Reasons to Restrict Multiclassing?

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey guys,

How many of y'all restrict multiclassing?

If y'all do, what reasons do you give (narratively and/or mechanically) for the restrictions?

[Man_Over_Game]

Hey guys,

How many of y'all restrict multiclassing?

If y'all do, what reasons do you give (narratively and/or mechanically) for the restrictions?

I actually open up more multiclassing (as Prestige Options, in the sig).

The only reason I'd block out Multiclassing is for a clear mechanical gain over a narrative one. I'm looking at you, Paladin Sorcerers/Warlocks.


Really, it just boils down to this:

• Don't let people get tons of spell slots for Divine Smite.
• Don't let people get tons of low level spell slots for Shield.
• Don't let casters dip for tons of AC.

Do that, and there's it won't really matter how people multiclass.

[Sparky McDibben]

I've taken a look at the Prestige Options, actually. They look interesting, but it just sort of boils down to a conversation with your DM, right? "Hey, can I have an INT-based Bard?"

But as a DM, what should you do if your Sorcerer goes, "OK, I'd like to do my next 14 levels as Paladin!"

What do you require of that player? What quests would you have them undergo? This assumes no Session Zero conversations, but even then, what boundaries or requirements would you set down?

All of those are restrictions to my mind.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've taken a look at the Prestige Options, actually. They look interesting, but it just sort of boils down to a conversation with your DM, right? "Hey, can I have an INT-based Bard?"

But as a DM, what should you do if your Sorcerer goes, "OK, I'd like to do my next 14 levels as Paladin!"

What do you require of that player? What quests would you have them undergo? This assumes no Session Zero conversations, but even then, what boundaries or requirements would you set down?

All of those are restrictions to my mind.

A simple narrative goal would suffice it enough for me. I might ask to change around how Divine Smite works (to instead include Spell Smites, which I like a lot more than a generic damage spam), but I personally don't have much of a problem with multiclassing. Generally, there's not much of a reason to outside of a few exceptions (EK + Abjurer, Paladin + Warlock/Sorcerer, Monk + Druid), outside of narrative reasons. And 3 or so specific builds aren't enough to be a jerk about it.

In the end, Paladin Sorcerers generally want combat, they want to deal damage, and they like optimization. They usually don't care about events that don't involve combat. And as a DM, it's my job to make sure my players have fun. If I force them to play a game that they don't want to play, then I'm probably not doing a good job.

Although I like the idea that you need to find someone to teach you the Oaths before assuming them yourself, which would make an interesting quest and narrative concept.

----------

As for the Prestige Options, the point is less of "Here's a cool idea", but rather "here's some evidence to support YOUR cool idea". I've refined every single one of those options, and each one is carefully chosen to avoid any overpowered builds. It's basically a way to throw it at your DM and say "well, here's why I SHOULD be able to play an Intelligence Bard".

Of course, I'd be glad to be proven wrong on any of them, so if you (or anyone else) wants to tell me I did something wrong, I'll happily thank you for it.

[Kane0]

The reason I see most often is 'there are people new to the game at the table, let's start things off simple'

A distant second is 'I don't like X + Y multiclass, but don't want to ban just that particular combo so to be fair I'm going to say no multiclassing at all'

I've only participated in one game that altered MCing rules for other reasons, and that was because we were playing a gestalt game.

[Grog Logs]

I start campaigns allowing multiclassing for published classes and subclasses, but banning it for UA classes and subclasses due to UA often being unbalanced. I also ban multiclassing for the purposes of infinite loops (e.g., Coffeelocks).

That being said, I recently allowed a Phoenix Sorcerer to multiclassing into a Hexbade Warlock as it advanced the PC character arc, fits my story, and the Player agreed to not abuse Coffeelock (which is made easier by me already limiting short rests to twice per long rest). So, it really comes down to trusting your Players and your own ability as a DM to talk to the Player in the future if unforseen game balance issues arise.

[Chronos]

My group disallows multiclassing mostly for the sake of simplicity. All of our players have some experience on them now (our first group went all the way from level 1 to 14), but a couple of them still often get confused by a single class's worth of features. And subclasses, backgrounds, and feats (even just within the PHB) between them allow enough narrative space for almost any character concept.

[Imbalance]

I've heard of tying class to level tiers, but I don't think I caught the reasoning, maybe to thwart single dips. The rule was you could only multi after you had five levels of your current class.

[bc56]

So.
I don't like the way multiclassing is set up; I find it needlessly complicated.

But that isn't enough for me to block it.
As a DM, I require a solid explanation of why and how the character multiclasses. This goes double for multiclass options that don't make much lore sense but are mechanically very strong. The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

[JNAProductions]

"So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

Brother-Captain Stern has an answer for that question.

[Eragon123]

It is an optional rule that I feel creates more problems than it solves.

Also while some people will point out that you need to be careful about delaying features, it still feels bad that your concept is either really weak early on or only comes online much later.

Also I hate the mentality of “the last three levels of x don’t offer anything, might as well dip”. That’s a design error of late level features not being impactful enough IMO. (I know that there are reasons for this but still it rubs me the wrong way).

[SirVladamir]

Just starting a game that multi-classing requires taking a feat. When you acquire the feat, you choose the class, the next level must be taken in that class.

The DM wanted to restrict martials dipping everything, and put more of a cost to the warlock/sorcerer, paladin/full caster. Also given the specific timing in taking said levels, reduces the total optimization curve.

Not sure how its going to work out, just working on characters now, going to start at lvl 5 though.

[JNAProductions]

Just starting a game that multi-classing requires taking a feat. When you acquire the feat, you choose the class, the next level must be taken in that class.

The DM wanted to restrict martials dipping everything, and put more of a cost to the warlock/sorcerer, paladin/full caster. Also given the specific timing in taking said levels, reduces the total optimization curve.

Not sure how its going to work out, just working on characters now, going to start at lvl 5 though.

That seems like an unneeded nerf. You're not only restricted, you lose your ASI to do it? So, if I wanted to go, say, Druid/Monk (Kung-Fu Panda!) I'd get my first ASI to actually use at LEVEL 8!

Also, it REALLY screws martial characters, since they really want to hit level 5 for Extra Attack. Meaning the earliest they can multiclass is either after level 8, or they're missing Extra Attack for at least four levels. Either way, not good.

[SirVladamir]

That seems like an unneeded nerf. You're not only restricted, you lose your ASI to do it? So, if I wanted to go, say, Druid/Monk (Kung-Fu Panda!) I'd get my first ASI to actually use at LEVEL 8!

Also, it REALLY screws martial characters, since they really want to hit level 5 for Extra Attack. Meaning the earliest they can multiclass is either after level 8, or they're missing Extra Attack for at least four levels. Either way, not good.

my response as well, but thats what the DM wanted. I'll probably go single class but have been tossing around a few ideas like Fighter 4, rouge 1, fighter to 6 then rest rogue. But the cost seems higher then the return

[Sigreid]

Reasons I could see (even though I don't multi-class)

1. New players and you want to keep things clean for them until they get the hang of it.
2. DM just plain doesn't want to worry about any unforeseen consequences, either good or bad, from the various combos.
3. Table prefers strong single theme characters.
4. Classes are a function of a cast system and you can't arbitrarily switch casts.
5. In the world's cosmology each class has a god of that class and they are jealous gods that would not tolerate the disloyalty of cross training.

I'm sure there's others, but those are the ones I can think of.

[Pharaon]

"So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

While I understand that may be hyperbole, this really isn't how either of those classes work in 5e.

I can easily rectify why a paladin (especially conquest and vengeance, even devotion and ancients) would make some sort of barely-specified deal for power with a sentient weapon to further the goals of their oath. Neither gods nor soul-selling need apply.

[Sigreid]

While I understand that may be hyperbole, this really isn't how either of those classes work in 5e.

I can easily rectify why a paladin (especially conquest and vengeance, even devotion and ancients) would make some sort of barely-specified deal for power with a sentient weapon to further the goals of their oath. Neither gods nor soul-selling need apply.

I considered briefly a paladin/hexblade that formed a pact with the Holy Avenger he would be questing for. Then I took a closer look at paladin and decided it would be better to go all in.

[Particle_Man]

I ban multi-classes and feats and have them use the array for stats and class/background for starting equipment. I don’t want to deal with exploits or complications and I like solidly defined themes. And because there is a dm shortage where I am, I have no problem getting players and they seem to enjoy themselves in any case.

[Laserlight]

I would advise new players to stick to single class, although I wouldn't ban it.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'm working on a setting that functions like a videogame and isekai anime hybrid of sorts.
For now, I have the rule of "no multiclassing", but I might open the ability up to the party after a certain level/story point. As if they've progressed enough to unlock their 'second job' option.

[Pex]

So.
I don't like the way multiclassing is set up; I find it needlessly complicated.

But that isn't enough for me to block it.
As a DM, I require a solid explanation of why and how the character multiclasses. This goes double for multiclass options that don't make much lore sense but are mechanically very strong. The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

He brings light to darkness. He's redeeming a mystical part of the universe to the light by using its power for the cause of all that it holy and proper. Besides, darkness and necrotic energy aren't even inherently evil to be forbidden.

[Yunru]

Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb.

Paladin the class is not Paladin the concept, etc for all the other "classes".

[sithlordnergal]

I've never really seen a reason to restrict multiclassing for any reason. But then again, I'm of the opinion that every class has weaknesses, and its on me to be able to create challenges for those classes. Be it draining resources, hitting their weak points, or forcing them to do stuff they're weak at.

As for all the backstory, I don't fully require it. Sure its nice, and it gives me stuff to work with, but not necessary. Most people can pull out some sort of backstory if they really, really want to try...but I'm fine if they don't.

EDIT: As for all the issues with Paladin multiclasses...I mean I can kinda get the Hexblade...though I see no reason why they can't use a good aligned intelligent blade or smith. As for Sorcerers...Would they need that much backstory? "One day they're swinging a sword, get bonked on the head, and suddenly latent magical power appears and they accidentally toss a firebolt".

Though to be honest, I like my backstory for my Oath of the Ancients/Wild Magic Sorcerer the best. X3 "He gained his sorcerer abilities because his Paladin Aura granted by Rao was corrupted by chaotic magical energies from a temple he had to help clear out. Ever since he has been able to cast spells, though he has no real control over his magic, and will occasionally start sparking. If you see those sparks, a Wild Magic Surge is imminent."

[Trustypeaches]

So.
The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

(A) This makes perfect sense for a conquest or vengeance Paladin to be honest.

(B) Becoming a warlock doesn’t necessarily mean you pledge your soul.

(C) As a DM I’m fine letting anyone change the flavor or narrative elements behind any class or subclass or spell if they can come up with something cool.

[BurgerBeast]

I prefer no multi-classing.

I don’t think about it in terms of “reasons for restricting multi-classing.” Multi-classing is an optional rule. You add optional rules for reasons; you don’t restrict them for reasons. They are “restricted” by default.

As an analogy, we don’t ask people why they restrict the flanking rules or insanity rules from their games.

If you want a reason for not using the optional multi-classing rules, the best explanation I have is that I want players to think about and worry about their builds to the least extent possible. I like players to pick a race, a class, and gear, and get into it. This maximizes the time spent playing the game and minimizes time “wasted” on analysis, theorycrafting, etc.

[Ignimortis]

Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb.

Paladin the class is not Paladin the concept, etc for all the other "classes".

While I agree completely, I also think that it's not the way 5e was designed. I recall the designers talking about strong archetypes and all that.

[Arkhios]

I actually open up more multiclassing (as Prestige Options, in the sig).

The only reason I'd block out Multiclassing is for a clear mechanical gain over a narrative one. I'm looking at you, Paladin Sorcerers/Warlocks.


Really, it just boils down to this:

• Don't let people get tons of spell slots for Divine Smite.
• Don't let people get tons of low level spell slots for Shield.
• Don't let casters dip for tons of AC.

Do that, and there's it won't really matter how people multiclass.

Frankly, I'm a bit amused about this. I have no problem whatsoever if a player wanted to play a Paladin+Sorcerer/Warlock, because if they choose to spend all their resources in one combat, it's their own fault, not mine nor the rest of the group. If majority of the group is capable of continuing after one combat without a short rest, the one who spent all their resources has to learn to deal with it. Period.

Going nova has consequences. Often immediate.

Likewise, Shield lasts only for so long. Burning all your spell slots on it will burn your available resources FAST. Again, it's your choice, therefore your own fault, if you run out of fuel before it's ideal to take a rest.

Tons of AC is good only for so far, if you don't have the hit points to back it up. It doesn't matter if your AC is sky high if you have low amount of hit points, because more often than not, one critical hit can take you out. And critical hit doesn't care about how high your AC is.


That out of the way, I prefer a "golden mean" in regards to restricting multiclasses. As long as it makes sense in narrative, I'm fine with it (both as a DM and a player). However, if it's only because you want to add numbers on top of numbers with little regard if your character concept makes "sense", then we may have a problem. Even so, I'm prepared to sort these problems out with the player (or DM), to reach a narrative that fits the character concept.

[Kalashak]

I've never actually restricted it because I don't want to deal with the whining it would cause, but I always think about doing it. A strong part of the reason I permanently switched to 5th edition was that they put effort into making the classes feel distinct from one another, and soft baked some fictional archetypes into them. I personally like that a lot, and feel like multiclassing weakens it.

[Spiritchaser]

The only reasons I’d restrict multiclass would be if I intentionally wanted to simplify the game or restrict worst case build power disparity. I have never done the latter, but when I first introduced my kids to D&D I more or less did the former indirectly (for their first adventure) by simply not telling them about multiclass or directing them to that section.

[Astofel]

This is purely theoretical since only one person in a game I've run has ever decided to multiclass and that was immediately before they retired the character for story reasons, but my rules on multiclassing are as follows:
1. You can only multiclass with published 5e material, it's well-known that UA is not balanced for multiclassing.
2. To me, classes are not just "bundles of features". If your character sheet says paladin, you have sworn an oath of some description to get those abilities, if it says warlock you have made a pact with an otherworldly being, etc. This means that if you want to multiclass, there must be some kind of in-universe justification for doing this. This does not mean that I'll reject things like the infamous warlock/paladin combo, on the contrary if you come to me at character creation and tell me that you want your character to have levels in both I'll work with you to figure out the fiction behind that, but choosing a class means accepting all the RP baggage that comes with it. This isn't even for balance purposes, I just feel like the fiction and themes of a class should matter.