Forcing multiclassing at higher levels?

[yisopo]

Hi everyone!

I heard many times that running a campaign at higher levels is difficult for several reasons.

So, why not forcing multi-classing after 10 levels in one class?

[Unoriginal]

Hi everyone!

I heard many times that running a campaign at higher levels is difficult for several reasons.

So, why not forcing multi-classing after 10 levels in one class?

"Because that wouldn't address the reasons why higher level campaigns are difficult to run" would be the main answer.

Even the few busted high-level spells aren't what make running high level hard, in 5e.

[lall]

That would work. You’d be dismissed (so lighter load for you as DM), one of the players would volunteer to DM, and the remaining players would carry on as normal.

[Inquisitor]

We were trying to come up with a set of rules where all characters would have to have a (roughly) 50/50 split in classes. On paper it looked like even without the high level busted spells full caster combos would still be really strong with the upcasts available. Things like Cleric/ Druid and Bard/ Sorc wouldn't be hampered too much, and of course Paly/ Sorc is still a thing. On the other hand, martial combos don't seem very good, for the most part, if you have a large number of levels in more than one class.
We were considering allowing multi-attack to stack and/ or delaying cantrip scaling to try and compensate. Once we finish our current campaign our other DM was considering trying something like this, so if we do I'll have to report on how it goes.

[kazaryu]

Hi everyone!

I heard many times that running a campaign at higher levels is difficult for several reasons.

So, why not forcing multi-classing after 10 levels in one class?

i mean, at that point you're just removing one problem and replacing it with another. that problem being that you've now removed high level abilities from the game, many of which players would be excited to play with. So thats a concern you'd have to address.

but unoriginal also makes a good point. while some of the difficulties with high level play are due to the features you get at those levels. they're not the only ones. many of the features that can make high level play difficult are spells/abilities the players get at low levels, but can't fully utilize due to use limitations. most notably, spell slots. but once you get to higher levels you get more spell slots so its easier to spam spells like counterspell, shield and silvery barbs. Even HP falls in this category. High level characters have a LOT of HP, and the means to preserve it. even if they're gimped to 10 levels per class.

another problem many DM's run into is magic items/gold. They will give their players powerful magic items as reward, and then not properly compensate for that in encounter design. They'll also throw tons of gold at the party, essentially giving the party an extra resource to "solve" encounters. not just through like...bribery. but through the ability to go an purchase things that they might otherwise not obtain.

There's no one size fits all solution, because there's no common struggle.

"Because that wouldn't address the reasons why higher level campaigns are difficult to run" would be the main answer.

Even the few busted high-level spells aren't what make running high level hard, in 5e.

this isn't neccesarily true. high level spells are exactly what many people complain about in terms of high level being difficult to run for. spells like teleport and simulacrum. even some 11+ class features like reliable talent or illusory reality. it depends on the person making the complaint, OP's "solution" would address those people's concerns.

[JonBeowulf]

That would work. You’d be dismissed (so lighter load for you as DM), one of the players would volunteer to DM, and the remaining players would carry on as normal.

Not how I was gonna say it, but yeah. This. You can't "force" players to do anything. Heck, I have a hard time "forcing" everyone to show up on time.

At best, those who don't mind the rule would stay while those who don't would stay until the MC rule kicked in and then just leave the campaign.

[Amnestic]

It's certainly a solution. Personally I'm not a fan of it*, unless the campaign is breaching 20th level and I decide to let them go to 21+ and don't want to homebrew epic versions of the classes - but really that's on me for letting them level to 21. Forced multiclassing at 10 also requires you to decide what you want to do with Extra Attack from multiple classes - spellcasters stack their slots to 9th, martials get stuck with a dead level. That's not an unsolvable problem, just something you need to be aware of.

*I like single classes, even when they're not full casters. Especially when they're not full-casters, even. Its rare enough that a campaign gets to max level, but now I won't even be able to enjoy unlimited rages and my +4 str/+4 con on my barbarian? Come on...

Another might be identifying (either pre-emptively or as they come up) specific problem spells/features and changing/banning them. Don't wanna have to deal with Teleport? Simply say it's not available - pick something else to add to your spell list. Annoyed about Simulacrum? Banlist go! Clone? More like "No". Moon druid gets unlimited wildshape? Uhhhh no it doesn't! Boom, problem solved!

Chances are if you explain why you're doing it, your players will understand, whichever you pick.

[JLandan]

Hi everyone!

I heard many times that running a campaign at higher levels is difficult for several reasons.

So, why not forcing multi-classing after 10 levels in one class?

If a campaign is too difficult to run with high level PCs, the problem isn't the PCs, it's the DM.
The DM should run a campaign that caps out at a lower level if higher levels are undesirable.
Most of the campaigns I've run don't go all the way to 20. They usually cap out at 12-14th level. The highest ran to 17th.
Forced character options are not options.

[Theodoxus]

If a campaign is too difficult to run with high level PCs, the problem isn't the PCs, it's the DM.
The DM should run a campaign that caps out at a lower level if higher levels are undesirable.
Most of the campaigns I've run don't go all the way to 20. They usually cap out at 12-14th level. The highest ran to 17th.
Forced character options are not options.

While I agree with the general sentiment (and find running tier 4 games far more of a chore than the fun I get from it), it's pretty ironic that 'forced character options are not options' is being married to 'force the campaign to end prior to level 20'.

While yes, you need buy in from the players to artificially limit things like levels, MC, races, etc (without their buy in, they just won't play) but the same is true with level caps. I guess the players can just keep showing up and RPing their characters past whatever limit you set, but they won't have any new content to play unless one steps up to run the game further. I see that as win/win though - they keep playing, and now you can join in with your own high level character!

[Inquisitor]

If a campaign is too difficult to run with high level PCs, the problem isn't the PCs, it's the DM.
The DM should run a campaign that caps out at a lower level if higher levels are undesirable.
Most of the campaigns I've run don't go all the way to 20. They usually cap out at 12-14th level. The highest ran to 17th.
Forced character options are not options.

If you have optimizers, changing the parameters for character generation does provide a different challenge. If you have players that buy in, I think there would be merit to running some sort of multi-class campaign.

If players don't care about optimization, then sure, more restrictions are just that.

[Psyren]

That would work. You’d be dismissed (so lighter load for you as DM), one of the players would volunteer to DM, and the remaining players would carry on as normal.

I spit my drink, so thanks

There's no one size fits all solution, because there's no common struggle.

Essentially that; for tables where the high level abilities are the biggest problem this will work, for tables that don't want to forego those abilities it won't.

[clash]

I think either way campaigns as written don't really work at those levels, so it comes down to you and your dming and what you find hard about those levels. If high level spells are what you don't want to deal with then this could be an excellent idea. But no matter what you're going to be customizing it based on the parties power level and capabilities.

[Slipjig]

While I agree with the general sentiment (and find running tier 4 games far more of a chore than the fun I get from it), it's pretty ironic that 'forced character options are not options' is being married to 'force the campaign to end prior to level 20'.

Well... the DM dictates when the campaign ends. Or, I guess the players could if they all quit. But if the DM doesn't want to run high-levels, just set the final throwdown with the BBEG around level 12.

I WOULD probably let your players know about your plans, just so they don't plan a build that won't come online until after the campaign ends.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

i mean, at that point you're just removing one problem and replacing it with another. that problem being that you've now removed high level abilities from the game, many of which players would be excited to play with. So thats a concern you'd have to address.

but unoriginal also makes a good point. while some of the difficulties with high level play are due to the features you get at those levels. they're not the only ones. many of the features that can make high level play difficult are spells/abilities the players get at low levels, but can't fully utilize due to use limitations. most notably, spell slots. but once you get to higher levels you get more spell slots so its easier to spam spells like counterspell, shield and silvery barbs. Even HP falls in this category. High level characters have a LOT of HP, and the means to preserve it. even if they're gimped to 10 levels per class.

another problem many DM's run into is magic items/gold. They will give their players powerful magic items as reward, and then not properly compensate for that in encounter design. They'll also throw tons of gold at the party, essentially giving the party an extra resource to "solve" encounters. not just through like...bribery. but through the ability to go an purchase things that they might otherwise not obtain.

There's no one size fits all solution, because there's no common struggle.

this isn't neccesarily true. high level spells are exactly what many people complain about in terms of high level being difficult to run for. spells like teleport and simulacrum. even some 11+ class features like reliable talent or illusory reality. it depends on the person making the complaint, OP's "solution" would address those people's concerns.

The problem isn't that high level spells exist, the problem is that they end up being the only solution.

Yeah a fighter can swing their weapon 4 to 8 times but that's not gonna hit anything when they can't get to the same plane of existence, fly, or get out of the enchantment they've been put in.

Non-spellcasting features don't typically hold up. Magical features sometimes do. Martial features, well, the Rogue gets some good ones (reliable talent is rather great).

The spells are fine, more or less, but the rest of the game isn't there. A few levels 20 classes feel like they could be at level 11.

[JLandan]

While I agree with the general sentiment (and find running tier 4 games far more of a chore than the fun I get from it), it's pretty ironic that 'forced character options are not options' is being married to 'force the campaign to end prior to level 20'.

While yes, you need buy in from the players to artificially limit things like levels, MC, races, etc (without their buy in, they just won't play) but the same is true with level caps. I guess the players can just keep showing up and RPing their characters past whatever limit you set, but they won't have any new content to play unless one steps up to run the game further. I see that as win/win though - they keep playing, and now you can join in with your own high level character!

When I write a campaign, it has a beginning, a middle, and a climactic end. I write it to tell the story and the story goes as far as it goes. I don't say the end is level 20 and go backwards to 1st, then stretch and twist the story to fit all the tiers. So there is no "forced" ending prior to level 20. The adventure ends when it ends. Do you consider an adventure that ends at 20th level to be "forced" because there are no class levels past 20?

The campaign I'm running now is set in The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying, which, oddly enough, all the classes cap at 10th level. So I have two options if I want a campaign past 10th, which I do.
One: the core rules suggest a set XP (each 10k) past 10th (64K) to gain one of several options (craft, fighting style, hit die, reward, sneak attack, virtue). Craft is a spell-like ability, reward is a non-magical boost to weapons/armor, virtue is a feat, sneak attack is another die or gain the feature if you do not have it already.
Two: Standard advancement with multiclass. Requirements might need to be relaxed if the PC doesn't have a 13 in any needed stat.

I prefer option Two. So I suppose this is "forced" multiclass.

[kazaryu]

The problem isn't that high level spells exist, the problem is that they end up being the only solution.

Yeah a fighter can swing their weapon 4 to 8 times but that's not gonna hit anything when they can't get to the same plane of existence, fly, or get out of the enchantment they've been put in.

Non-spellcasting features don't typically hold up. Magical features sometimes do. Martial features, well, the Rogue gets some good ones (reliable talent is rather great).

The spells are fine, more or less, but the rest of the game isn't there. A few levels 20 classes feel like they could be at level 11.

it seems to me you're more talking about why you struggle to play high level campaigns, not run them. because I don't really see how any of this makes things harder for a DM. I *guess* at high levels you gotta be more careful about sending highly mobile enemies against a party that hasn't brought along their own mobility? But flying monsters aren't even exclusive to high level play, and the "struggle" of ensuring you don't accidentally make an encounter harder than you intend because the chosen monster happens to counter your party isn't exclusive to flying creatures...or high level play.

I mean, i also disagree with you about the point you're making...but im not sure I understand how it relates to what i was saying.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

it seems to me you're more talking about why you struggle to play high level campaigns, not run them. because I don't really see how any of this makes things harder for a DM. I *guess* at high levels you gotta be more careful about sending highly mobile enemies against a party that hasn't brought along their own mobility? But flying monsters aren't even exclusive to high level play, and the "struggle" of ensuring you don't accidentally make an encounter harder than you intend because the chosen monster happens to counter your party isn't exclusive to flying creatures...or high level play.

I mean, i also disagree with you about the point you're making...but im not sure I understand how it relates to what i was saying.

I find it funny that I never said that I struggle to play high level games. I don't know if you're projecting or something but whatever the case you should probably stick to the topic instead of trying to bait a tangent just because I didn't wholly agree with the original point.


Back on topic...

It's harder for the DM because plenty of classes don't get the tools that the game pretty much assumes they will, and even must have.

Even the magical, but not spell-casting, classes fall behind when the target of their ire isn't a sitting duck. Barbarians are fun and all but they don't get enough options to deal with high level problems. Rangers? Basically a minion for the spell-casters.

Not having everyone playing by the same rules makes it tougher to DM. This is why DMing 4e is such a breeze, everyone is playing the same game. The classes are (mostly) all "haves" and not "haves not". If you need to teleport across the world, both the Wizard and Fighter will need a Ritual performed. Sure the Wizard will be able to do it themselves, but they still need to get sad ritual. This isn't the case in 5e, rituals aren't part of the base rules in the same capacity.

[kazaryu]

I find it funny that I never said that I struggle to play high level games. I don't know if you're projecting or something but whatever the case you should probably stick to the topic instead of trying to bait a tangent just because I didn't wholly agree with the original point.


Back on topic...

It's harder for the DM because plenty of classes don't get the tools that the game pretty much assumes they will, and even must have.

Even the magical, but not spell-casting, classes fall behind when the target of their ire isn't a sitting duck. Barbarians are fun and all but they don't get enough options to deal with high level problems. Rangers? Basically a minion for the spell-casters.

Not having everyone playing by the same rules makes it tougher to DM. This is why DMing 4e is such a breeze, everyone is playing the same game. The classes are (mostly) all "haves" and not "haves not". If you need to teleport across the world, both the Wizard and Fighter will need a Ritual performed. Sure the Wizard will be able to do it themselves, but they still need to get sad ritual. This isn't the case in 5e, rituals aren't part of the base rules in the same capacity.

"The problem isn't that high level spells exist, the problem is that they end up being the only solution."

if you're not talking about your own struggles fair enough, thats just how it came across to me. i've literally never seen anyone (until now) complain about those types of things from a DM perspective. only ever from a general balance perspective.

As for the rest: im not gonna sit here and debate about any of what you said. Its not a struggle i've ever heard of from a DM perspective, but if its something you think is a problem for DMing high level play then ok. its just another on the list.

but why reply to me specifically? your original post made it seem like you were trying to correct something i said, But i don't see what.

[yisopo]

There's no one size fits all solution, because there's no common struggle.

Ok, this is true. But it is so universally true that can potentially kills every debate, avoiding the search for solutions for any problem.

That would work. You’d be dismissed (so lighter load for you as DM), one of the players would volunteer to DM, and the remaining players would carry on as normal.

Maybe or maybe not. I think the tables that have this problem (difficulty to run/play high-level adventure) and that accept this simple solution, they will remove or mitigate the problem.

another problem many DM's run into is magic items/gold. They will give their players powerful magic items as reward, and then not properly compensate for that in encounter design. They'll also throw tons of gold at the party, essentially giving the party an extra resource to "solve" encounters. not just through like...bribery. but through the ability to go an purchase things that they might otherwise not obtain.

This problem can be easily fixed if the table accepts the problem and the solution. But I still think my proposal should at least mitigate the problem.

"Because that wouldn't address the reasons why higher level campaigns are difficult to run" would be the main answer.

Even the few busted high-level spells aren't what make running high level hard, in 5e.

I think with my proposal we at least greatly mitigate the problem. And the great benefit of it is that it is very simple to describe and understand. You don't need a dense page of many little house-rules.

Forced multiclassing at 10 also requires you to decide what you want to do with Extra Attack from multiple classes - spellcasters stack their slots to 9th, martials get stuck with a dead level. That's not an unsolvable problem, just something you need to be aware of.

Sorry I just assumed it, but yes, I would let stack Extra Attacks.

Another might be identifying (either pre-emptively or as they come up) specific problem spells/features and changing/banning them. Don't wanna have to deal with Teleport? Simply say it's not available - pick something else to add to your spell list. Annoyed about Simulacrum? Banlist go! Clone? More like "No". Moon druid gets unlimited wildshape? Uhhhh no it doesn't! Boom, problem solved!

Yes, the opposite approach of mine would be a list of banned/changed rules and that is fine. But I like the simplicity of my proposal.

If a campaign is too difficult to run with high level PCs, the problem isn't the PCs, it's the DM.
The DM should run a campaign that caps out at a lower level if higher levels are undesirable.
Most of the campaigns I've run don't go all the way to 20. They usually cap out at 12-14th level. The highest ran to 17th.
Forced character options are not options.

The problem may be the PCs or may be the DM, but from my point of view this is not relevant here. We have a problem and we want to solve it: we are not able to play/run a high-level adventure but we want to. How? This is my simple solution.

While I agree with the general sentiment (and find running tier 4 games far more of a chore than the fun I get from it), it's pretty ironic that 'forced character options are not options' is being married to 'force the campaign to end prior to level 20'.

This! :-D

[Unoriginal]

I think with my proposal we at least greatly mitigate the problem.

Alright, let me put it this way:

What is the problem you think your proposal greatly mitigate, specifically?

we are not able to play/run a high-level adventure but we want to.

Who said anything about being unable?

Anyone who can play is able to play a high-level adventure. Anyone who can DM can DM a high-level adventure.

There are just some tedious parts for the unprepared.

[Amnestic]

Sorry I just assumed it, but yes, I would let stack Extra Attacks.

If Extra Attack stacks does that mean Paladin 5/Ranger 5/Fighter 5/Barbarian 5 gets four attacks per turn?

[LudicSavant]

So, why not forcing multi-classing after 10 levels in one class?

If we're gonna homebrew, why not give Barbarians good abilities after level 10?

But to more directly address this: It's because forcing multiclassing doesn't really fix balance, it just makes the balance different. Expect to see a lot more dips in Gloomstalker or Peace Cleric or Hexblade or what-have-you in order to fill out levels. And Hexbardadins and the like.

Also, just because running high level games is more difficult doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. Campaigns that run all the way through to high level are a blast.

[yisopo]

Alright, let me put it this way:

What is the problem you think your proposal greatly mitigate, specifically?

The unbalance of the game at high levels. Or, more in general, the difficulties some players/DMs face at those levels.

Who said anything about being unable?

Anyone who can play is able to play a high-level adventure. Anyone who can DM can DM a high-level adventure.

With "unable" I was referring to the difficulties we can find running/playing at those level.

If Extra Attack stacks does that mean Paladin 5/Ranger 5/Fighter 5/Barbarian 5 gets four attacks per turn?

Yes. (You can limit to only two-class multiclassing, if you want.)

If we're gonna homebrew, why not give Barbarians good abilities after level 10?

I don't dismiss this solution. Homebrewing classes and spells can be a solution, but more demanding. But, still, legit.

But to more directly address this: It's because forcing multiclassing doesn't really fix balance, it just makes the balance different. Expect to see a lot more dips in Gloomstalker or Peace Cleric or Hexblade or what-have-you in order to fill out levels. And Hexbardadins and the like.

Do you think this is a problem? I'm asking genuinely.

Also, just because running high level games is more difficult doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it. Campaigns that run all the way through to high level are a blast.

I agree on this point. But this path is very difficult for some players/DMs. So I was wondering if my proposal could at least mitigate the unbalance/difficulties on those levels.

[Zombimode]

The unbalance of the game at high levels. Or, more in general, the difficulties some players/DMs face at those levels.

I think Unoriginals question was more concerned about the specifics.

So far you have only stated that you think runing and playing a game in the double digits is more difficult than before and that your proposed change will make it less difficult.

You have not provided any insight in why you think playing and GMing for levels 10-20 is more difficult or how your idea could help with that.

Maybe you could elaborate a bit on this?

[starwolf]

The question is too open ended.
I heard the sky is blue....
Have you gone outside and looked at it?
What problem is YOUR table experiencing that needs to be solved.

Some folks claims there a high level problem, some claim there's a martial/caster disparity.
Hogwash.
It's a particular table issue or a white room thought experiment.
IE, is YOUR table having any problem?

Has your table advanced to where your having issues with higher levels?

You're asking a forum with a huge varied experience, with vastly different table experiences. (And strong opinions regarding such)

In my experience: four campaigns that reached high level, two into epic levels; none of which had any issues.
The exception being the first time when the DM was learning how to adjust things for higher levels...no different than when they learned to DM lower levels.
Each tier has new challenges. New critters, bigger scale/scope, etc.
That experience is table dependent as well: each group has it's own preferences, style, level of optimization, etc.

If you haven't been in a high level adventure yet, don't worry about it and just enjoy the ride. High level adventures are a blast.
Don't solve problems that don't exist.
In session zero and then as you reach T3/4 have a quick session re-zero with the group and as a group to inform/remind that if something broken is being exploited it will be adjusted. (Should be standard group knowledge/DM procedure, but sometimes bears repeating)

Knowledge is knowing the potential problems exist, wisdom is knowing which and when to apply it to your table IF it ever comes up.

[JLandan]

If Extra Attack stacks does that mean Paladin 5/Ranger 5/Fighter 5/Barbarian 5 gets four attacks per turn?

The example you present would be five attacks per turn. Base attack plus four Extra Attacks.

[Amnestic]

The example you present would be five attacks per turn. Base attack plus four Extra Attacks.

Ah, but you see, I cannot count.

[LudicSavant]

I agree on this point. But this path is very difficult for some players/DMs. So I was wondering if my proposal could at least mitigate the unbalance/difficulties on those levels.

Balance-wise, people will just take the high level builds that already wanted to multiclass before 11. Aside from that, the most likely impact is that some people will feel sad about having fewer options, not getting to experience some of the unique and fun bits of high level play, and seeing the standard dip mix classes (e.g. gloom/peace/bm/hexblade/etc) even more often than they already do -- including multiples of them used together on the same character, since there's no higher breakpoints to shoot for.

[sithlordnergal]

Honestly, I'm not sure why people have problems with running high level stuff. My favorite level range to run with is 15-20. Sure, the players have insane abilities that can break the game...but so what? You can now use encounters that break the game. You can make adventures that break that game. Lean into it all, let your players play with those broken abilities/spells, and use broken abilities/spells of your own. No need to hold back. Toss on added effects too. That Ancient Dragon? Now it can Smite like a Paladin and has a couple of bonus auras.


That said, forced multiclassing can work. I'd talk to the table beforehand and let them know that's what you're planning. I'd also allow Extra Attack to stack, but in a specific way. Like you get a bonus extra attack at level 6 on a martial with Extra Attack. It'll prevent a character from getting four attacks, and somewhat keeps pace with a regular fighter.

[kazaryu]

Ok, this is true. But it is so universally true that can potentially kills every debate, avoiding the search for solutions for any problem.

sure, but your initial post wasn't about a general search for a specific problem. it was proposed specific solution to a general problem. (the statement you quoted was also not all that i said). So saying "that solution is too specific to work" is perfectly valid.



That aside, im curious, have you actually tried running high level DnD, and had a struggle? if so what was that specific struggle? because "high level dnd is hard to run/play" isn't actually a general problem. For some groups/DM's it isn't a problem at all. But even for groups that struggle with high level play there's several distinct, and largely independent, problems that such groups encounter. Either individually or ala carte. Thats what i was getting at. Some groups struggle because spells like teleport remove the travel aspect of the game,and so the feel of the game can change. for them your solution works so long as you also remove their ability to get an NPC to cast those spells, and remove the ability to get spell scrolls in some way. But your solution is a bad solution for that group because its overly broad. it removes aspects of the game they may otherwise enjoy in addition to "solving" their problem.

So partly what im trying to get out of you is what specific problem are you trying to solve? because "playing/DMing for a high level party is hard" isn't a problem. its a general description for a disparate group of problems. and if you've not played at those levels and struggled, and are instead trying to anticipate problems, I assure you, not everyone has them. you just don't hear as much from the people that don't struggle with high level play, because they don't have any problems that need solutions. So if you don't have a specific problem, i'd suggest not worrying about it. "balance" can be a problem, but it isn't inherently. Its perfectly possible to reach high levels and have PC's that weren't built in such a way that it causes problems.