Reasons to Restrict Multiclassing?

[Corran]

Actually, I was trying for the reverse.
Where the Explanation, Background, and History was used for how the Character became that Class/es.

But, to answer your question, no - while I encourage 'training' to gain new Class abilities and powers; but most of the time it's not really required.

So would you require more justification from a player wanting to go with a battlemaster/transmuter, than from a player who wants to go with an EK? If yes, why?

I am not sold that multiclassing creates more concepts for players to choose from. It certainly allows for refining these concepts to suit the players' wants for their concept, assuming their wants are specific enough. And it certainly allows more creativity in character building, concept aside. What puzzles me is why multiclassing is a taboo for some DM's. This is not 3e.

[Arkhios]

Sorcerer is one of the easiest classes to justify through IC explanation, because the class represents an inherent magical ability — obtainable by various means, though the most common is "it's in their blood".

There's no one universal and "correct" way to do it, however. Each class has their own baggage to consider, and while sorcerer can be applied to just about any concept "by heritage", something like druid may be far more difficult, if you think about it. Druids are rather isolationist and even secretive group. That they normally won't teach Druidic language to anyone who is not a druid should alone be a proof of that.

[Boci]

There's no one universally appropriate way to do it, however. Each class has their own baggage to consider, and while sorcerer can be applied to just about any concept by heritage, something like druid is far more difficult, if you think about it. Druids are rather isolationist and even secretive group. That they normally won't teach Druidic language to anyone who is not a druid should alone be a proof of that.

The druid needs to end up joining the party, so they cannot be that isolationist. And even then, you can start as a druide and then go into the second class. "I was raised in a small clan of the Taupi forests, offered to a druid circle at a young age due to my ability to channel and invoke the powers of nature. I left there after joining the moon circle, but in civilization a lot of the truth I had been taught started to buckle. The cities infringe upon the ancient laws of nature, and to move in this world I needed to learn, to adapt, so I started to study the way of the city, with its currents and lifeweb."

[Angelalex242]

I personally play single class characters because I like toying with high end abilities at higher tiers.

A sorcadin may be mechanically better, but it's just fun to break out that level 20 Paladin Capstone (Eldritch Champion, from Oath of the Ancients) and say, "I go super Saiyan!"

Even better, I was playing with a guy who was a ridiculously twinked out Diviner Wizard. (like, 12 portents twinked out. This was Adventure League by the way)

What'd he do?

Feed me crits. Feed me lots of crits. Enemies died quickly.

The other less twinked out Diviner also spent his time feeding me crits.

[Thrudd]

Yes but you can have all that and still not have the "fluff" and "lore" or the class (of which there isn't any boundaries on anyway, just examples of various ways to play it). You can be a ranger like Aragon and be a "Paladin" on your sheet. You can be a powerful sorcerer drawing on the power of your family's blood and be a "Warlock" on your sheet. You can be a cleric who quotes scriptures and tends to the sick and be a "Bard" (or even a "Rogue") on your sheet. You can be a fighter who's earned great renown for their martial prowess and code of conduit, and be a "Paladin" on your sheet.
Etc.

This is all setting and DM dependent. If Paladin powers in my setting derive from a deity, then a character that doesn't follow the deity wouldn't have Paladin powers. You don't just get to "refluff". The degree of flexibility with the classes you are suggesting is not something that should be expected from all DMs and settings. I like to have most classes tied to specific traditions and professions in-world, or at least have an established manner and time frame in which those abilities are normally taught and acquired. IE, gaining the proficiencies required to be a fighter takes years of combat training with various weapons and armor. People don't just suddenly become proficient with every weapon and armor that exists. Becoming a wizard or cleric takes years of apprenticeship. Even mastering one's innate sorcerous powers to the point that you have level 1 abilities takes years of practice.

Gaining new class features and spells is different, many of those can be justified by on-the-job training and the advances made by someone who is already proficient in their profession. Some features do imply some training time, and that is why leveling up should require some downtime, imo, a couple weeks at least.

[Lance Tankmen]

I don't allow multi-classing for a couple reasons

1)I honestly don't like it. I figure I should put that as one.

2)90% of the time its a power move, to the people asking for narrative before multi-classing, most people are capable of that, its not hard to be a paladin but during the night hear a voice , you think its your god and you agree , boom warlock. Sorcerer is even easier, oh I woke up and boom latent magic, its not rocket science to come up with a story to min-max. the other 10% is honest good folk who either have no idea they are gimping themselves or honestly do it for role play purposes.

3)I feel single class + feats can generally get you what you want to play, of course someone can hard left field this one and say they want to play some off the wall thing but for the most part there's an archtype + feats/races to get you what you want.

4)The argument that the level 20 single class beats you is subjective to tables, my games generally went from 1-10ish due to moving(former military).

5)I do 4d6 drop lowest, that further unbalances multi-classing, as you may not need ASI or feats (Vhuman also) . And my stance on rolling is its not a variant option while multi-classing is.

[Pex]

So would you require more justification from a player wanting to go with a battlemaster/transmuter, than from a player who wants to go with an EK? If yes, why?

I am not sold that multiclassing creates more concepts for players to choose from. It certainly allows for refining these concepts to suit the players' wants for their concept, assuming their wants are specific enough. And it certainly allows more creativity in character building, concept aside. What puzzles me is why multiclassing is a taboo for some DM's. This is not 3e.

Cynical answer.

Because some DMs are afraid of PCs getting away with something. They don't like PCs getting power for free or the illusion of free. They have a knee jerk reaction against a PC doing something awesome. With 5E making multiclassing optional, they grab onto it as the game giving them permission to deny power to players.

[Corran]

Cynical answer.

Because some DMs are afraid of PCs getting away with something. They don't like PCs getting power for free or the illusion of free. They have a knee jerk reaction against a PC doing something awesome. With 5E making multiclassing optional, they grab onto it as the game giving them permission to deny power to players.

Well, I cannot read minds, but that's what I would put my money on. The funny thing is, at least how I see it, they are not denying power. They are denying options. It's not any different, at least the way I see it, to restricting half the archetypes in the phb.

[suplee215]

I do so because I prefer narritive. I prefer my multiclass players to have a reason behind it and not be trying to break the game. The only multiclass I have at my table is a Wizard/warlock who found a book with a very powerful entity inside of it.

[Boci]

I do so because I prefer narritive. I prefer my multiclass players to have a reason behind it and not be trying to break the game. The only multiclass I have at my table is a Wizard/warlock who found a book with a very powerful entity inside of it.

How big a reason do you need? Would longer versions of the following backstories be permissible in your games:

1. "My character's ancestor was a dragon, whilst he fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, so I am running him as a sorceror/fighter if that's okay,"

2. "My character was an assassin who became obsessed with the idea of using animals forms to catch his mark offguard. Using his skill at disguise he infiltrated a druid circle and gained there trust, then fled once they had learned what he needed. If its okay I want him to be a moon druid 2 / rogue (assassin) x"

3. "My character was a noble and as traditional attended the Academy of Our Radient lady in the capital, however he was one of the few who then joined the army, becoming a war wizard. Since the enemy had taken to targetting wizards, he also studied weapon training and how to wear armour. If its okay I'd run him as a wizard/fighter"

4. "My character was a foundling riase in the temple as a cleric rarely leaving the compound until his 16th birthday. Once out in the real world however the teachings he had grown up with started to seem a little trite. As he explored the land and got a feel for everyday life he diversified his talents, picking up singing, and a new form of magic. If its okay, I'd run him as a cleric/bard,"

[Corran]

I do so because I prefer narritive. I prefer my multiclass players to have a reason behind it and not be trying to break the game. The only multiclass I have at my table is a Wizard/warlock who found a book with a very powerful entity inside of it.

You prefer narrative to what? What's the competition here?
If I was worried that my players were trying to break the game, I would probably restrict gameplay till the mid levels or I would ban fullcasters. Or better yet, certain spells. Or even better yet, certain spell interactions.
If one of my players told me that he will break the game because of multiclassing, I would smile.

[Tanarii]

I object! DMs don't restrict multiclassing. They graciously permit it, should they so choose!

My primary campaign, I do not include the optional multiclassing or feats rules. My reasons, in priority order:
- I wanted a more oldschool feal to the campaign, and 3e-style multiclassing and feats don't fit
- it's open table, I don't care to spend the time necessary to police it, nor deal with players asking why this combo or feat is okay but that one isn't.
- I wanted it to be different from AL. If you want those rules, there is AL table playing right now over there *wave hand to next table *
- Over a decade of running and playing official play, my experience is hybrid/multiclassing is primarily, although not exclusively, used by cheesers. This is mostly icing on the cake though.

I've run plenty of side-games in which I allow it though. Its not inherently busted.

[JNAProductions]

I don't allow multi-classing for a couple reasons

1)I honestly don't like it. I figure I should put that as one.

And you know what? That is totally fine. No different from a DM saying "I don't like running for evil PCs, so play Neutral at worst, please."

So long as you're upfront about no multiclassing, then they can either play a single class or find another table.

I disagree with your opinion, but it's a perfectly valid one.

[Corran]

And you know what? That is totally fine. No different from a DM saying "I don't like running for evil PCs, so play Neutral at worst, please."

So long as you're upfront about no multiclassing, then they can either play a single class or find another table.

I disagree with your opinion, but it's a perfectly valid one.

I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.

[Boci]

I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.

Sure it is, as long as you are upfront about it. Some players may not like it, but there's other groups for them. Monk is one of the more common classes to ban of the core set, because unlike the others it distinctly eastern in its flavour.

Besides, designing a low magic game, or a court intriege setting is "force your preferences onto others". Its kinda the Dm's job.

[JNAProductions]

I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.

I suppose a difference there is that Monks are a core part of the system, while multiclassing is an optional (if commonly used) rule.

But, I bolded the key word there. "Force." If you're actually FORCING people to play D&D with your houserules, then yeah, that's awful, but generally people play D&D because they WANT to.

Now, I suppose Lance could be the only DM for 1,000 miles and thus the only option if their players want to play D&D, but even then, they're not being FORCED to play D&D. They're choosing to.

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey all, Original Poster here.

So this has been a very productive conversation. I've seen a lot of reasons to restrict multi-classing:

1) Game balance (people who multi-class as a power move)
2) System mastery (when players are inexperienced)
3) Table priorities (the DM and other players prioritize narrative over story, and multi-classing does not make sense)
4) Setting reasons (DM determines that in the setting, multi-classing does not make sense)

The main arguments for multi-classing:
1) It expands player agency, allowing them more options to achieve a certain concept
2) Player agency is a self-evident good (the "don't yuck my yum" defense)

I think, after listening to this, here's where I'll land:

I'll allow multi-classing at my table. Even if you're obviously doing it because you want to optimize a character, I'll allow it. However, you will be required to RP through multi-class training, because why would I waste a perfectly good adventure hook? As such, you will need to tell me at least one level ahead of your dip what you want to dip, why, and how it fits into your character. Second, you should be aware that your enemies after a bit will realize you are very optimized for a specific situation, and that they will adjust their tactics accordingly. Third, you should expect there to be conflict between your two classes, either narratively, mechanically, or ideally, both.

Example 1: The Rogue/Druid

Someone in one of these posts made kind of an interesting character idea - a rogue that wanted to learn wild shape to murder people better. OK, that's interesting. So you now have to RP through fooling a bunch of druids (with their high Insight scores), and gaining a couple levels in this class. And when you leave, you take the secrets those same druids swore to defend with their very lives (ideally, we'd RP a scene just before the druids induct you where they explain how freakishly important to them these secrets are). And now, we have conflict! :)

Example 2: The Fighter/Wizard

Someone else mentioned multi-classing between Fighter and Wizard. So now you have some mechanical conflict between what your ideal action options are - cast or slash? For this I would probably disallow EK as a Fighter sub-class; presumably if you wanted to make a gish you would have gone that route. Meanwhile, your NPC contacts are pressuring you to pick a side between the pit fighters and the Mage's Guild. Conflict!

Example 3: The Paladin/Warlock
For this, you should expect there to be some severe issues. For one thing, you have now sworn two binding oaths to two very different powers. And while you might not see a problem now, that doesn't mean there won't be one. Thus, as a DM, I should be trying to force this player onto the horns of a dilemma - which oath do you break? This is one of those where I would want the player to spell out very specifically what each of these pacts does, and the consequences for breaking them. After all, maybe you can't lose your powers. But you can damn sure be dragged off to Mechanus by a marut for playing fast and loose with them. And thusly, conflict!

The common thread here should be obvious - how do I use multi-classing to drive conflict in the game, up tension and stakes for the player, and allow you to play your ridiculously OP build without you feeling like you're either playing on easy mode or getting away with something. I don't like to nerf, but I do like to let my players get in over their heads by acting in character.

And anyone who cries foul, or says that I'm restricting player agency, or being a hypocrite, allow me to simply say:

I don't care.

[JNAProductions]

So, let's say I go Druid into Ranger.

What's the conflict there?

Or I go Sorcerer into Bard.

Where's that conflict?

Or Cleric into Paladin.

Point is, while I'd say it's totally fine to have conflict based on character decisions, don't FORCE it. If my Cleric of Helm decides to pick up a more martial bent and start smiting foes as a Paladin, I don't see any reason to add conflict to that.

[Boci]

Someone else mentioned multi-classing between Fighter and Wizard. So now you have some mechanical conflict between what your ideal action options are - cast or slash? For this I would probably disallow EK as a Fighter sub-class; presumably if you wanted to make a gish you would have gone that route. Meanwhile, your NPC contacts are pressuring you to pick a side between the pit fighters and the Mage's Guild. Conflict!

I'm with JNAProductions on this. The conflict for the druid/rogue and warlock/paladin work, but this just seems forced. Pitfighters are at best borderline criminals who hang out in seedier taverns and hambling halls with little inherant unity between them whilst the mage guild would be a more united place of learning. Complelty diferent people and different social groups. How did they end up in a conflict, and it seems like this is one the pit fighters lose badly, since they are scum of society whilst the mage guild is presumable at least somewhat respected. And why does my character care? They weren't a pitfighter, they were an actual war fighter, and besides, this seems like city politics, which I became an adventurer to avoid.

[Corran]

I suppose a difference there is that Monks are a core part of the system, while multiclassing is an optional (if commonly used) rule.

But, I bolded the key word there. "Force." If you're actually FORCING people to play D&D with your houserules, then yeah, that's awful, but generally people play D&D because they WANT to.

Now, I suppose Lance could be the only DM for 1,000 miles and thus the only option if their players want to play D&D, but even then, they're not being FORCED to play D&D. They're choosing to.

JNAProductions, at this point we are talking about completely different things. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. What I am saying, and I will phrase it a lot more generally, is this. If someone is put in a position where allowed to make decisions that influence others as well, and the reason behind the decision making process is 'personal preference while at the same time disregarding everyone else's preferences', then that's problematic in my eyes. The reasoning behind the decision making process is invalid (nevermind if the decision is actually good or bad).

[Boci]

JNAProductions, at this point we are talking about completely different things. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. What I am saying, and I will phrase it a lot more generally, is this. If someone is put in a position where allowed to make decisions that influence others as well, and the reason behind the decision making process is 'personal preference while at the same time disregarding everyone else's preferences', then that's problematic in my eyes. The reasoning behind the decision making process is invalid (nevermind if the decision is actually good or bad).

So a low magic setting where full casters aren't allowed or a primtive one were full metal armour is removed and the weapon system reworked are both bad if the DM's doing it for a personal preferance? Why?

[Corran]

So a low magic setting where full casters aren't allowed or a primtive one were full metal armour is removed and the weapon system reworked are both bad if the DM's doing it for a personal preferance? Why?

No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did. I wont explain why.

[JNAProductions]

No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did.

And I can agree to that.

Can you agree that there's a difference between banning a basic weapon choice and not allowing an optional rule?

Especially since more reasons that just "I don't like it" were given. That's just one I felt needed to be addressed more.

[Boci]

No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did.

So then it can be okay for a DM to do something based on personal preference, just not always. As for multiclassing, it does effect the feel of the game, so a personal preference for the single-class only feel sound valid, plus as mentioned, its technically that the DM has to allow it, as a varient rule its not presumed default by the system.

Edit: Whilst I've never heard of a DM ban the greataxe, there was a single weapon in 3.5 that was sometimes banned by DMs: the spiked chain. It was largely done for personal preference by the DM (it didn't fit the aethetics of the largerly western D&D game, nor did it make too much sense for a spike chain to be the best weapon in the game. Move aside sword and glaives, the adult weapon has arrieved). Was that bad?

[Sparky McDibben]

I'm with JNAProductions on this. The conflict for the druid/rogue and warlock/paladin work, but this just seems forced.

Fair. More on your questions below, but here's the heart of the matter: I understand not everyone wants conflict to drive character, but it does. Even something thematically consistent like JNA's cleric/paladin dip has hooks, though they may be internal. For example, if you want to adopt a more militant expression of your faith, cool! But now your dreams are haunted by vague visions, and you receive troublingly inconsistent omens. What does your god want you to be: a knight or a priest? How can you know? One way: go out into the world and find out for yourself.

As to your questions my friend, in my setting the magi are not academics, but are a powerful political faction (I draw a lot of inspiration from Sapkowski's work in this regard). And the pit fighters are not rabble, but a skilled class of professionals who duel for sport and hire themselves out as contractors. :)

[Corran]

And I can agree to that.

Can you agree that there's a difference between banning a basic weapon choice and not allowing an optional rule?

Especially since more reasons that just "I don't like it" were given. That's just one I felt needed to be addressed more.

Yes, there is certainly a difference between taking away or rewriting basic rules and not including optional rules. Essentially what is optional and what is not, shapes to some extent my expectations of a dnd campaign. But it does not define them. And I will always react to changes based on my expectations (which in the end they might even be unreasonable, but they are what they are). In the subject of multiclassing, honestly, if a DM said that they want to avoid it (or not to include it if you prefer) because they want a simpler game, I wouldn't even have a reaction. If a DM said they don't want to include it (no explanation offered), I wouldn't have any reaction (meaning I would probably nod and play the game). If a DM said they would not include it because they don't like playing multiclass characters though, I'd probably say that I do and I would discuss it. I would explain that I don't like to have my preferences ignored. Assuming I didn't know very well the DM, this discussion would tell me a lot about if I would want to play with them (honestly, I'd probably still play unless I got a really bad impression for the DM). I'd still find the reasoning inadequate though.

Edit:

So then it can be okay for a DM to do something based on personal preference, just not always.

Yeah. IMO you have to factor in the preferences of the other players too. Assuming it's sth that concerns and affects them.

[Boci]

As to your questions my friend, in my setting the magi are not academics, but are a powerful political faction (I draw a lot of inspiration from Sapkowski's work in this regard). And the pit fighters are not rabble, but a skilled class of professionals who duel for sport and hire themselves out as contractors. :)

So professional atheletes vs. politicians? Still seems like the mages have the upperhand. And those are still two rather different groups, how did they end up fighting as factions? I'm not saying they can't fight, just that it sounds unlikely that it could be anything too serious. Plus, why can't my character distance himself from both sides? "Sure I know magic, but you don't see me at the town hall, and I'm not a contracted pitfighter. I'm a former solider and a monster hunter. Know any monsters that need killing?"

[JNAProductions]

I'd discuss with your players, about conflicting them.

See what they'd find fun-obviously your own fun matters too, but find something that works for everyone at your table.

Best of luck, Sparky!

[Potato_Priest]

No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did. I wont explain why.

And if your reason is that you don't like them because they don't match the aesthetic of your campaign?

[Corran]

And if your reason is that you don't like them because they don't match the aesthetic of your campaign?

Let's agree where the line that seperates 'things I don't like as a player' and 'things I don't like dming for' is, and then we can argue for hours. If sth is not making the DM's job more difficult than it already is, let the players have their fun. It's also ok if some people at the table enjoy aspects of the game that other people at the game don't. So long as this does not create any real issues.