Is Multiclassing "ruining" the game?

[sithlordnergal]

There's literally a fighting style called "dueling" and an whole archetype for fancy 1v1 maneouvers. What does it matter if you could use any weapon for a maneouver? You want to play a duelist, you play a duelist. Rapier in hand (or whatever) and maneouvers ready, there's also the defensive duelist feat, which fighters can always afford. If your argument is that it is not optimized then you are not even trying.

I thinm they were looking for more of a Rogue/Fighter type of Fencer rather then a pure fighter. Besides, while you can tool the Fighter to be a fencer, when you tell someone "I am playing a Fighter", their first thought js heavy armor with a greatsword.

[SpamCreateWater]

No way. I enjoy multiclassing. How else could I make my Wizard 4 / Cleric 4 / Sorcerer 4 / Bard 3 / Rogue 1 / Warlock 2 / Druid 1 / X 1?

No, but, seriously. How else could I?

Multiclassing allows options and varied playstyles. I don't want to be Wipwip the Wonderful Wizard, I want to be Pertin Sullivan the Partially Perfunctory Paladin and Slight Skilled Sorcerer.

[Vaz]

Man what?

Why would ban certain options? Coffee locks (i ****ing hate that term) can do their thing without infinite power, just say no a certain thing or houserule slightly.

Banning does FA for you.

So man what me all you want, you want more classes to ban then is among the most ridiculous thing I've read today, and this is at the same day I've about a guy from my home town being taken to hospital after putting a roman candle in his bum as a party trick before it exploded.

[2D8HP]

I've no problem if other people are prevented from multi-classing, but I do quite enjoy mixing in levels of Fighter and Rogue into most every PC I play, and a luxury once tasted becomes a necessity, so I don't want to give up my Fighter/Rogue/whatevers.

The horse has left the barn and I don't want to go back to single-class!

That said the game is still fun with and without multi-classing.

As to all the "Sorlocks" etc.?

No skin off my nose, as I really don't care much 'bout spellcasting anyway (too complex).

Just as long as some chump brave obliging other PC stands next to an antagonist so I may use Rogue's Sneak Attack, combined with Fighters or Rangers Archery Fighting Style and I put an arrow in the green and scaly types eye, I'm good.

[Potato_Priest]

Okay, this thread is probably poorly titled.

If groups don't allow multiclassing, that's fine.

If groups do allow multiclassing, that's fine.

As long as people are having fun, nothing has been ruined.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here can agree with this, and yet arguing will likely continue.

[Caelic]

Boy howdy, the spirit of BADWRONGFUN is alive and kicking this holiday season.

If you want to impose restrictions such as "no multiclassing allowed" on yourself or your table, then you're absolutely more than welcome to, provided the other characters are on board.

My games sure don't feel "ruined" though.

Now, see, I think it's the other way around. If you wish to incorporate the optional rules that permit multiclassing, then you're absolutely more than welcome to.

"Imposing restrictions" suggests that multiclassing is the default, and a DM who chooses not to use it is making alterations to the default game.

It's an optional rule. It's an optional rule which many people use, but it's still an optional rule.

[Nifft]

Why would ban certain options?

I'm assuming missing word is "you".

The answer is: because those options suck relative to other options, and will therefore tend to disappoint inexperienced players who think they're getting what's advertised on the box.

Which is pretty much what I said previously, so this shouldn't really be a surprise.

[Dudewithknives]

There's literally a fighting style called "dueling" and an whole archetype for fancy 1v1 maneouvers. What does it matter if you could use any weapon for a maneouver? You want to play a duelist, you play a duelist. Rapier in hand (or whatever) and maneouvers ready, there's also the defensive duelist feat, which fighters can always afford. If your argument is that it is not optimized then you are not even trying.

I want a dedicated fencer type duelist, not something that could be a duelist but I could just pick up a great axe and.do the same thing.

If they can make an Arcane Archer subclass that doesn't even know spells and specifies only bows not crossbows or thrown weapons then me wanting a fencer type subclass that is a duelist is not far-fetched

They can make a blades college bard and a swashbuckler rogue, I want my duelist fighter.

[krugaan]

I've no problem if other people are prevented from multi-classing, but I do quite enjoy mixing in levels of Fighter and Rogue into most every PC I play, and a luxury once tasted becomes a necessity, so I don't want to give up my Fighter/Rogue/whatevers.

The horse has left the barn and I don't want to go back to single-class!

That said the game is still fun with and without multi-classing.

As to all the "Sorlocks" etc.?

No skin off my nose, as I really don't care much 'bout spellcasting anyway (too complex).

Just as long as some chump brave obliging other PC stands next to an antagonist so I may use Rogue's Sneak Attack, combined with Fighters or Rangers Archery Fighting Style and I put an arrow in the green and scaly types eye, I'm good.

I still think locks are too frontloaded, being a frontloaded dip into a class that shares it's primary statistic with the most other classes.

But it's not really that bad, for the most part.

[Vaz]

Now, see, I think it's the other way around. If you wish to incorporate the optional rules that permit multiclassing, then you're absolutely more than welcome to.

"Imposing restrictions" suggests that multiclassing is the default, and a DM who chooses not to use it is making alterations to the default game.

It's an optional rule. It's an optional rule which many people use, but it's still an optional rule.

Preventing people from doing a thing is still preventing people from doing a thing.

[Hypersmith]

Now, see, I think it's the other way around. If you wish to incorporate the optional rules that permit multiclassing, then you're absolutely more than welcome to.

"Imposing restrictions" suggests that multiclassing is the default, and a DM who chooses not to use it is making alterations to the default game.

It's an optional rule. It's an optional rule which many people use, but it's still an optional rule.

It doesn't matter how it's phrased. One way or another, DM allows some things but not others. The technicality really isn't an issue.

[Galactkaktus]

That is an odd and entitled way of looking at the situation, in my view.

If your DM chooses not to use the optional multiclassing rule (or any other optional rule from the PHB or DMG), you never had that option for character design to start with - ergo nothing is being removed or taken away.

Personally, I don't have any issue with multiclassing nor do I think it ruins the game. However, if my DM decided not to use that optional rule - I would be fine with that, too.

Why is it odd to not feel restricted by rules that does not remove options for my character designs?

[Galactkaktus]

Now, see, I think it's the other way around. If you wish to incorporate the optional rules that permit multiclassing, then you're absolutely more than welcome to.

"Imposing restrictions" suggests that multiclassing is the default, and a DM who chooses not to use it is making alterations to the default game.

It's an optional rule. It's an optional rule which many people use, but it's still an optional rule.

Aren't all rules optional? The DM can change the game as he seems fit.

[Beelzebubba]

It doesn't matter how it's phrased. One way or another, DM allows some things but not others. The technicality really isn't an issue.

If you cracked the DMG and looked at the number of 'optional' rules, you'd realize you're playing a silly semantic game here.

[Galactkaktus]

Straw man fallacy:

The poster you quoted said it was odd to feel restricted because you couldn’t use an optional rule.

Your reply focuses around not feeling restricted when you can use the optional rule, which is not the same thing.

"Multiclassing is an optional rule, which not all tables use. Do you feel "restricted" when a DM chooses not to use other optional rules, like Slow Natural Healing, Epic Heroism, Scroll Mishaps or any of the other numerous optional rules in the PHB and DMG?"

"No because those rules does not remove options in my character design."

So i answered why i didn't feel restricted by those options.

"That is an odd and entitled way of looking at the situation, in my view.

If your DM chooses not to use the optional multiclassing rule (or any other optional rule from the PHB or DMG), you never had that option for character design to start with - ergo nothing is being removed or taken away.

Personally, I don't have any issue with multiclassing nor do I think it ruins the game. However, if my DM decided not to use that optional rule - I would be fine with that, too."

My answer didn't say anything about my opinion about multiclassing "No because those rules does not remove options in my character design.". But he was referencing my way of looking at it as an an "odd and entitled way of looking at the situation"

How is it a strawman to pointing out what i actually said?

[Potato_Priest]

How is it a strawman to pointing out what i actually said?

It's not. I didn't read the whole conversation before I posted. Sorry about that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah, the 5e chassis is significantly better than the 3.5e equivalent.

Non-casters are notably more relevant, and that's great.

However I find this argument a bit like a parent saying: "eat the icky cabbage, children are starving in Africa".

Yes, other editions were worse about balance -- that does not mean I want to stop improving balance in this edition. Make that cabbage delicious.

Oh, I don't mean that we shouldn't try to improve this edition, sorry. I was grumpy more at other people's screaming about game balance than the point you were making, I think. People get all bent out of shape about -5/+10 and Sorcadins, which-- to my 3.x trained eyes-- seem basically irrelevant.

That is an odd and entitled way of looking at the situation, in my view.

If your DM chooses not to use the optional multiclassing rule (or any other optional rule from the PHB or DMG), you never had that option for character design to start with - ergo nothing is being removed or taken away.

Personally, I don't have any issue with multiclassing nor do I think it ruins the game. However, if my DM decided not to use that optional rule - I would be fine with that, too.

It's all about perception.

Something like Slow Natural Healing changes the game. It doesn't add or remove any options, really, just adjust how the ones already available play out.

Something like Feats or Multiclassing adds to the game. There are a lot more options in play with those rules than without; there are a lot of things you can do with multiclassing that you can't do without it.

[sithlordnergal]

Multiclassing is an optional rule, which not all tables use. Do you feel "restricted" when a DM chooses not to use other optional rules, like Slow Natural Healing, Epic Heroism, Scroll Mishaps or any of the other numerous optional rules in the PHB and DMG?

There are some large differences between Epic Heroism, Scroll Mishaps and Slow Natural Healing when compared to Feats and Multiclassing. The three varient rules you mentioned do not add or subtract options from a player. Rather, they change the mechanics for resources and mechanics for a single item.

Let's look at the Epic Heroism as an example: Epic Heroism completely changes how the resting system works. As a result, it drastically changes how players will use their resources. Anything keyed off a short rest will be burned no matter what, because it only takes 5 minutes to get them back. Anything keyed off a long rest will still be used sparingly, but the players will be far more willing to burn them over saving them.

Or how about Scroll Failure: That changes how the player uses their scrolls. Rather then it being a sure thing, it adds a possibility of chaos. While this does add something to the game, it adds something out of the player's hands. The player can't decide to have the scroll fail. It is up to the dice. It's essentially an intangible, like adding the idea of a critical failure causing bad effects.

Compare that to Feats and Multiclassing. Both of those varient rules allow the player more choice. The player decides to use those varients when allowed. You can play in a game that has feats and multiclassing, and build a character that has no feats and is single classed. But if your game uses the Gritty Varient rule, then it doesn't matter what I play. I will still be effected by that varient.

[Potato_Priest]

Compare that to Feats and Multiclassing. Both of those varient rules allow the player more choice. The player decides to use those varients when allowed. You can play in a game that has feats and multiclassing, and build a character that has no feats and is single classed. But if your game uses the Gritty Varient rule, then it doesn't matter what I play. I will still be effected by that varient.

Good points. Feats and multiclassing are more similar to the variant rules for climbing on other creatures, shoving creatures aside, or overrunning enemies with an opposed strength check. All of these are player options that no-one has to use, like multiclassing and feats.

[Finney]

Compare that to Feats and Multiclassing. Both of those varient rules allow the player more choice. The player decides to use those varients when allowed.

That's not really relevant or germane to my point.

My point is that multiclassing is an optional rule and if a DM chooses not to use an optional rule, nothing is being restricted, removed or "taken" away from players. You don't have that option by default, so you can't "lose" what you never had.

If during session zero, the DM allows the optional multiclassing rule and then later in the campaign (for whatever reason) decides not to allow it for new or replacement characters - then you can argue that something has been restricted, removed or taken away.

[Galactkaktus]

That's not really relevant or germane to my point.

My point is that multiclassing is an optional rule and if a DM chooses not to use an optional rule, nothing is being restricted, removed or "taken" away from players. You don't have that option by default, so you can't "lose" what you never had.

If during session zero, the DM allows the optional multiclassing rule and then later in the campaign (for whatever reason) decides not to allow it for new or replacement characters - then you can argue that something has been restricted, removed or taken away.

All rules are optional rules.

[Squiddish]

No, it isn't. See how easy that was?

Okay, fine, I can't leave it at that.

The first rule of multiclassing is:

TALK
TO
YOUR
DM!!

Multiclassing should always require DM approval, and that makes most of the issues go away!

Also, I disagree with the sentiment that multiclassing is about optimization, and especially with the bizarre resentment towards sorlocks/lockadins/sorcadins. With Xanathar's, the flavor syncs up better than ever.
A conquest paladin who bargains with a fiend to gain the power to crush their enemy isn't just a great flavor combo, it warrants a mention in the oath of conquest flavortext.
Oath of the ancients and the archfey patron already synced excellently, but now devotion has a solid match in the celestial patron.
A divine soul/paladin multiclass makes logical sense from a flavor perspective, for just about any paladin archetype.
Divine soul and celestial match quite well, as do shadow and either hexblade or undying.
Heck, some of these would even work with paladin, sorcerer, and warlock all at once, such as devotion/celestial/divine soul, shadow/hexblade/vengeance if you really want to embrace the edge, and divine soul/fiend/conquest.

So please, don't tell me that "Multiclassing is only for optimization" or that a choice can't make a character more powerful and improve the flavor at the same time.

[Finney]

So please, don't tell me that "Multiclassing is only for optimization" or that a choice can't make a character more powerful and improve the flavor at the same time.

On this forum, multiclassing is usually about optimization. At most tables I have played it, players use it more for fun or thematic reasons. I don't think multiclassing ruins the game. By the same token, I don't think not using the optional multiclassing rule ruins the game either.

I also agree with your first statement. It's generally a good idea to ask about optional rules during session zero. If you don't have a session zero, talk to your DM about it before the first session.

[Grod_The_Giant]

That's not really relevant or germane to my point.

My point is that multiclassing is an optional rule and if a DM chooses not to use an optional rule, nothing is being restricted, removed or "taken" away from players. You don't have that option by default, so you can't "lose" what you never had.

If during session zero, the DM allows the optional multiclassing rule and then later in the campaign (for whatever reason) decides not to allow it for new or replacement characters - then you can argue that something has been restricted, removed or taken away.

Again, it's perception. If the baseline assumption is that those things are possibilities-- and it very clearly is, from the general discourse-- than having them "taken away" will chafe. It might not be exactly like having them taken, but it is like... oh, looking over a table full of deserts as you wait in line, maybe getting exciting about that big apple pie, then getting there and being told "you can have cookies or ice cream, but no pie or brownies."

On this forum, multiclassing is usually about optimization. At most tables I have played it, players use it more for fun or thematic reasons.

Well, yeah. There's a lot to discuss vis-a-vis rules options; character and thematic stuff tend to be much more personalized and not the kind of thing people need help with.

[sithlordnergal]

That's not really relevant or germane to my point.

My point is that multiclassing is an optional rule and if a DM chooses not to use an optional rule, nothing is being restricted, removed or "taken" away from players. You don't have that option by default, so you can't "lose" what you never had.

If during session zero, the DM allows the optional multiclassing rule and then later in the campaign (for whatever reason) decides not to allow it for new or replacement characters - then you can argue that something has been restricted, removed or taken away.

It is relevant though as you made a falty comparison. You based your argument on the idea that not using variants such as the three you mentioned is the same as disallowing multiclassing and feats. While they are all optional rules, they all do different things.

Also, you do lose those options and you are restricted if the variant rule is not allowed. The simple fact that the variant rule exists is what causes the player to lose thise options. If the DM says on Session 0 that the Multiclass Variant rule is not allowed, then the player loses the options that multiclassing allows and restricts what they can choose to do.

The restrictions are inerrant because of the variant rule.

[Squiddish]

On this forum, multiclassing is usually about optimization. At most tables I have played it, players use it more for fun or thematic reasons. I don't think multiclassing ruins the game. By the same token, I don't think not using the optional multiclassing rule ruins the game either.

I also agree with your first statement. It's generally a good idea to ask about optional rules during session zero. If you don't have a session zero, talk to your DM about it before the first session.

Also note, don't just talk about it during session zero. The DM should be allowed to rule on it case-by-case, and if they feel like they can only give a full yes or a full no to all multiclassing, they're less likely to allow multiclassing if they get to be selective.

[Finney]

Again, it's perception. If the baseline assumption is that those things are possibilities-- and it very clearly is, from the general discourse-- than having them "taken away" will chafe. It might not be exactly like having them taken, but it is like... oh, looking over a table full of deserts as you wait in line, maybe getting exciting about that big apple pie, then getting there and being told "you can have cookies or ice cream, but no pie or brownies."

You know what they say about assumptions.

I am probably guilty of it myself, since I assumed most players have a session zero where issues like optional rules are discussed with the DM prior to the campaign beginning.

[Pex]

Expanding my earlier point now that I have time.

If a player wants to multiclass because of a fun synergy of abilities that's a legitimate reason to multiclass. The player will have fun with the game mechanics, the game part of a roleplaying game. Roleplaying the character is its own thing. It is the DM's purview to ensure the character doesn't Win D&D. It is important to keep in mind that a powerful character is not a character that's Winning D&D. PCs are allowed to be powerful. At the moment the only Winning D&D multiclassing that I have read here is the Coffeelock. Effective infinite spell slots or sorcery points is to be stopped. That gets smacked upside the head begone. That's not a reason to ban multiclassing or cry when a paladin takes two levels of warlock so he'll have a decent range attack because his DX is low and can't smite with a bow anyway.

[2D8HP]

All rules are optional rules.

.
Preach it!

[Spacehamster]

Nope, game would be ruined without multiclassing tho. :)