Is Multiclassing "ruining" the game?

[Theodoxus]

I'm running a game, and playing in another, where MC is not allowed. I ruled it for the game I'm running just to simplify the choices for new players. The DM I'm playing with ruled it for similar reasons.

I'm finding the games a lot more enjoyable than those where MCing is allowed; the players (myself included) aren't scrutinizing every possible build synergy between classes; no 'covfefelock' shenanigans to worry about and a hundred other 'unintentional mechanical benefits' to stress over.

It seems everyone requesting builds online are looking for synergies to MC with - and I guess that makes sense - it's not hard to build a straight Paladin or Cleric or Warlock, once you know which subclasses look fun. But I kinda wish AL didn't include the option.

I'd rather tailor a homebrew subclass that feels like a multiclass combination than open up MCing again; which seems to be the direction the subclasses in Xanathar's went as well.

Anyone else feel this way?

[alchahest]

nah. multiclassing is fine in all the games I'm in. Comparing anecdotes I guess but it works just fine for the tables I'm on.

[Morty]

I wouldn't say it ruins it, but it has many of the problems 3E multiclassing did - namely, that it's an optimizer's tool and an easy way for an inexperienced player to make bad choices. And there's a lot of thematic overlap between it and archetypes. I've spent a while thinking about multiclassing my rogue, but decided against it.

[Potato_Priest]

I also prefer games with no multiclassing. There's less build cheese and the cheese is more manageable, and you can still create most build concepts with some amount of reflavoring, especially if you do allow feats.

You can also more easily allow unearthed arcana, since you don't have to worry about unexpected synergies.

[nickl_2000]

I honestly don't see it as an issue in my game that I play. We are all out there for fun and don't excessively min/max.

[Nifft]

Nah, the game is fine.

Multi-classing might be ruining the civility of this sub-forum, though.

[Dudewithknives]

Not directly, but yes.

Multiclassing ruins the game because the classes are not designed or balanced with regard to mult-classing.

Multiclassing however does ruin the game due to the very unbalanced way that it works and stacks things FAR in favor of some classes than others.

Ideally I would love to play in a game with these slight changes:

1. No multi classing
2. Feats are fine but SS/GWM become half feats and the -5/+10 part just becomes +1 Dex/Str
3. Remove the spell Forcecage.
4. LTH can is not a ritual and can be broken with enough damage.

[Skyblaze]

I just limited so A. players can only multiclass if their characters story goes that way B. You can only multiclass once. No crazy Lock/sorc/paladin/fighter combos.

[tomato]

Not directly, but yes.

Multiclassing ruins the game because the classes are not designed or balanced with regard to mult-classing.

Multiclassing however does ruin the game due to the very unbalanced way that it works and stacks things FAR in favor of some classes than others.

Ideally I would love to play in a game with these slight changes:

1. No multi classing
2. Feats are fine but SS/GWM become half feats and the -5/+10 part just becomes +1 Dex/Str
3. Remove the spell Forcecage.
4. LTH can is not a ritual and can be broken with enough damage.

I got mad for a second, but then I realized that this is just very keenly designed satire. Bravo, good sir.

[nickl_2000]

Nah, the game is fine.

Multi-classing might be ruining the civility of this sub-forum, though.

Honestly, that's why I stay out of almost all threads that go over 2 pages.

[Lodestar]

I feel like the title of this thread could use a "For You" tacked on at the end, but hey. I personally like multiclassing, since I've always been keen on customizing characters to taste.

[Corsair14]

The current system of multi-classing only encourages optimizers and power gamers as easily evidenced by the multitude of "Most Optimized x and Y" threads on this forum. I prefer the 2nd edition version where you pick you classes at level one and all exp was split between them(made and make humans do this as well since dual classing is so clunky). Made much more role playing sense than the barbarian leveling up and suddenly "hey guys Im a wizard now!" in the middle of the dungeon.

Currently I make my players tell me in advance what their character concept is and when they are going to do it. Further when switching classes into something they don't have they must find a trainer and spend 1 week and 100gp a level to find a higher level person of that class to instruct them. in game I am extremely hard on players who powergame and all 6 numbers for stats must be rolled in front of me, no point buys.

[UrielAwakened]

Multiclassing is the only thing that makes 5e interesting.

The number of actual decision points you get in a straight 1-20 class are bare bones.

[Vaz]

No. Closed minds that think that multiclassing is going to duin the game is going to stilfle and ruin the game.

Allow homebrew, allow multiclassing. What's the difference?

[Alejandro]

Half of the players at our table, including me, are multiclass. Half are not. Not noticed any issue one way or the other.

[Caelic]

Not really sure an optional rule can ruin the game. It might ruin a particular campaign, but if it seems to be headed in that direction...well, that's why it's optional, no?

[alchahest]

The current system of multi-classing only encourages optimizers and power gamers as easily evidenced by the multitude of "Most Optimized x and Y" threads on this forum. I prefer the 2nd edition version where you pick you classes at level one and all exp was split between them(made and make humans do this as well since dual classing is so clunky). Made much more role playing sense than the barbarian leveling up and suddenly "hey guys Im a wizard now!" in the middle of the dungeon.

Currently I make my players tell me in advance what their character concept is and when they are going to do it. Further when switching classes into something they don't have they must find a trainer and spend 1 week and 100gp a level to find a higher level person of that class to instruct them. in game I am extremely hard on players who powergame and all 6 numbers for stats must be rolled in front of me, no point buys.

I take issue with the bolded bit here. What you're seeing is maybe a dozen or so people who like to use builds as a thought experiment talking about optimization. The game is more popular than it's been in a long time, do you actually think that the thought experiments of a handful of forums optimizers are evidence for a break in the game?

[Nifft]

Multiclassing is the only thing that makes 5e interesting.

The number of actual decision points you get in a straight 1-20 class are bare bones.

Playing the character is what makes 5e interesting.

5e has a very dull character-building sub-game, but the actual playing of the game is quite fun.

If you don't play, and you only use D&D for the character-building sub-game, then you probably want to use an edition like 3.5e instead.

[UrielAwakened]

Playing the character is what makes 5e interesting.

5e has a very dull character-building sub-game, but the actual playing of the game is quite fun.

If you don't play, and you only use D&D for the character-building sub-game, then you probably want to use an edition like 3.5e instead.

The characters' toolkits are super boring though. And combat is not especially tactical or enjoyable, even compared to other D&D editions.

I can play an interesting character in any edition or any system.

[JackPhoenix]

No. Multiclassing allows character concepts that wouldn't be possible to fulfill with single class, even with refluffing. 5e doesn't have enough options (or bloat) to have a single class for every possibility.

[Dudewithknives]

No. Multiclassing allows character concepts that wouldn't be possible to fulfill with single class, even with refluffing. 5e doesn't have enough options (or bloat) to have a single class for every possibility.

Then instead take out multi classing and introduce MANY more subclasses.

Look how Pathfinder did it with their archetypes.

Fighter has like thirty, many others have like in the high teens and twenties.

You could sit down with 5 people of the same class and be COMPLETELY different.

Honestly the way they did archetypes in general as adding or replacing class abilities was a great idea.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, Multiclassing isn't ruining the game.

This kind of thing needs to be worked out at each table.

[JackPhoenix]

Then instead take out multi classing and introduce MANY more subclasses.

Look how Pathfinder did it with their archetypes.

Fighter has like thirty, many others have like in the high teens and twenties.

You could sit down with 5 people of the same class and be COMPLETELY different.

Honestly the way they did archetypes in general as adding or replacing class abilities was a great idea.

WotC can't keep 5 subclasses balanced with each other.

Do you really want dozens of them for each class?

[SirGraystone]

I don't have a problem with multiclassing, more with the push to "optimize" everything. Player sometime mocking other players for their less then "perfect" choice in class.

See as a DM I try to make encounters that will have the players spend 15-20% of the hp/spell slots/potions. No matter our "optimized" your characters, you'll just face harder challenge. Worry more about making your character interesting then perfect.

[Dudewithknives]

WotC can't keep 5 subclasses balanced with each other.

Do you really want dozens of them for each class?

Sure, if there were 20 subclasses for each class, 5 would be absolutely amazing, 10 would be meh and too focuses, and 5 would be garbage nobody plays. In the end you still get 5 good choices for every class, and 10 that are at least playable, which is much more than we have now.

No more SORLOCK threads, no more SORCADIN threads, no more arguing over how spells for multiclassers work, seems good to me.

[Hypersmith]

Multiclassing MAKES the game for me. For story reasons, to realize concepts, usually turns out pretty great. I'll plan to multiclass about 30% of the time, have multiclassed about 50% of the time. I wanted to play a cleric like a priest without having **** AC, 1 level monk dip. Story reasons later on turned him from a grave cleric into a death cleric, so now I'm gonna pick up two more levels of monk to go kensei and be all scary with an axe.

Nah, the game is fine.

Multi-classing might be ruining the civility of this sub-forum, though.

Yep. People get personally offended pretty often over other people not playing the same as them. I'm happy with my two groups.

[Nifft]

WotC can't keep 5 subclasses balanced with each other.

Do you really want dozens of them for each class?

Yes I very much do want exactly that.

Then I can just pick the top 3-4 non-broken subclasses and declare them the only ones that exist.

It's far easier to pick & choose the good stuff than it is to design good stuff from scratch.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes, and no.

Multiclassing is ruining the game, in that it's mainly there because people want multiclassing. In theory we should have just had four classes, and had a 'divine fighter' subclass instead of the paladin, and a 'roguish fighter' subclass instead of the ranger. But people thrive on options, so 5e has a lot more redundancy built in than needed.

Really, there's no practical need to have a seperate Barbarian class, I can attach Barbarian fluff to a Fighter. Plus Berserker Fighters would be a cool subclass.

In my 5e hack that's moving further and further away from core 5e there's no multiclassing, but that's because there's an attempt to archetype characters more. So you won't get a Scholar 4/Warrior 3, you'll get a Scholar who picked a couple of combat feats. Plus it takes a lot of weight off more for designing it, I can make classes a tad more front loaded without worrying about dips (which you'll notice 5e is slowly gaining a problem with).

[JackPhoenix]

Yes I very much do want exactly that.

Then I can just pick the top 3-4 non-broken subclasses and declare them the only ones that exist.

It's far easier to pick & choose the good stuff than it is to design good stuff from scratch.

So... back to my original post, you'd want more subclasses so more character concepts could be realized without multiclassing, but then ban most of them, because WotC can't into proper balance.

Yeah, I'd rather stick with multiclass.

[Nifft]

So... back to my original post, you'd want more subclasses so more character concepts could be realized without multiclassing, but then ban most of them, because WotC can't into proper balance.

Yeah, I'd rather stick with multiclass.

Wrong.

I want both.

I want more subclasses so I can pick a set of relatively well-balanced subclasses.

I want multi-classing because that's also fun.

There's no conflict between those.

Smite False Dichotomy.