the Entertainer background? Would Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster or something get you what you need? How about if you replace Sacred Flame with Vicious Mockery, and swap a couple of your domain spells for bard spells?", then I can probably get along with him.

My default, though is MC and Feats. Give the players more choice, not less. You're generally not playing to be told that you can't be cool.

[Laserlight]

I was just reminding folks that there's nothing particularly suspicious about a DM not wanting to allow multiclassing.

It'd be more accurate to say "I personally don't find it suspicious, although other people do."

[FabulousFizban]

i almost always multiclass, for RP reasons as much as build reasons. My most iconic character is a hunchback named jasper who is bard 3/cleric 3

[EggKookoo]

It'd be more accurate to say "I personally don't find it suspicious, although other people do."

Honestly your post wasn't the impetus for my message about it. OgataiKhan's post was more pointed. I just included yours as an additional example.

In any event I'm not confused by your position. You clarification wasn't necessary for me, but I appreciate it.

[MaxWilson]

If I also wanted to be literal, I could just turn this around and say I never said anything about anyone wishing a no-MC DM would die in a fire.

Well, obviously. No one said (or thought, AFAIK) that you did.


It'd be more accurate to say "I personally don't find it suspicious, although other people do."

Well-said and pithy.

[EggKookoo]

Well, obviously. No one said (or thought, AFAIK) that you did.

https://media.giphy.com/media/40a8NZHhEy8VLTY7dS/giphy.gif

[ThatoneGuy84]

At heart I'm a multiclasser, I'll say that to start.

Most our campaigns, either reach high tier (1-15+) or fail before level 5.
That being said, I rarely multiclass before 5 (due to progression stunting). You dont often see before 5 unless it's a XXX build starts as fighter, then jumped straight to XXX caster for 5 levels Build. Usually just for free con saves ext.

So far notable chars I had way to much fun multiclassing are
Swashbuckler 9 / Blademaster 5 (was super fun mobility char with plenty tricks)
ShadowMonk 12/Assassin 3 (got a vorpal sword in a treasure table, took Alert feat, almost statistically always went first = Auto crit with Vorpal sword shenanigans)
Current game, we just Hit 17 ( I single classed Wizard, oviously didnt wanna slow progression on wish or the level 18 slots ) but after 18 I'm likely to take a 2 level dip unless my DM says I cant. (Still not sure what 2 level dip thou)

Some people love single classing
Some people love multiclassing
I would say, newer players are better of playing a few single class campaigns before delving into the multiclassing features, as it's good to get to know the mechanics without having to look up everything you can do by adding a second class

[MaxWilson]

...

Was that supposed to mean something, or did you just feel like sharing a random .GIF?

[Contrast]

The DM has the excuse of simply not wanting to deal with the added complexity, and really no more explanation is needed (especially since it's explicitly an optional mechanic).

I mean that would be a pretty terrible reason for a DM to ban multiclassing. The extra complexity is on the players end, not the DMs. Even then it only adds a small amount of complexity during level up, most noticeably for casters. Shouldn't really be adding any complexity at all during gameplay.

I am amused at people saying they don't like it because it enables cheesy power builds. To date I do not think I have seen a single multi-classed character in play that I thought was more powerful than a single classed character and have seen multiple examples of characters who were definitely worse as a result of multi-classing. I feel like they've actually done a very good job in 5E of ensuring that multiclassing is mostly just a sidegrade, even when done well - it generally lets you do different things, rather than necessarily more/better things.

I would be infinitely more likely to soft ban multiclassing because I was worried about players making bad characters than I would because they wanted to make good ones.

I have admittedly never seen a sorcadin or whateverlock in action at levels where such a move would have typically started to actually pay off.

[Sigreid]

Why are people who will most likely never going to sit at the same table arguing the virtues of a particular view of multi-classing?

Bob really likes it and sees a DM not allowing it as a sign of a DM he doesn't want to play with. Tim doesn't like it and doesn't want to include it. Unless Bob and Tim play at the same table, what does it matter?

[Arkhios]

I mean that would be a pretty terrible reason for a DM to ban multiclassing. The extra complexity is on the players end, not the DMs. Even then it only adds a small amount of complexity during level up, most noticeably for casters. Shouldn't really be adding any complexity at all during gameplay.

I am amused at people saying they don't like it because it enables cheesy power builds. To date I do not think I have seen a single multi-classed character in play that I thought was more powerful than a single classed character and have seen multiple examples of characters who were definitely worse as a result of multi-classing. I feel like they've actually done a very good job in 5E of ensuring that multiclassing is mostly just a sidegrade, even when done well - it generally lets you do different things, rather than necessarily more/better things.

I would be infinitely more likely to soft ban multiclassing because I was worried about players making bad characters than I would because they wanted to make good ones.

I have admittedly never seen a sorcadin or whateverlock in action at levels where such a move would have typically started to actually pay off.

If it's an optional rule, choosing not to include it in one's table is not banning anything. It's the other way around: a DM can choose to allow an extra rule. If they don't want that, players crying about it only shows their lack of respect for their DMs choices.

[Contrast]

If it's an optional rule, choosing not to include it in one's table is not banning anything. It's the other way around: a DM can choose to allow an extra rule. If they don't want that, players crying about it only shows their lack of respect for their DMs choices.

Ok then. That would be a pretty terrible reason for a DM to choose to not allow this extra rule.

You don't have to be my friend but if you refuse to be my friend because of the colour of my eyes, I reserve the right to think that's a dumb way to choose your friends :smalltongue:

[EggKookoo]

Ok then. That would be a pretty terrible reason for a DM to choose to not allow this extra rule.

So this is the sort of judgmental attitude I've seen before and I was reacting to above. "A DM is terrible (or makes terrible decisions, anyway) because they don't do the thing I want."

No one is telling you that you must play with a DM that doesn't use the optional rules you want. But it doesn't make them a bad DM.

And to address the issue of complexity, multiclassing absolutely has implications for the DM. The DM has to maintain a holistic mental picture of the entire campaign. That includes having an understanding and comfort level with multiclassing if it's in the game. If the DM decides that multiclassing, like other optional rules such as sanity, proficiency dice, and "gritty realism," is just not worth the mental effort needed, that's perfectly reasonable and isn't somehow the DM not doing their job.

[Arkhios]

You don't have to be my friend but if you refuse to be my friend because of the colour of my eyes, I reserve the right to think that's a dumb way to choose your friends :smalltongue:

That's..... Not even remotely the same thing?

If that's your actual attitude and you're not just trolling, and if I were your DM (for which I'm genuinely glad that I'm not) I'd politely show you the door, if you think you have the right to make any demands or belittle your DM's decisions, or call them dumb because they don't do exactly as you want them to do.

That's incredibly childish.

[Contrast]

So this is the sort of judgmental attitude I've seen before and I was reacting to above. "A DM is terrible (or makes terrible decisions, anyway) because they don't do the thing I want."

No one is telling you that you must play with a DM that doesn't use the optional rules you want. But it doesn't make them a bad DM.

And to address the issue of complexity, multiclassing absolutely has implications for the DM. The DM has to maintain a holistic mental picture of the entire campaign. That includes having an understanding and comfort level with multiclassing if it's in the game. If the DM decides that multiclassing, like other optional rules such as sanity, proficiency dice, and "gritty realism," is just not worth the mental effort needed, that's perfectly reasonable and isn't somehow the DM not doing their job.

I included in my post a circumstance I would consider a reasonable justification for not allowing multiclassing. I totally agree there are good reasons a DM might want to have various restrictions on their games and that may include not allowing multiclassing - there are also bad reasons a DM may want to do those things. Its also worth clarifying - that doesn't make them a bad DM. I would worry about the system mastery of a DM who told me they didn't allow multi-classing because of its complexity but I also know the rules better than plenty of people who are better DMs than me.

I stand by the statement that 'it adds complication' is a bad reason (I wouldn't object to tacking on a 'in my opinion' there if you feel that helps soften the statement - I tend to assume thats implicit in forum discussions which often makes me seem more strident than I am, apologies). I just don't see the argument that adding 2 levels of fighter to a wizard is somehow mentally more taxing for a DM than adding another 2 levels of wizard abilities. As I said, as far as I can see it only meaningfully adds complication for the player - as I suggested that may be a reason for a DM to soft ban (sorry, soft fail to allow :smallwink:) if the player is screwing themselves. I'm happy to accept if the DM thinks that extra complexity for a particular player is going to require more hand holding from other players/the DM which they aren't prepared to give that is also a reason to have a chat but again, hardly seems justification for a blanket no to any played wanting to multiclass.

To be clear I'm mostly raising this point in case people are reading this thread wondering if they should allow multiclassing in their games. Someone might read your post and say 'Hmm, people don't allow it because it's complicated? Better steer clear then'. Multiclassing isn't really more complicated or difficult than just levelling up straight class and not allowing it on that basis seems absurd to me. There are good reasons for newer players not to multiclass - complexity is not at the top of that list.

Maybe its just because I picked up RPGs playing non-class based systems so I just have a different mindset on how complicated 5E characters are ruleswise generally, I don't know.

Also for some clarity on my personal motivations, I have had this discussion in real life but only when sitting in the pub with other RPG fans, not about an actual game. I don't think I've ever played in a game that didn't allow multiclassing but it occurs to me I don't actually know because I have never played a multiclassed character and have no particular intention or desire to in the immediate future so I've never actually asked. I don't know if that helps cool tempers about me telling people they're badwrongDMing for not doing what I wantTM.

Edit -


That's..... Not even remotely the same thing?

If that's your actual attitude and you're not just trolling, and if I were your DM (for which I'm genuinely glad that I'm not) I'd politely show you the door, if you think you have the right to make any demands or belittle your DM's decisions, or call them dumb because they don't do exactly as you want them to do.

That's incredibly childish.

Let me try phrasing this another way as apparently the smiley was not sufficient to convey the tongue in cheek nature of my previous statement.

I play in a game where the DM used to allow flanking. Out of game I mentioned to the DM that I tended to dislike the flanking rule because it devalued other methods of gaining advantage, he disagreed. I didn't insist on anything, no-one was politely requested to leave the game, no insults were thrown. We continued playing with flanking. A couple of months later, the DM announced we would no longer be using flanking because he, on reflection, agreed in was devaluing other abilities which granted advantage.

I would imagine I would treat any conversation about multiclassing in a similar fashion if it ever comes up.

[EggKookoo]

I would worry about the system mastery of a DM who told me they didn't allow multi-classing because of its complexity but I also know the rules better than plenty of people who are better DMs than me.

It's not necessarily a question of competence. It's often a question of value.

So for example I homebrew that a natural 20 on a save or check is an auto-success, and a natural 1 is an auto-failure. Why do I do this? Because it reduces complexity at the table. I'm perfectly capable of understanding that the natural 1/20 rule by RAW only applies to attack rolls. My players have no problem comprehending this distinction. But there's no good reason to have it not apply to saves and checks (any such roll that would fail on a 20 or succeed on a 1 shouldn't be called for in the first place). The exception to saves and checks creates a cognitive wrinkle. An inefficiency or inelegance. It's a blemish on the rules. It's soothing to those of us who like some consistency and logic to apply it across the board.

Same idea for multiclassing. For the value you get out of it, multiclassing in 5e, in my opinion, is not worth the mental clutter. You can, in my opinion, get 95% of what you need for your concept with subclasses, some creative feat selections, and perhaps a bit of refluffing here and there. Yes, that leaves that 5%, but how much is it worth it to get that?

Again, multiclassing falls into the same category as any other optional rule. If you joined a table and asked about the sanity rules, and the DM said something of the effect of "eh, I don't see much use for that stuff," is that anything other than the DM choosing which optional rules to include in their game? I think people hold multiclassing to some high standard because they were presented more as core rules in 3e. But 3e didn't have the variety of subclasses 5e does.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So for example I homebrew that a natural 20 on a save or check is an auto-success, and a natural 1 is an auto-failure. Why do I do this? Because it reduces complexity at the table. I'm perfectly capable of understanding that the natural 1/20 rule by RAW only applies to attack rolls. My players have no problem comprehending this distinction. But there's no good reason to have it not apply to saves and checks (any such roll that would fail on a 20 or succeed on a 1 shouldn't be called for in the first place). The exception to saves and checks creates a cognitive wrinkle. An inefficiency or inelegance. It's a blemish on the rules. It's soothing to those of us who like some consistency and logic to apply it across the board.

Can't say I like how this reduces complexity, characters with a high bonus to a skill or save still have a chance to automatically fail. It removes such a small step I'd hesitate to call it "simpler" and more of a personal preference. Stealth seems like the big issue here. A character could attain a very high stealth bonus. Per the rules, they still have to roll stealth in combat even if there's no chance that they fail to beat an opposing creatures passive perception. 5% of the time, they will do the impossible and fail to beat the passive perception of a creature who should never have been able to spot them. On the same note, your Wis Dump (ill advised but it happens) PC will have a 5% chance to spot a 30 stealth Assassin he had no business knowing about. Granted, Search actions don't automatically allow a check to be made but if there really is no good reason for them to not have a chance to automatically succeed, why not let them try?

That is unless you're adding clauses to which saves/checks can automatically resolve on a 1 or 20, in which case I'd throw simplicity and consistency out the window because you're now creating new reference material.

Seems like a difference of viewpoints here. I personally don't find multiclassing (or skills and saves) to be all that complex. Unless you're multiclassing different kinds of casters, even then it's not something I personally have had much difficulty with.

Like I'd posted earlier, one of my most favorite characters to play had been a Blood Hunter / Wizard. I use Dexterity to attack, Wisdom for my BH spellcasting and ability DC, Intelligence for my Wizard casting, Prepared casting for Wizard spells, Pact Magic for Profane Soul spells and my Booming Blade and GFB are from seperate class levels, short rest and long rest recharging spell slots, my Hit Point maximum changes almost every encounter. It was a bit of a hurdle to learn but throwing myself into the fire for this character has more or less prepared me for anything.

As a note on this line "You can, in my opinion, get 95% of what you need for your concept with subclasses, some creative feat selections, and perhaps a bit of refluffing here and there. Yes, that leaves that 5%, but how much is it worth it to get that?" do you want to know why this character multiclassed Wizard? It was the most efficient way to get Find Familiar. He found a Tressym and the DM ruled that it could be made into a Familiar, I was gaining a level between sessions and didn't want to risk having it die before I could take Ritual Caster or Magic Initiate. I enjoyed the Wizard aspect of the character so much that it completely changed my plan for this guy. Best spur of the moment decision I've made in DND. It was worth every bit of learning the MC rules.

[Corran]

So this is the sort of judgmental attitude I've seen before and I was reacting to above. "A DM is terrible (or makes terrible decisions, anyway) because they don't do the thing I want."
I didn't see anyone arguing this. This is your interpretation of the issue that other posters have and mentioned. And it is way off the mark. In fact, what strikes me as weird is how defensive you get when someone says ''I would ask why''.


No one is telling you that you must play with a DM that doesn't use the optional rules you want. But it doesn't make them a bad DM.
It makes them needlessly controlling. Unless, you know, there is an actual reason for doing so. Other than ''because I say so''. Yeah, that doesn't count after puberty. Assuming of course that your DM does not happen to be your boss irl, or generally someone who has power over you and you cannot afford to piss off.



And to address the issue of complexity, multiclassing absolutely has implications for the DM. The DM has to maintain a holistic mental picture of the entire campaign. That includes having an understanding and comfort level with multiclassing if it's in the game. If the DM decides that multiclassing, like other optional rules such as sanity, proficiency dice, and "gritty realism," is just not worth the mental effort needed, that's perfectly reasonable and isn't somehow the DM not doing their job.
Like what? Did you ever have a campaign idea that wouldn't work because of multiclassing?

[Protolisk]

Multiclassing tends to lower the spell level available to characters. Higher level spells tend to have far more reaching effects than multiclassing for a +2 to damage or to hit via a fighting style or so. More consistent effects, maybe more breadth via extra cantrips or flavors of spells (cleric and wizard instead of just wizard, for instance) but really, I never see much of an increase from multiclassing beyond "more reliable damage" such as increasing smites, or quickening eldritch blasts, or additional fighting styles. Maybe skill monkey collecting expertise? Still not world ending.

Even as a DM, I almost like being surprised from multiclassing. Obviously I should know the gist of the parties capabilities, makes it easier to keep metagaming out of the head of the enemies of the party.

In my eyes, single classing is more complicating as generally, spells trump martial abilities, and the higher the spells, the bigger the divide.

[MaxWilson]

Like what? Did you ever have a campaign idea that wouldn't work because of multiclassing?

In theory, allowing for multiclassing increases the range of potential power levels a DM has to plan for.

But even the worst multiclass is still more powerful than it would be before taking the second class (Dragon Sorc 4/Elemonk 4 is strictly more powerful than Elemonk 4) so as long as you allow for player-driven pacing and heterogeneous levels, multiclassing reduces to a solved problem. Either way, a player who brings that PC to an adventure you've told them is for 4 PCs of levels 5-8 knows from experience what they're in for: it's going to be significantly harder than the level 4-6 adventure you ran a couple weeks ago.

[Arkhios]

Let me try phrasing this another way as apparently the smiley was not sufficient to convey the tongue in cheek nature of my previous statement.

I play in a game where the DM used to allow flanking. Out of game I mentioned to the DM that I tended to dislike the flanking rule because it devalued other methods of gaining advantage, he disagreed. I didn't insist on anything, no-one was politely requested to leave the game, no insults were thrown. We continued playing with flanking. A couple of months later, the DM announced we would no longer be using flanking because he, on reflection, agreed in was devaluing other abilities which granted advantage.

I would imagine I would treat any conversation about multiclassing in a similar fashion if it ever comes up.

The point I was trying to convey is that I or any other DM don't have to comply to their players' wants. If someone has agreed or decided to be the DM of a campaign for a group of players, it's their right to setup the parameters. If you don't like it but you're still willing to play, you've basically waived your right to complain about it. But if you absolutely can't play by those and instead prefer to mock the DM for it, no matter how seriously or often, then you're free to leave the game. No one is forcing you to play.

A mature enough player can and will play by the rules set by their DM. DM is the final arbiter. Always.
Not because they are control freaks or want to annoy you just because, but because that's their role in all this.

It's not necessarily because an optional rule would add complexity, but rather, it might just be that they have realized a very valuable thing about the rules: you can play this game in a variety of different ways, and one variation is to use it with as minimal rules as possible. Not because it's easier or more simple that way, but because it might bring a different feel to the game.

You don't need multiclassing for player characters to function well. Thus, if multiclassing is not absolutely needed, so why use the optional rule?

To answer with a "why not" or "because I say so" is just as valid as asking "why?"

It's not in any way immature. It's their choice. Just like it's your choice to play.

[Corran]

In theory, allowing for multiclassing increases the range of potential power levels a DM has to plan for.

But even the worst multiclass is still more powerful than it would be before taking the second class (Dragon Sorc 4/Elemonk 4 is strictly more powerful than Elemonk 4) so as long as you allow for player-driven pacing and heterogeneous levels, multiclassing reduces to a solved problem. Either way, a player who brings that PC to an adventure you've told them is for 4 PCs of levels 5-8 knows from experience what they're in for: it's going to be significantly harder than the level 4-6 adventure you ran a couple weeks ago.
By player-driven pacing, do you mean something that translates to designing encounters in between sessions and most likely as a result of what the pc's are doing? In which case all the added variance in character power (because of mc) wouldn't cause issues as you can account for it when designing the encounter. But if you want to design the encounters of the whole adventure beforehand (and before you know what the players will be playing), then whatever added customization makes it more difficult for the challenges to be what we initially wanted of them? Yeah, that makes sense. Granted, even without multiclassing it wont be an easy task (with player skill and probably a few spells being the most annoying variables), but yes, multiclassing would be a step in the wrong direction given what we want to do.

[Witty Username]

When I have been theory crafting I tend to look for around 2-5 to start multi-classing but I am also inpatient when it comes to concept. For example, eldritch knight annoys me because I want to be a fighter/mage before level 3(I fully understand that this is not a reasonable position). It didn't come up for my bardlock because we started at like 12th level or something.

[RickAllison]

When I have been theory crafting I tend to look for around 2-5 to start multi-classing but I am also inpatient when it comes to concept. For example, eldritch knight annoys me because I want to be a fighter/mage before level 3(I fully understand that this is not a reasonable position). It didn't come up for my bardlock because we started at like 12th level or something.

I try to stress to players who want to do a level 1 game that at that point, you aren’t a true adventurer. A Paladin isn’t necessarily a true Paladin until level 3. A Bladesinger doesn’t learn to actually use a sword until level 2; they’ve drilled in the basics, but they still aren’t considered a graduate (and is extend that to other schools). Level 3 is really the point where you are what you say you are.

A multiclass person is essentially someone who is either taking a difficult double major (for a 1 or two level dip) or a full double degree and so delays their graduation.

[Contrast]

Again, multiclassing falls into the same category as any other optional rule. If you joined a table and asked about the sanity rules, and the DM said something of the effect of "eh, I don't see much use for that stuff," is that anything other than the DM choosing which optional rules to include in their game? I think people hold multiclassing to some high standard because they were presented more as core rules in 3e. But 3e didn't have the variety of subclasses 5e does.

If I as a player wanted to do something and the DM had no reason for disallowing it other than 'I don't see any use for that' I would certainly feel sad because I as a player clearly saw a use in it and the DM would appear to be dismissing those opinions out of hand. As I've said multiclassing would seem a particularly egregious example (compared to say, a character who wanted to use the crafting rules which the DM didn't want to bother with) because multiclassing really doesn't have much impact outside of that persons own character so the burden is on the player (which they are presumably willing to shoulder if they're the one asking to multiclass).


A mature enough player can and will play by the rules set by their DM. DM is the final arbiter. Always.
Not because they are control freaks or want to annoy you just because, but because that's their role in all this.

I'm not arguing a DM can't disallow multiclassing. Or that a player should insist they don't and not play with a DM who doesn't.

What I'm arguing is that a blanket ban on multiclassing by a DM because they feel it adds complexity is, in my opinion, a bad decision by that DM. It wouldn't necessarily hugely impact on my personal enjoyment of a game (as I said I've actually never played a multiclass character - I personally think the value of multiclassing is wildly overstated in many cases) but that doesn't change the fact that I think it would be a poor decision.

To use an example:

DM: Everyone roll stealth. Hey your character had ginger hair yeah?
Player: Yes?
DM: Take disadvantage:
Player: What? Why?
DM: It makes you more noticable.
Player: It's pitch black though surely they can't see me?
DM: That's what the stealth check is for, roll disadvantage.

Is the DM perfectly entitled to make that call and impose disadvantage? Yes.
Do I agree there are some circumstances where ginger hair might give disadvantage on a stealth check? Sure, trying to blend into a crowd when they know who they're looking for. I could see that.
Do I think that deciding ginger hair gives blanket disadvantage on stealth checks is a good decision by the DM (regardless of if my character has ginger hair or not)? No.
Do I think it would be unreasonable of a player to challenge that ruling with the DM later? No.

Thinking a DM is making a mistake and expressing that opinion doesn't mean I'm challenging their 'authority'. In my opinion refusing to ever discuss rulings with your players is a sign of a bad DM as surely as constantly questioning rulings is a sign of a bad player. Deciding not to play at a table is the last step in a process if you don't like what's going on a table generally, not the first step.

I disagree with the logic of your 1s and 20s rule (contested checks seem the key weakness as had been mentioned). If I played in your game I would certainly mention that to you at some point out of game. If that means I would no longer be welcome in your games then I guess we do just disagree fundamentally on how RPGs should be played and what the role of the DM is.

I think I've made the points I wanted to make here so I'll probably bow out now before we drag this into one of those never ending threads :smallbiggrin:

[EggKookoo]

What I'm arguing is that a blanket ban on multiclassing by a DM because they feel it adds complexity is, in my opinion, a bad decision by that DM. It wouldn't necessarily hugely impact on my personal enjoyment of a game (as I said I've actually never played a multiclass character - I personally think the value of multiclassing is wildly overstated in many cases) but that doesn't change the fact that I think it would be a poor decision.

Then the burden is on the player to explain why they can't get what they want out of a mix of subclasses, feats, and potentially magic items. At least at my table. "Because I want it" must be just as poor a decision as "because I don't want it," right?

What it comes down to is that the player has every right to try for a PC concept that they want. What they don't have the right to do is insist that the DM adopt a particular mechanic to get it.

Right: The player wants a concept and asks the DM what approach is acceptable.
Wrong: The player wants a concept and demands the DM use a specific approach.

[MaxWilson]

By player-driven pacing, do you mean something that translates to designing encounters in between sessions and most likely as a result of what the pc's are doing? In which case all the added variance in character power (because of mc) wouldn't cause issues as you can account for it when designing the encounter. But if you want to design the encounters of the whole adventure beforehand (and before you know what the players will be playing), then whatever added customization makes it more difficult for the challenges to be what we initially wanted of them? Yeah, that makes sense. Granted, even without multiclassing it wont be an easy task (with player skill and probably a few spells being the most annoying variables), but yes, multiclassing would be a step in the wrong direction given what we want to do.

Sort of. By player-driven pacing, vs. DM-driven, I mean telegraphing difficulty and then letting players decide which challenge they want their PC to engage with. In a sandbox this means stuff like Here There Be Dragons signs on the maps, areas of increasing difficulty the deeper you go (like classical dungeons), areas guarded by gatekeeper monsters like golems whose metagame function is to proclaim "you must be *this* tall to get in", etc.

In a non-sandbox environment where the DM picks the adventures he wants to run each week and those adventures are a bit linear/non-sandboxy by nature (e.g. MacGuffin Keepaway on a ship with five factions), you do the equivalent by telegraphing at the metagame level: "next week's adventure is a mystery designed for levels 5-8, with a moderate amount of very tough fighting, and little treasure but enough XP to potentially go from level 5 to 6. Bring one of your PCs who can handle it." In this case the players aren't driving the pacing within the adventure but they still drive the pace of difficulty for a given PC by leaving him home until the right adventure comes along. Then it isn't a problem if a player brings a level 3 PC to a level 8 adventure, or a poorly-multiclassed one: they knew what they signed up for and the DM will simply treat them fairly and not feel guilt if they fail the adventure (unless the DM feels they failed due to poor design like the module not giving enough clues to avoid a dead end).

Incidentally, having multiple PCs can help avoid boredom, make stat rolling feel more fair, and make group dynamics feel more realistic since you're not spending all your time with the same people for years on end.

[furby076]

I am 100% OK with multicassing. I treat classes as an ends to a mean. For example in a pathfinder/eberron game I played, my character was a Cleric2/Paladin8/Sacred Exorcist of the Silver Flame 10. In game he was a Paladin of the Silver Flame. Taking cleric just made sure that his s acred exorcist spell levels wouldn't be wasted on paladin, when it could go to cleric (mainly for buffs and out of combat healing). He was awesome.

In 5e, multiclassing sucks a lot because you delay ASIs or lose them entirely depending on your campaign. So I have a straight paladin (thought of sorcadin, but it was too much cheese for me). I could see my mystic change MC at leel 11, but that is only because the mystic is not complete yet..

Net net: i let the players decide, and have DM veto power if it's a stupid cheese build. The player can treat it as an RP thing "Mid game, my rogue found god and went cleric"..or the player can use it as a straight tactical thing to achieve certain cool tricks/abilities.