DMs only: Do you allow multiclassing? Why or why not?

[ZorroGames]

What about making a powerful character stops the character from being interesting?

There's no conflict between powerful, effective characters and good roleplaying or fun backstories.

This! Exactly. Players who go max mechanic optimization have fun just like role players like myself. I find there are other player problems like murder hoboes and a passive DM that remove fun quicker.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Wise DMs understand that there's many kinds of fun, and your goal is everyone at table, including yourself, is having fun nearly all the time playing.

It's a difficult goal. That's why DMing is a labor of love.

[BurgerBeast]

Of course I allow it. There is zero reason to shut down that type of fun. It isn't abusive, it doesn't interfere with other players fun and it can provide for a lot of rp potential.

These are not arguments for adding optional rules into the game. You could switch out “multi-classing” for feats, guns, dragon-characters, spaceships... etc. and apply the same criteria. They’re not relevant.

What is in and what is out is ultimately arbitrary. That doesn’t mean that you get whatever you want.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. The DM decides.

No gnomes is not oppressive. Neither is Core-only. Neither is no XGtE. Neither is no space-ships or lasers. They are simply matters of taste. DM’s call. If you don’t like it, don’t play in that particular game.

Or, annoyingly beg and complain about how you wish things were done your way... Here’s an idea: if you want it done differently: you DM it.

[DMThac0]

These are not arguments for adding optional rules into the game. You could switch out “multi-classing” for feats, guns, dragon-characters, spaceships... etc. and apply the same criteria. They’re not relevant.

What is in and what is out is ultimately arbitrary. That doesn’t mean that you get whatever you want.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. The DM decides.

No gnomes is not oppressive. Neither is Core-only. Neither is no XGtE. Neither is no space-ships or lasers. They are simply matters of taste. DM’s call. If you don’t like it, don’t play in that particular game.

Or, annoyingly beg and complain about how you wish things were done your way... Here’s an idea: if you want it done differently: you DM it.

You say that what is in or out is arbitrary and that optional rules aren't relevant. That's perfectly fine, that's the reason it's optional rules.

However, telling your players that you disallow Gnomes, Dragonborn and Tiefling is not a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules either. You're actually taking out core mechanics of the game rather than optional mechanics. That is significantly different.

[Man_Over_Game]

You say that what is in or out is arbitrary and that optional rules aren't relevant. That's perfectly fine, that's the reason it's optional rules.

However, telling your players that you disallow Gnomes, Dragonborn and Tiefling is not a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules either. You're actually taking out core mechanics of the game rather than optional mechanics. That is significantly different.

Maybe? Only if your players have the expectation that those things are available. And setting that precedent before the characters should be rolled will clear that up.

Personally, I'm fine with any changes my DM makes, as long as I know of them before I roll my character. Once his opinion impacts my long-term investments that I can't change, then there might be some conflict. Heck, he could remove all the martial classes from the game and I'd still find a way to make it into lemonade. (Although I wouldn't recommend doing the opposite (removing all casters), as strictly martial combat can be really repetitive.)

[DMThac0]

Maybe? Only if your players have the expectation that those things are available. And setting that precedent before the characters should be rolled will clear that up.

Personally, I'm fine with any changes my DM makes, as long as I know of them before I roll my character. Once his opinion impacts my long-term investments that I can't change, then there might be some conflict. Heck, he could remove all the martial classes from the game and I'd still find a way to make it into lemonade. (Although I wouldn't recommend doing the opposite (removing all casters), as strictly martial combat can be really repetitive.)

I'm not saying that he's wrong for making those clarifications. As has been pointed out numerous times, every DM has the right to run their games as they see fit.

The point I was trying to get at is that he started off by saying that the quote he used wasn't a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules. Then follows up with an argument for removing "core" races. The quoted post is closer to a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules than the example he used.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm not saying that he's wrong for making those clarifications. As has been pointed out numerous times, every DM has the right to run their games as they see fit.

The point I was trying to get at is that he started off by saying that the quote he used wasn't a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules. Then follows up with an argument for removing "core" races. The quoted post is closer to a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules than the example he used.

Gotcha, my bad.

[furby076]

i have no reason against it. there are benefits and drawbacks and my campaigns tend to go to 20 and last years (longest was 10 years). If it makes the player happy, and doesn;t outright destroy the game (pathfinder), then go for it. Sorcadin is easy enough to handle and i'm ok with a player not having to agonize if he should smite now or smite later if the big bad shows up.

[Tharkun]

These are not arguments for adding optional rules into the game. You could switch out “multi-classing” for feats, guns, dragon-characters, spaceships... etc. and apply the same criteria. They’re not relevant.

yes you could and I would except that some of those conflict with the agreed upon setting. Multi-classing, Feats and flint-lock pistols are already part of Forgotten Realms and not a stretch at all

What is in and what is out is ultimately arbitrary. That doesn’t mean that you get whatever you want.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. The DM decides.

No gnomes is not oppressive. Neither is Core-only. Neither is no XGtE. Neither is no space-ships or lasers. They are simply matters of taste. DM’s call. If you don’t like it, don’t play in that particular game.

Or, annoyingly beg and complain about how you wish things were done your way... Here’s an idea: if you want it done differently: you DM it.

I responded with how I DM. And you seem to be trying to prove the trope that No D&D is better than bad D&D. My rules are players should be respectful of each other and the DM. They should allow each other to have fun and not be an pita. In your case, I would never play with you as a DM or a player since you obviously have control issues and want to stop your nominal friends from having fun.

So if any of my players see this, please note, I want you to have fun.

[Ronnocius]

I generally don't. Unless the player can give me a reason why and a way how. Like during a six month downtime. Not just a long rest and a level up.

Why do you allow it? Strictly for optimization? Or what?

And please hold off, you beautiful die hard remainder AL DMs. We know your situation.

I don't because I worry that some characters will become much more optimized than other characters. I allow feats because I think they give more customization options but can't be abused as easily. I could very well be wrong in this but it is the way I've run my games so far and I won't change it in the immediate future.

[BurgerBeast]

You say that what is in or out is arbitrary and that optional rules aren't relevant. That's perfectly fine, that's the reason it's optional rules.

I never said that optional rules aren’t relevant. (What? They’re the entire point of the thread. Of course they’re relevant.)

I said that these specific arguments:

(1) I allow X because there is zero reason not to shut down that type of fun. -> is not an argument for allowing X.

(2) I allow X because it isn’t abusive. -> is not an argument for allowing X.

(3) I allow X because it doesn’t interfere with other players’ fun -> is not an argument for allowing X.

(4) I allow X because it can provide for a lot of rp potential -> is not an argument for allowing X.

- Are not arguments for allowing X.

I said this because plenty of things can meet these criteria and are still reasonably excluded from games.

However, telling your players that you disallow Gnomes, Dragonborn and Tiefling is not a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules either.

Agreed. I never made this argument.

You're actually taking out core mechanics of the game rather than optional mechanics. That is significantly different.

1. races are not mechanics.

2. What’s wrong with a setting that doesn’t have particular races? See Dark sun, for example.

The point I was trying to get at is that he started off by saying that the quote he used wasn't a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules. Then follows up with an argument for removing "core" races. The quoted post is closer to a valid argument for dis/allowing optional rules than the example he used.

1. You didn’t understand what I was saying in the first place (see above). So whether or not I was right is still apparently an open question.

2. I never made an argument for removing “core” races. I said that all “core” races are arbitrary, and so the expectation that every core race must appear in every D&D game is an unjustified expectation. You should always check with the DM. So you didn’t seem to understand that, either.

yes you could and I would except that some of those conflict with the agreed upon setting. Multi-classing, Feats and flint-lock pistols are already part of Forgotten Realms and not a stretch at all

So what? Who said we’re talking about Forgotten Realms? And who says a DM can’t tailor his Realms however he wishes? I like the FR setting better as it existed in 2e. So I play my 5e FR in the 2e setting. Who cares? You don't have to play it.

Also, as you mentioned, we're talking about the agreed upon setting. If I’m DMing, I’m not agreeing to a setting with Dragonborn, Tieflings, or Gnomes. So the setting is not agreed upon. Problem solved.

I responded with how I DM. And you seem to be trying to prove the trope that No D&D is better than bad D&D.

I’m not trying to prove any trope. That’s you talking, not me. However, it should be pointed out that there is a probably a threshold below which bad D&D is worse than no D&D, whether it's a trope or not.

My rules are players should be respectful of each other and the DM. They should allow each other to have fun and not be an pita. In your case, I would never play with you as a DM or a player since you obviously have control issues and want to stop your nominal friends from having fun.

This is not an argument. It’s a slur. And a bad one, at that.

[Luccan]

I'll allow it, but I notice outside theory crafting and forum games, most people seem to stick to one class. I dislike keeping it from my players because not allowing it represents an inability to learn other class's abilities that... doesn't make sense to me. Especially more mundane things like weapons, armor, and skills, but also why couldn't you, with practice, be a Wizard? Or make a deal with a powerful entity and become a Warlock? I like an IC justification if it happens mid-game, but that doesn't always need to be super in depth.

I think if you want to restrict players to one class that's fine, but I think I'd only do that if I were striving for something very specific, like a game where the PCs were the only people capable of certain class or subclass abilities.

[FabulousFizban]

yes. I’m god, no amount of min/maxing can stop me from balancing the game

my players also know that they don’t have the expertise to out munchkin their DM

[BurgerBeast]

I think if you want to restrict players to one class that's fine, but I think I'd only do that if I were striving for something very specific, like a game where the PCs were the only people capable of certain class or subclass abilities.

I'm good with everything you said, I just want to point out this one nitpick: It's not about wanting to restrict players. Players are already restricted. You can't play a dragon PC by the core rules. You can't play the Tallfellow race of halfling by the core rules. You are restricted to twelve classes (or whatever number it is) by the core rules... a player might want to play a 4e Warlord - sorry, they don't exist in this oppressive, restricted world! Some players may want to play a warforged on Athas. PHB high elves do not exist on Athas. Drow are "ask your DM first" by the core rules, etc.

The rules are restrictive because they are finite. What optional rules you choose to allow is up to you, including invented rules. The idea that it is restrictive to "disallow" things is only tenable if you first assume that they are permitted in the first place. It is always better to let go of this assumption and ask first. The answer is almost always yes, anyway. If it's not, well then you didn't waste time on a character that is not permitted. Problem solved.

[Luccan]

I'm good with everything you said, I just want to point out this one nitpick: It's not about wanting to restrict players. Players are already restricted. You can't play a dragon PC by the core rules. You can't play the Tallfellow race of halfling by the core rules. You are restricted to twelve classes (or whatever number it is) by the core rules... a player might want to play a 4e Warlord - sorry, they don't exist in this oppressive, restricted world! Some players may want to play a warforged on Athas. PHB high elves do not exist on Athas. Drow are "ask your DM first" by the core rules, etc.

The rules are restrictive because they are finite. What optional rules you choose to allow is up to you, including invented rules. The idea that it is restrictive to "disallow" things is only tenable if you first assume that they are permitted in the first place. It is always better to let go of this assumption and ask first. The answer is almost always yes, anyway. If it's not, well then you didn't waste time on a character that is not permitted. Problem solved.

Even as I was typing that I was thinking about how multiclassing had been made an optional rule, yet managed to type a reply that acted like it wasn't.

[Shuruke]

I allow it but I dint give free reign on it

Players have to give me reason for what they want from the class and we negotiate how they can fit that into their characters story/journey

Its a lot of fun and my personal favorite was the Swashbuckler rogue whom took a small wizard dip for war wizard

They studiously studied for how to always be one step ahead of enemies. To have different tricks and how to use magic for the some purpose of a weapon.

Before they took wizard they bought an old worn spellbook and we essentially had some small rp of the equivalent of Karra and water scrolls from avatar last airbender


Edit: I allow it but I generally only have roleplayers at the table andfew times I have had minimaxer I said no to certain things and laid rules out. I like optimizing and for me I love making an effective character with the restrictions I have. And my players whom I restrict feel the same. But then again I still use the pre errata divine smite that limited it to paladin slots

[ZorroGames]

I DM AL. Yes I would adjust things in my world. Isn’t that what we are talking about? Anything not AL is by definition a DM defined world?

Sure I would run “my” world somewhat differently. Yes, some races are played more than I feel reflects the avowed world setting but it is a big world and lots of “minor” races can be founded in just one city the size of Waterdeep. Maybe all adventurers come from Waterdeep. Just Kidding.


As a player in AL almost 100% of my PCs are designed to MC. My exceptions? A MD War Wizard. A MD ST based Rogue. MD Shepherd Druid (possibly subject to change.) A Earth Genasi BM Fighter (and that is not set in stone, talk to me when I hit level 12 or 13.) MD ST based Ranger. MD ST Fighter. MD DE fighter. And... that’s it. Out of 17 characters, 7 not MC at most. Several others are about to MC but are technically one level shy of where I want them to MC so I counted them as MC.

Would I not play in a game without MC? Yes. One with no Feats? Hell yes. Race restrictions? No MD, yes; no Gnomes, yes; no Elves, yes though I do not play them; no humans, yes; any other race restrictions, maybe, especially Dragonborn, Tiefling, Half Elf, Half Orc and Halfling exclusions. Does that make it bad? No, just wrong for me. Your non-AL world... well, it is your world.

[Spriteless]

I allow it because the players love the theory craft and will talk about level up options for hours at a time, and because I can make long rests a pain to find when they go fighter/warlock/pali.

[Porkslope]

I allow limited multiclassing, primarily to discourage the resident minmaxer in my group (who just so happens to be an absolutely excellent roleplayer and storyteller) from trying to break the game over his knee, but also because I'm a big fan of single-class characters (and especially now that in 5e, subclasses bake plenty of versatility right into classes and are relatively easy to alter or homebrew up if an existing subclass doesn't quite fit).

The limited part comes from the fact that I tell my players they have to track down an experienced member of the class they want to take levels in. I'd allow a player to take levels in a class that another party member belongs to relatively easily, provided that party member is willing to train that PC, but anything else requires seeking out someone else. I'm not too picky about time constraints, but they're not gonna gain their first level on day one of training. That being said, my game will have long stretches of wilderness travel, so the PCs will have opportunities if they really want to multiclass.

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.

[ZorroGames]

snip

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.

Good up until this. 😲. People say working in the intelligence arena before I retired made me bleak about people’s fallen nature... 🙄

There are other people who MC for fun. 😎 And trade one aspect for another in character design. 👨🏼*🎨

Since 1973 I have not had a Player, AL or not, that could not be persuaded to remember this is a social cooperative game. Rather than restrict or nerf everyone else I would just flat send such a person packing. Not Tough Love but removing a disruptive player. 🤴🏼

Edit: run it anyway you want but seriously about black and white statements. 🤯. That’s usually my role on this forum. 😉

[Porkslope]

It's cool. Some people like to roll a few more dice than others. I've just gotten snake eyes more than a few times with public groups, so that's how I do things when I run.

[Tanarii]

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.

Unlike ZorroGames, uber-optimization (although not necessary game breaking exploits) was something I commonly experienced in AL. And in 4e official play. Such players aren't inherently disruptive players, and many are quite good at not trying to overshadow others, especially older players. But despite that, the mechanical disparity between exceptionally optimized and not very optimized can still be quite off-putting, especially to newer players.

[Trustypeaches]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.

Spoken like a true player! You are absolutely correct in desiring every mechanical advantage you can lay hands on.

This is why I asked DMs.

[MaxWilson]

If I were to run a public game with people I don't know well, I wouldn't allow multiclassing at all and I would be up-front with them about it. I can really only see it turning out one of two ways:
1) One person wants to multiclass because they know a game-breaking exploit that gives them infinite spell slots or something equally ridiculous, or
2) One person wants to multiclass because they're new, not satisfied with the subclasses offered, and doesn't know the rules well enough to realize they'll be gimping their PC.

There's a lot of room between "infinitely good" and "cripplingly bad". :)

[Particle_Man]

I don't allow it in the game I run. It is easier for me not to have to play "whack-a-mole" banning with various multi-class power ups or gimpings. I have more confidence that the non-optional rules are balanced than adding the optional rule. And my players have enough options as it is to have fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player,

This is where you and I will part company. Best wishes, and have fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

Classes are just bundles of mechanics to me, as a player, so I've never understood the aversion to multiclassing (especially in 5e where it's not tremendously powerful anyways outside of a few fringe cases).

I don't see why multiclassing has to have narrative justification, but I've never felt characters (in terms of the narrative) need be defined by their class.

If abilities were separate from the narrative, and abilities are primarily for combat, then it's akin to saying that combat/mechanics are separate from the narrative.

It's kind of like the difference between introducing truly random encounters (you come across a snow yeti on the plains!) and improvised encounters (the cave you happened to be using in the mountains belongs to a snow yeti, who just arrived home!).

There's a big difference there.

The first treats the mechanics, combat, classes, etc., as a board game. It's all tactics and planning. No emotion put into it.

The second treats the mechanics and such as part of the overall experience. Combat becomes a means to an end, not the goal or a separate experience.

One's a video game, and the other's a play.

I'd strongly recommend you check out 4th edition DnD. It's perfectly designed for the kind of playstyle I suspect you might be looking for. 5e can be made to play like that, but 4e perfected it.

[MaxWilson]

If abilities were separate from the narrative, and abilities are primarily for combat, then it's akin to saying that combat/mechanics are separate from the narrative.

It could just be saying that narrative and mechanics don't correlate well--which is mostly WotC's doing, probably deliberately. From a narrative standpoint, you could model Aragorn as an Outlander Battlemaster Fighter with a Secret, or a Ranger, or even a Barbarian. Or he could be a Fighter 5/Rogue 3, or a Ranger 6/Cleric 1. This is not OD&D where "Fighter" would be the obvious and only choice. There's a bunch of different mechanical options for the same fluff.

[Man_Over_Game]

It could just be saying that narrative and mechanics don't correlate well--which is mostly WotC's doing, probably deliberately. From a narrative standpoint, you could model Aragorn as an Outlander Battlemaster Fighter with a Secret, or a Ranger, or even a Barbarian. Or he could be a Fighter 5/Rogue 3, or a Ranger 6/Cleric 1. This is not OD&D where "Fighter" would be the obvious and only choice. There's a bunch of different mechanical options for the same fluff.

But every one of those is narratively justified. "I want to play a really talented warrior that's good in the wilderness". There's a lot of ways to make that happen.

But a "warrior of light" fitting in a level of Hexblade? I'm not really sure how using the powers of a Shadowfel entity to drain the souls of your enemies qualifies as a "warrior of light" narrative device. Even if it's something as simple as "I killed enough demons to get some of their dark power, and I use it against evil to show them their own wickedness", that'd fit a lot better than "I just really like Shield and Short Rest spell slots, and I don't care about having dark magic in my white knight narrative".

If you stop caring about the narrative, then...what's important?

That's not necessarily that this is a bad way to play the game, but it does set a precedent that's different at most tables. Things would be a lot easier to gauge if people were honest and said "I don't really care all that much about the narrative, I just want to level up and kill stuff".