Is Multiclassing "ruining" the game?

[2D8HP]

....no gaming is better than bad gaming.

.
I've definitely experienced "worse than no" gaming, but having gone from 1993 to 2014 with "no gaming", I accept "not good, but not that bad" over no game.

Part of my problem may be that my view of my 1979 to 1983 games is particularly rose-tinted.

[Vaz]

How am I missing the point if I agree? Cheese is the problem.

It would also belp if you understood cheese.at the expense of gatekeepering, if you think grapple is remotely cheese, y'all should step away from the table and let the adults talk.

[alchahest]

I look back on AD&D quite fondly, I have many, many great memories. But I also had many great memories with 3.x, and 4e, and I'm having so many good moments with 5e.

I don't ever play with strangers, or in competetive environments, though, so that might be why I haven't seen this "game ruining".

[Pex]

I don't think that a lack of Expertise or skills is a MAJOR shortcoming of a bard dipping into rogue. That is one example, in particular, that I had in mind.

As to the rest, I find that a lot of this is easily fixed by the GM simply offering to help alleviate some of these problems by throwing the players a bone or two. Bard needs some offensive cantrips? Here, go ahead and pick a sorcerer cantrip or two. Need armor and shields? You can stay in your class, but what would you be willing to give up of equivalent value for that?

Yes, but IMHO "grappling" is in itself often designed as a cheese build, at least it was in 3E and 5E. I would probably disallow any character designed around grappling.

Why make up house rules to fix something when the game already provides rules to fix something? If the bard wants offensive cantrips, armor, and a shield, what he's willing to give up is taking another level in bard to take a level in hexblade warlock.

[Kobard]

It would also belp if you understood cheese.at the expense of gatekeepering, if you think grapple is remotely cheese, y'all should step away from the table and let the adults talk.

How is this demeaning tone in anyway helpful to this discussion?

Why make up house rules to fix something when the game already provides rules to fix something? If the bard wants offensive cantrips, armor, and a shield, what he's willing to give up is taking another level in bard to take a level in hexblade warlock.

I am not sure if that necessarily "fixes" anything, and sometimes MCing requires that the PC make out-of-character progression choices for the sake of their character, as may be the case with a bard dipping into hexblade warlock. The best advice in this thread has been about open communication between the GM and the player.

[Jerrykhor]

How is this demeaning tone in anyway helpful to this discussion?

I am not sure if that necessarily "fixes" anything, and sometimes MCing requires that the PC make out-of-character progression choices for the sake of their character, as may be the case with a bard dipping into hexblade warlock. The best advice in this thread has been about open communication between the GM and the player.

It might be a tad condescending, but i think we are all a bit tired from talking to people who have 0 knowledge about actual cheese or broken stuff, and still think they are right.

[Kobard]

It might be a tad condescending, but i think we are all a bit tired from talking to people who have 0 knowledge about actual cheese or broken stuff, and still think they are right.

That would be fine if there was an actual discussion on the matter in good faith, but it went straight to condescension and assuming the worst about my person.

[IronMike]

A tentative "Yes" in answer to your question, OP.

I'm newly back to the game, after many years (played 3.5 for a year in early 2000's and AD&D for many years in late '80s). I don't comment much in here because, frankly, I'm not always sure what the hell you guys are talking about. ;)

But I was struck about this multiclassing thing. I read the guides often and note how knowledgeable about the game you guys are. But it still strikes me as odd. After all, one thing I remember clearly from AD&D, and had pointed out to me by my first DM, was that a level 1 fighter was, back then, called a "Veteran." Thus, s/he had already been a fighter for a long enough time to be considered a veteran.

Expounding on this, I find it odd that someone (character-wise) who spent their adolescence learning to become a monk (for example) would then easily pick up warlock, or rogue, or whatever. One of my favorite parts of the game is character generation, and one (of many) improvements over AD&D has been all the emphasis on giving your characters life, from backgrounds to siblings to whatever. To think that a character who has spent a significant part of their life being a monk could in a week or so learn how to be a ranger just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Each class already has specialization options which I think again helps give the character a very particular and specific "life" and differentiates him or her from every other character at the same level. As I gain more XP myself at playing and (soon) DM'ing this wonderful game, I think I will institute a "no-multiclassing" rule.

Thanks all for this discussion and so many other discussions here on GitP. I've learned a lot and I thank you!

[Arkhios]

A tentative "Yes" in answer to your question, OP.

I'm newly back to the game, after many years (played 3.5 for a year in early 2000's and AD&D for many years in late '80s). I don't comment much in here because, frankly, I'm not always sure what the hell you guys are talking about. ;)

But I was struck about this multiclassing thing. I read the guides often and note how knowledgeable about the game you guys are. But it still strikes me as odd. After all, one thing I remember clearly from AD&D, and had pointed out to me by my first DM, was that a level 1 fighter was, back then, called a "Veteran." Thus, s/he had already been a fighter for a long enough time to be considered a veteran.

Expounding on this, I find it odd that someone (character-wise) who spent their adolescence learning to become a monk (for example) would then easily pick up warlock, or rogue, or whatever. One of my favorite parts of the game is character generation, and one (of many) improvements over AD&D has been all the emphasis on giving your characters life, from backgrounds to siblings to whatever. To think that a character who has spent a significant part of their life being a monk could in a week or so learn how to be a ranger just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Each class already has specialization options which I think again helps give the character a very particular and specific "life" and differentiates him or her from every other character at the same level. As I gain more XP myself at playing and (soon) DM'ing this wonderful game, I think I will institute a "no-multiclassing" rule.

Thanks all for this discussion and so many other discussions here on GitP. I've learned a lot and I thank you!

You're welcome, from my part, for whatever it's worth.

I agree from a character's point of view, it seems really odd to be able to become something else than you've been for the past life up until this point, but I tend to believe that with proper training, everyone can change and take upon new talents in addition to whatever you already have (thus, multiclass).
Me and my friend take turns to DM separate campaigns in a shared homebrew setting and we use the optional rule from DMG to require training to advance in level. Training, under this rule, takes (down)time and costs a relatively low amount of gold each time. While it's not required by this system (I'm AFB, so I might remember incorrectly), I kinda like the idea myself that if you wish to take levels in a different class, you need to find a member of that class and train under his/her tutelage before you can gain the first level.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I kinda like the idea myself that if you wish to take levels in a different class, you need to find a member of that class and train under his/her tutelage before you can gain the first level.

I don't, for several reasons.

Two of the most multi-classed groups are sorcerers and warlocks. Neither of those are (in-fiction) trainable classes (at least by other people). Sorcerers have inherent power that manifests differently in each and must be controlled by strength of will and practice. This isn't really amenable to learning from another. Warlocks get their power from individual pacts. In-fiction, this isn't the sort of thing that you learn in a group or from another--you seek it out yourself.

Even clerics are often made, not taught. A cleric very well may have power despite never learning from a temple--one with an urchin background, for example. Clerics are chosen by the gods, they do not choose their god.

It also gates things deceptively behind DM fiat--nothing in the game world exists unless the DM put it there. That means that basically, all this rule says is that you have to persuade the DM to let you find someone that can teach you. Why not cut to the chase and say "The DM decides if multiclassing is appropriate on a case-by-case basis?" (which basis might involve how much pizza you've brought )

[Arkhios]

I don't, for several reasons.

Two of the most multi-classed groups are sorcerers and warlocks. Neither of those are (in-fiction) trainable classes (at least by other people). Sorcerers have inherent power that manifests differently in each and must be controlled by strength of will and practice. This isn't really amenable to learning from another. Warlocks get their power from individual pacts. In-fiction, this isn't the sort of thing that you learn in a group or from another--you seek it out yourself.

Even clerics are often made, not taught. A cleric very well may have power despite never learning from a temple--one with an urchin background, for example. Clerics are chosen by the gods, they do not choose their god.

It also gates things deceptively behind DM fiat--nothing in the game world exists unless the DM put it there. That means that basically, all this rule says is that you have to persuade the DM to let you find someone that can teach you. Why not cut to the chase and say "The DM decides if multiclassing is appropriate on a case-by-case basis?" (which basis might involve how much pizza you've brought )

I forgot to add that there are obvious exceptions to this approach we use. Cleric, Sorcerer, and Warlock are those. I know that sorcery comes from within, and that a warlock gains his/her powers from a pact made on their own volition. Or that becoming a cleric isn't as simple as just attending to the church and becoming devoted.

However, I believe that each of those exceptions can be worked with the DM in a way that is similar to having a "mentor" to get the basic training. A sorcerer might need help understanding his newfound powers and how to learn to control them. Likewise, a player should talk with the DM if they wish to contact an otherwordly patron. I'm not saying it has to be a solo adventure or anything, but a certain amount of commitment from a character's point of view should be involved. Likewise, I think that should you wish to become a cleric, it shouldn't be impossible at your own volition. The book says that clerics can be chosen by the god, but that's not the only path to becoming a cleric. It could involve a spiritual experience of some kind.

I don't mean that the DM's involvement should be thought as a roadblock. I mean that talking with the DM to make something happen is best way to make it immersive. Plus it can be great experience even for the other players to witness such a transition in-game.

[Kobard]

I don't, for several reasons.

Presumably, however, the hypothetical player has alerted the GM in advance that they may intend to MC into warlock or sorcerer in the future. In which case, the GM should be able to work with the PC to plant seeds in the adventure for the character to pursue that path at a later point.

It also gates things deceptively behind DM fiat--nothing in the game world exists unless the DM put it there. That means that basically, all this rule says is that you have to persuade the DM to let you find someone that can teach you. Why not cut to the chase and say "The DM decides if multiclassing is appropriate on a case-by-case basis?" (which basis might involve how much pizza you've brought )

Isn't that already the case? Not necessarily universally, but certainly at many house tables. There will be options, combinations, or rules that are disallowed according to GM fiat.

[Beelzebubba]

Expounding on this, I find it odd that someone (character-wise) who spent their adolescence learning to become a monk (for example) would then easily pick up warlock, or rogue, or whatever. One of my favorite parts of the game is character generation, and one (of many) improvements over AD&D has been all the emphasis on giving your characters life, from backgrounds to siblings to whatever. To think that a character who has spent a significant part of their life being a monk could in a week or so learn how to be a ranger just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Each class already has specialization options which I think again helps give the character a very particular and specific "life" and differentiates him or her from every other character at the same level. As I gain more XP myself at playing and (soon) DM'ing this wonderful game, I think I will institute a "no-multiclassing" rule.

I think if you are big into re-theming, and are a bit flexible about things, I can totally see weird multi-classes like that being just fine.

Like, my Druid is considering a 2-level dip into Sorcerer. Why? Well, my DM is open to tweaking the class a bit with home-brew, so instead of getting tough skin from it turning into Dragon scales, he'd get tree bark. Instead of Draconic, he'd pick up Sylvan, and his cantrips would be Mold Earth / Shape Water / Gust / Control Flames. And so on.

Not the most power-hungry choice in the world, but it would be a wonderful opportunity to take the characterization to a much different place. The Druid becoming truly Fey-touched and elemental, and I could RP a radically different personality.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Presumably, however, the hypothetical player has alerted the GM in advance that they may intend to MC into warlock or sorcerer in the future. In which case, the GM should be able to work with the PC to plant seeds in the adventure for the character to pursue that path at a later point.

I was specifically objecting to the "find someone to teach you" part. That doesn't fit with a whole bunch of ways that characters unlock their power. I like incorporating things into the plot, but having to quest to complete the level up process (while someone else, who is single-classed doesn't) seems awkward and cuts out a lot of possibilities.

Isn't that already the case? Not necessarily universally, but certainly at many house tables. There will be options, combinations, or rules that are disallowed according to GM fiat.

Yes, but the key issue is the deception. If you want to ban something by fiat, say you're going to decide on the spot. Don't hide it behind a fig leaf of "you can't find anyone." That's just a passive-aggressive way of saying "I don't want you to." I'd much prefer to know in advance--even better at session 0.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'd much prefer to know in advance--even better at session 0.

I'd go further, personally. If there are particular character building options that are banned or discouraged, I want to know that at session 0. If that information isn't available but comes out later, I'd consider leaving the game. I have always been consistent about demanding transparency in changes to written rules.

[Arkhios]

having to quest to complete the level up process

I didn't say you'd have to quest for that, did I? Besides, don't you use downtime at all in your games? The lack of downtime use might explain why you lean towards simplified style of level-advancement. Finding someone to "teach/guide/help" you, or whatever, would be part of that downtime required to train for the next level. That downtime requirement for training to gain levels is vague even for those single-classed characters. None of its details are written in stone. The point is merely to work with your DM to make the living world more alive with new potential adventure hooks in form of new NPC contacts or locations that are involved with your character. It makes you belong to that world, instead of existing without attachments.

[Tanarii]

I'd much prefer to know in advance--even better at session 0.

Oh lord yes. All character building rules should be set in a session 0 document.

(Notably I've now found I screwed up by not previously thinking about, and including in the document, if I was going to allow, and bigger issue permit rebuilds, when new generic non-FR sourcebook subclasses were introduced and permitted.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I didn't say you'd have to quest for that, did I? Besides, don't you use downtime at all in your games? The lack of downtime use might explain why you lean towards simplified style of level-advancement. Finding someone to "teach/guide/help" you, or whatever, would be part of that downtime required to train for the next level. That downtime requirement for training to gain levels is vague even for those single-classed characters. None of its details are written in stone. The point is merely to work with your DM to make the living world more alive with new potential adventure hooks in form of new NPC contacts or locations that are involved with your character. It makes you belong to that world, instead of existing without attachments.

One of two things is true--either anyone who chooses to MC can find a "tutor" or they can't always. The first just makes it a fluff requirement, the second leaves it up to DM whim and leads to passive-aggressive DMing.

I wouldn't mind a request--"where do you go or what did you do to learn these new skills?" but that's a narrative requirement, not a mechanical one. It does nothing to reduce the power of multiclassing--it's satisfiable without issue for any set. Any veto power for anything other than "that doesn't exist in this world" just means you're doing things sneakily--pretending to make a world-building requirement that's actually a balancing requirement. Letting players create hooks (which is a good thing) means leaving it up to them and trusting them to do the right thing.

I despise passive-aggressive DMing. If you don't want me to do something, or have a particular set of house-rules or prejudices, tell me upfront. One of the worst experiences I've ever had in gaming was finding out in session ~10 (in the middle of a dungeon) that we were actually using the variant encumbrance rules, when no such thing had been mentioned before. This meant that my dwarven knowledge cleric (with a 10 in STR) suddenly became immobile (or functionally so). It meant I couldn't carry my books (a major part of the character) and still have any kind of medium armor. It meant that my dwarven ability (ignore the STR requirements of heavy armor) was useless. I would have built the character completely differently had I known. Same goes for MC requirements. If you don't want someone to MC, don't let them from session 0. Don't let them go into it thinking (and building) that they're going to MC and then deny them, especially based on balancing reasons hiding as world-building. Especially such that completely goes against the concept of the character.

Sorcerers don't need tutors. Neither do warlocks. Neither do clerics. Or druids. Or...just about anybody. That's a highly restrictive requirement that's also completely unnecessary from a balance perspective. Classes aren't necessarily actual things in the setting. NPCs don't have classes. So finding a "sorcerer" may make no sense in-fiction. Or that sorcerer may have nothing to teach you.

[Kobard]

I was specifically objecting to the "find someone to teach you" part. That doesn't fit with a whole bunch of ways that characters unlock their power. I like incorporating things into the plot, but having to quest to complete the level up process (while someone else, who is single-classed doesn't) seems awkward and cuts out a lot of possibilities.

I think you make reasonable points about how these classes may not fit the narrative of "find someone to teach you," but I do think that warlocks and sorcerers can have their power "unlocked" in such a fashion. A new player may be coming to grips with their sorcery powers, and so another sorcerer who went under similar duress with their powers may be able to help the player who wants to learn how to control their sorcery powers. Likewise, a warlock may not be the only one who has the same patron, as they may belong to an order or cabal dedicated to that patron, which may require some instruction and guidance. The patron themself may even assign or direct the potential warlock to a "mentor."

Yes, but the key issue is the deception. If you want to ban something by fiat, say you're going to decide on the spot. Don't hide it behind a fig leaf of "you can't find anyone." That's just a passive-aggressive way of saying "I don't want you to." I'd much prefer to know in advance--even better at session 0.

I very much agree with that. I find it helps if the GM and players sit together to talk about their basic character concepts and then work together to help each player come up with a (line of best fit) plan for best expressing that concept through the game mechanics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you make reasonable points about how these classes may not fit the narrative of "find someone to teach you," but I do think that warlocks and sorcerers can have their power "unlocked" in such a fashion. A new player may be coming to grips with their sorcery powers, and so another sorcerer who went under similar duress with their powers may be able to help the player who wants to learn how to control their sorcery powers. Likewise, a warlock may not be the only one who has the same patron, as they may belong to an order or cabal dedicated to that patron, which may require some instruction and guidance. The patron themself may even assign or direct the potential warlock to a "mentor."

"Can have" is fine. "Must have" is annoying. In one game I have a warlock player currently whose concept is that the character believes he's the mortal incarnation of a far realms "god" whose patron is his (nautiloid) wife. We still don't know if he's just insane due to contact with that being or telling the truth. But there's no cabal for that patron, no mentor.

[Tanarii]

Sorcerers don't need tutors. Neither do warlocks. Neither do clerics. Or druids. Or...just about anybody. That's a highly restrictive requirement that's also completely unnecessary from a balance perspective. Classes aren't necessarily actual things in the setting. NPCs don't have classes. So finding a "sorcerer" may make no sense in-fiction. Or that sorcerer may have nothing to teach you.

But they may need training time (or practice if you prefer), on a personal level. and the DM might designate extra training time to gain a first level, since he's combining two optional rules already.

(Separate issue from sess 0. Any optional rules in use, which includes both MC rules and training rules for leveling, should still be noted in first sessions.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

But they may need training time (or practice if you prefer), on a personal level. and the DM might designate extra training time to gain a first level, since he's combining two optional rules already.

(Separate issue from sess 0. Any optional rules in use, which includes both MC rules and training rules for leveling, should still be noted in first sessions.)

That rule I have no issue with, as long as it applies globally and is communicated in advance. It's the "you have to find a tutor" part I object to.

[Arkhios]

One of two things is true--either anyone who chooses to MC can find a "tutor" or they can't always. The first just makes it a fluff requirement, the second leaves it up to DM whim and leads to passive-aggressive DMing.

I wouldn't mind a request--"where do you go or what did you do to learn these new skills?" but that's a narrative requirement, not a mechanical one. It does nothing to reduce the power of multiclassing--it's satisfiable without issue for any set. Any veto power for anything other than "that doesn't exist in this world" just means you're doing things sneakily--pretending to make a world-building requirement that's actually a balancing requirement. Letting players create hooks (which is a good thing) means leaving it up to them and trusting them to do the right thing.

I despise passive-aggressive DMing. If you don't want me to do something, or have a particular set of house-rules or prejudices, tell me upfront. One of the worst experiences I've ever had in gaming was finding out in session ~10 (in the middle of a dungeon) that we were actually using the variant encumbrance rules, when no such thing had been mentioned before. This meant that my dwarven knowledge cleric (with a 10 in STR) suddenly became immobile (or functionally so). It meant I couldn't carry my books (a major part of the character) and still have any kind of medium armor. It meant that my dwarven ability (ignore the STR requirements of heavy armor) was useless. I would have built the character completely differently had I known. Same goes for MC requirements. If you don't want someone to MC, don't let them from session 0. Don't let them go into it thinking (and building) that they're going to MC and then deny them, especially based on balancing reasons hiding as world-building. Especially such that completely goes against the concept of the character.

Well this is new. Actively encouraging roleplaying in a roleplaying game is passive-aggressive? I think not. Also, you seem to assume that nothing about this is never said upfront. That's not true. I make it entirely clear during session 0 how I wish potential multiclassing taken care of. I'm not trying to be restrictive. I just want that the player has some in-character reason and in-character commitment to become whatever they want to, not just because they want this and that class feature so that they can be awesome killing machines, or whatever. I, for my part, despise that metagamist approach where mechanical benefits are seen so much more important than in-character immersion and roleplaying aspects.

Sorcerers don't need tutors. Neither do warlocks. Neither do clerics. Or druids. Or...just about anybody. That's a highly restrictive requirement that's also completely unnecessary from a balance perspective. Classes aren't necessarily actual things in the setting. NPCs don't have classes. So finding a "sorcerer" may make no sense in-fiction. Or that sorcerer may have nothing to teach you.

But they may need training time (or practice if you prefer), on a personal level. and the DM might designate extra training time to gain a first level, since he's combining two optional rules already.

(Separate issue from sess 0. Any optional rules in use, which includes both MC rules and training rules for leveling, should still be noted in first sessions.)

And that's exactly what I was trying to convey, but alas, language is a tricky thing and apparently people want to assume the worst about people they don't know over the internet only because they are certain they'll never meet in person and justify being condescending in doing so.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well this is new. Actively encouraging roleplaying in a roleplaying game is passive-aggressive? I think not. Also, you seem to assume that nothing about this is never said upfront. That's not true. I make it entirely clear during session 0 how I wish potential multiclassing taken care of. I'm not trying to be restrictive. I just want that the player has some in-character reason and in-character commitment to become whatever they want to, not just because they want this and that class feature so that they can be awesome killing machines, or whatever. I, for my part, despise that metagamist approach where mechanical benefits are seen so much more important than in-character immersion and roleplaying aspects.

I apologize for coming across too harsh. I was only taking exception to the idea that downtime training must involve finding a trainer. To me, that either doesn't add much ("ok, I find a trainer named Bob") or leaves things completely up to changeable whim or muddles what downtime (off-camera time that's summarized briefly) is with adventuring (on-camera, played out in more detail) is for. It also requires thinking of classes as actual organizations and levels as an actual thing. If I were making a MC fighter X/rogue 1, that person wouldn't be a "fighter at T = T0 who then learns to rogue at T = T1," he's a thuggish person who has finally learned to employ the rogue techniques well enough to put them into practice. He's been practicing all along, but he hasn't mastered it until now.

And that's exactly what I was trying to convey, but alas, language is a tricky thing and apparently people want to assume the worst about people they don't know over the internet only because they are certain they'll never meet in person and justify being condescending in doing so.

I apologize (again) for my statements coming across as a personal attack. They were not intended as such--they were against an idea that I find unpleasant.

[alchahest]

the idea that everything your character levels into has to come from your pre-adventuring days is really bizarre given that there are completely non-magical classes that become casters at level 3. (arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, totem barbarians). do these classes require tutelage between level 2 and 3?

[KorvinStarmast]

do these classes require tutelage between level 2 and 3?

That's not explicitly spelled out in the rules, and I think that's on purpose. A given table will arrive at the answer for that.

I will call back, once again, to the Grey Mouser, archetypical Swords and Sorcery genre thief(rogue), who in the first stories (Fritz Lieber) was an apprentice to a magician before he left to become part of the adventuring duo of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. His back story would nicely support the Arcane Trickster archetype in this edition, in terms of having received schooling in magic from a young age.

[alchahest]

so at your table, would it be a requirement for a fighter to be overt about recieving magical training, or champion training or battlemaster, samurai, or cavalier training?

Likewise, does a wizard have to have years training as an illusionist to select that subclass, or can any wizard select any school?

edit - And, of course, if feats are allowed, do characters need to roleplay a training process for, say, taking resilient, or skilled, or observant? I suppose the same quesiton goes for ASIs - as they are a choice the character can make that does not have any RAW requirements (Same as multiclassing) for in game explanations of things, do you require that people roleplay, for example, reading art carnegie to gain CHA at an ASI, or hitting the gym to increase STR or CON? yoga for DEX?

[Tanarii]

so at your table, would it be a requirement for a fighter to be overt about recieving magical training, or champion training or battlemaster, samurai, or cavalier training?

Likewise, does a wizard have to have years training as an illusionist to select that subclass, or can any wizard select any school?

I considered requiring training briefly. But decided against it because getting to level 3 takes two adventuring days. Which IMC with enforced downtime of 10 days between sessions, still means less than a month. Often it's one in-game day, if a 1st level goes out with a higher level Tier 1 group.

Given 5e's advancement rate, I decided it makes almost no in-game sense to require it for anything below Tier 2, at which point the players would be used to the idea anyway, so ... tossed it completely. Tier 1 leveling must all be figuring out how to do stuff you knew how to do, just didn't use under pressure previously. Or something. *hand wave*

I don't use multiclassing in that campaign, but if I did it'd make just as much "sense" to allow free multiclassing without worrying where it came from too much, especially in Tier 1.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I considered requiring training briefly. But decided against it because getting to level 3 takes two adventuring days. Which IMC with enforced downtime of 10 days between sessions, still means less than a month. Often it's one in-game day, if a 1st level goes out with a higher level Tier 1 group.

Given 5e's advancement rate, I decided it makes almost no in-game sense to require it for anything below Tier 2, at which point the players would be used to the idea anyway, so ... tossed it completely. Tier 1 leveling must all be figuring out how to do stuff you knew how to do, just didn't use under pressure previously. Or something. *hand wave*

I don't use multiclassing in that campaign, but if I did it'd make just as much "sense" to allow free multiclassing without worrying where it came from too much, especially in Tier 1.

It also ties the adventurers to one specific location--if they change home bases they have to re-find all their tutors. My high level party has spent several levels off half-way around the world from their home base dealing with a problem that came up, and due to the nature of it they can't really return home until its solved (which will have taken them from about level 12 through about level 18). Adding enforced downtime (even without the mentor requirement) would mean that that problem (which was somewhat pressing, on a scale of months but not years, and also world-ending in scale) would have had to have been tackled in its entirety at level 12, since there's no way they could take 12 days (or however long) in unfriendly territory training. Not to mention that as soon as they started meddling, the opponents' plans necessarily started adapting and hurrying along.

As a side note--past about level 10, the party members are among the best around (if not the absolute best in their particular specialty). Do they still need a mentor at that point?

[Tanarii]

As a side note--past about level 10, the party members are among the best around (if not the absolute best in their particular specialty). Do they still need a mentor at that point?

In the last edition I ever actually seriously tried to use the training rules, AD&D 1e, at a certain point they could self-train.

Of course, using the AD&D 1e rules the way they were apparently intended required wasting a whole lot of XP before you could find the (on average) 3750 GP needed to level up to second level. Pretty sure Gygax dropped in such ridiculous numbers to slow down power-leveling by higher level PCs, and drain even more loot from Pcs to level up their henchmen.