Is Multiclassing "ruining" the game?

[Eragon123]

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?

Yes! Plus it allows each class to have its own strengths and you get to really learn them that multi classing has a tendency to dilute.

[opaopajr]

WotC routinely has been overly generous with removing past restrictions. They've done this with differing XP leveling rates, spell casting restrictions, spell wording, and multiclassing restrictions. This is the least generous (3e & in new ways 4e), or staid (4e), of WotCs editions, IME.

And in that respect it's an improvement in my eyes -- and the only version of WotC DnD I'll ever play again to date.

Also the chassis is mercifully easy to tinker with, so as to remove a lot of this "generosity" from my tables.

Hey, the publisher's generous rules only spoil your table if you let them run your game. Who's the GM? Who's responsible for your table's version of fun?

Go ahead and mark up your own limits to such publisher "player candy" and supplement your own "player veggie dishes."

[Dudewithknives]

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.

Yeah I'm still kind of grumpy that there's not a fencer duelist type of subclass for fighter.

A Battle Master doesn't count because they can use any weapon they want to with their abilities I'm talking about a specific nice old-fashioned duelist subclass

[alchahest]

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.

the first bit is a players problem, not a multiclassing problem. the same thing would happen with spell selection given terrible players like that.

As for worrying about making an interesting character, part of that is the mechanical representation of what you want your interesting character to do. If mechanics didn't matter, then we wouldn't need any class abilities at all. we could just have a piece of paper with Name, Appearance, Backstory on it and just roleplay the rest.

[Galactkaktus]

I usally play other systems where there are no such things as levels you just increase your skills and attributes directly with experience points and get more abilities with experience points aswell. So i think dnd feels abit suffocating when it comes to customizing your character. Multiclassing is one of few things that actually allows you to customzie your character after character creation so i whouldn't want to play without it at all. This is also why i almost always play a spellcaster since i can always choose different spells.

[Daphne]

Anyone else feel this way?

Yes, I really think multiclassing is bad for the game. We wouldn't need to worry about interactions if it wasn't a thing, it would open run to a lot more interesting mechanics.

[Xetheral]

No, I don't think multiclassing is ruining the game. More than half the players at my table play multiclass characters, and it works fine. I've not experienced any balance problems.

[Grod_The_Giant]

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

This. Or even more broadly,

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

THIS.

[Alatar]

I'm finding the games a lot more enjoyable than those where MCing is allowed

If that's the approach that works best in your game, then do it that way. That's not the approach that my gaming group takes, but we are not experiencing the issues you describe.

the players (myself included) aren't scrutinizing every possible build synergy between classes

Well, you know, some people really enjoy the character build process. And whether it's a single or a multiclass build, scrutinizing possible synergies, trade-offs and compromises is where a lot of the fun of building characters arises. But this is not the sort of thing that happens at the gaming table, in my experience. When you sit down to play, you've got your character sheet filled out. It's time to play, not to design characters. In my gaming group, when the game session starts, we have at it. If we talk about character builds, it's between sessions, usually via email, and for recreational purposes.

no 'covfefelock' shenanigans to worry about and a hundred other 'unintentional mechanical benefits' to stress over.

As for the dreaded coffeelock, I need to see that before I'm going to believe it. I have yet to see any sorlocks at all, and our gaming table has some real powergamers, me among them. Are they fun to play? I'm not so sure. Besides, you'd have a hard time convincing me to play any kind of warlock. There's going to have to be some really cool sounding story reason to make me think that being fundamentally dependent on some greater, possibly malevolent otherworldly power is a good idea. Read the fluff on the warlock. It ain't pretty.

I am currently playing a multiclass character, a cleric/fighter. It was a difficult MAD build. I worked on it for months, which was a lot of fun. The impetus for the build was the internal contradictions built into the death cleric. The class features are melee focused, but the death cleric is limited to light and medium armor. Interesting. How do I make a Dex build that is going to work well? The goal was a character build that didn't underperform and is fun and challenging to play. Right now, I'm seven levels in and it's going OK. The jury is still out, but I think it's working as intended. Levels 8 and 9 will be the real test. Level 4 was problematic.

Multiclassing is definitely not for everyone. It's more likely that your execution of a muticlass concept is going to result in a build that disappoints. The published classes are field tested. For the most part, they are fairly balanced and they work. They are fun to play at low levels and they scale fairly well. It is not easy to manage all that with a multiclass build (to say nothing of a homebrew class). It's a real challenge. Some people find that challenge to be fun. But lots of players are not interested in that. Probably half the players in my group will never be drawn to muticlass builds.

My group has been gaming together for a very long time. We did have game balance issues in the 3rd edition days. Not due to multiclassing per se. There were real balance issues in the core classes. But the developers did such a nice job of flattening out the power curve in 5e that those issues have largely vanished. The structural inequities that still exist are mere quibbles in comparison.

So, no, I don't see the problems you are seeking to solve, but gaming tables do differ.

[Mjolnirbear]

Sorlock and Lockadin are interesting theory but I'd be annoyed at my players making a build, instead of a character. Fortunately for me that's not an issue.

However there is one glaring reason to keep multiclass, and that's bladelocks. Not everyone wants to play Shadow Edgelord. Sometimes they want a different patron. With point buy, feats are precious. So your fey bladelock ends up being human because hey, feats.

If you're annoyed by dips, just rule a minimum 4-level investment. Make them choose cause they love the class, not cause they want Action Surge or an invocation.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Like absolutely everything imaginable, multiclassing isn't for everyone.

I like 'em, though. I think most people do. There's no longer any of 3.x's paragon class shenanigans enforcing specific (and often lengthy and annoying) multiclassing, and that's the only change to the system that I wanted.

[alchahest]

Sorlock and Lockadin are interesting theory but I'd be annoyed at my players making a build, instead of a character. Fortunately for me that's not an issue.

However there is one glaring reason to keep multiclass, and that's bladelocks. Not everyone wants to play Shadow Edgelord. Sometimes they want a different patron. With point buy, feats are precious. So your fey bladelock ends up being human because hey, feats.

If you're annoyed by dips, just rule a minimum 4-level investment. Make them choose cause they love the class, not cause they want Action Surge or an invocation.

playing a "shadow edgelord" is entirely the choice of the player. Regardless of which pact or boon they select. How they play their character and the pact is up to them (and the DM!). You can be comfortable in the dark without it having any kind of impact on your attitude or demeanor. You can have a bargain with a dark power while still using it to combat that very same power. Remember that demons and the like are very often bound ironclad to the very bargains that those they grant power to are. And nothing about darkness is inherently evil or edgy, it's just the absence of light. Actual light, not metaphorical light.

[GlenSmash!]

I haven't multiclassed yet but I do find I like the idea.

I like to find an combo that I think is interesting, and then decide a good story for why the character would leave his base class. One of these days I might get to do that in play.

[Harrysonford]

Yeah, I kinda agree, I mean, the cap stone is always encouraging players to not MC… but that doesn’t stop them.

[Big Papa Turnip]

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.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't think it ruins the game at all. In fact, I think D&D would be far drier without multiclassing. Multiclassing allows:

More options without having to homebrew or go to Unearthed Arcana, which is always a good thing.

More interesting characters, especially if the multiclass is wrapped in their backstory. Let me put it this way. Which sounds more interesting? The straight Oath of the Ancients Paladin? Or the Oath of the Ancients Paladin who's magical aura ended up going a bit haywire after having absorbed too much magic, giving the Paladin unstable arcane magic that he must work hard to control? One is a straight Paladin, the other is a Paladin/Sorcerer with the Wild Magic Subclass.

Or how about the Rogue who is trying to become a more legitimate warrior, but keeps falling back to their more Rouge-ish elements. Or maybe the Arcane Trickster who uses their skills as a Transmutation Wizard to con people into buying, essentially, fake gold?

Multiclassing also allows parties to have a few more gaps in them. The table I play on does not have a dedicated healer. In fact, I can only think of one time when my table had a Cleric in it. Rather, we use potions, multiclasses, and feats to make up for our total lack of healing.

It lets players toy around with a metagame. If you're a martial character with a single class, you aren't really going to be thinking that far ahead with your build. Once you choose your subclass, at most you have to think about ASI's vs. Feats. If you're a Fighter then you can play with Manuvers, if you have them. But if you're, say, a Barbarian, you aren't going to have to put much thought beyond "Do I want to take a feat, boost Con, or Boost strength at level 8"? This makes a less enjoyable experience. I want to be able to compare things, I want more options. I don't want to be stuck in single class with the only things to think about are the abilities I will automatically get as I level up.

It gives martials an easy way to stay up with the single classed, pure casters. Now, don't get me wrong. 9th level spells are nuts, and very powerful. However, a multiclassed Paladin, Barbarian, or Fighter can shime just as much. A Wizard at level 20 can drop a wish and change the game. A level 20 Soradin can feel just as badass when they Smite five times in a turn thanks to a Hate/Quicken Green Flame Blade combo.

It makes players more powerful, which I find is generally is a good thing. I want my players to feel powerful. Now, there still needs to be risk involved, hence why you want to use multiple encounters to drain resources. But if a multiclassed Barbarian/Paladin/Sorcerer can blast the evil vampire in one or two turns, I see no issue with that. Let them shine. And for those of you who do have an issue, do you guys have an issue with the strength of full casters? Especially Wizards and Druids?

Unless you're playing something very specific, where the feeling of helplessness needs to be pronounced, the players should feel powerful.

Honestly, the only downside of mumticlassing is min/maxing. But that's the thing. A Min/Maxed character is not going to be amazing at everything, they can't be due to the nature of Min/Maxing. So when I run into a Min/Maxed character, I will toss them into situations where they shine...and situations they inherently are weak in

[Vaz]

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.

Isn't that like the exact opposite goal of 5e? 3.5 hurled a chunk of **** at the wall, some stuck, some slipped, some hit the roof.

Many complaints against 3.5 was its complexity of character creation and how it wasn't balanced and you had extremes of Fighter and monk vs Warblade and Swordsage respectively, or Cleric and Wizard at the other extreme.

What you are suggesting is exactly like the tiering Process for 3.5, certain classes rate better than others, so to balance things DM took that tier.

And there's also the fact that you then logically need a version of every class for every tier. Lets use hypothetical numbers.

Say you wanna play Magneto as a concept. Your DM saya no, that's Tier 1, he says Tier 3. 'Well I guess you cuold play Eldritch Knight with Catapult?' he suggests.

What about Nightcrawler? Shadow Monk is T2 tho, you're playing a T4 game. The only T4 monk is the Sun Soul tho.

What about a guy who wants to recreate a Lancer from Final Fantasy? Do we have a Heavy Armoured Spear/Javelin wielder? Yes, we have the Paladin. But we don't want to make multiple attacks. So we take Sorcerer for access to Jump spell, and improved Spell Slots to deal extra damage on the attack. Oh, and reach spell for Lancet/Vampires Touch.

I mean, we could wait until 5e gets its thumbout of its arse and gets to produce some more content (not being funny, if 5e was student team group assignment and you asked what had you come up with after nearly 4 years and you saw the PHB and Xanathars, you'd be having big words. Esp when that team includes hundreds, if not thousands of people.

5e, the meek dribble edition.

[krugaan]

Rules don't ruin DnD, players ruin DnD.

On a side note, MC doesn't ruin games, EA ruins games.

[Nifft]

Isn't that like the exact opposite goal of 5e? 3.5 hurled a chunk of **** at the wall, some stuck, some slipped, some hit the roof.

Many complaints against 3.5 was its complexity of character creation and how it wasn't balanced and you had extremes of Fighter and monk vs Warblade and Swordsage respectively, or Cleric and Wizard at the other extreme.

5e currently has notable imbalance.

Four Elements Monk is not as good as Moon Druid.

PHB Beastmaster Ranger is not as good as Oath of Ancients Paladin.

Champion Fighter has fewer things to do outside of combat than Totem Barbarian.

The designers refuse to fix their mistakes, and instead only want to create new classes & subclasses.

Fine. Then at least give me enough subclasses that I can remove the mistakes, and still have enough viable options.

[Temperjoke]

Ruining is a strong word. I do think it's an advanced option, just like Feats are, and I think many players and DMs jump into them head-first without really being ready for it. I mean, it's hard to wrestle with class features interacting with each other, when you're still learning to handle aspects of the regular game. I will say that I'm not overly fond of how quick the forums are to recommend multiclassing when a player asks for class advice, but that's a different argument all together.

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e currently has notable imbalance.

Four Elements Monk is not as good as Moon Druid.

PHB Beastmaster Ranger is not as good as Oath of Ancients Paladin.

Champion Fighter has fewer things to do outside of combat than Totem Barbarian.

The designers refuse to fix their mistakes, and instead only want to create new classes & subclasses.

Fine. Then at least give me enough subclasses that I can remove the mistakes, and still have enough viable options.

Thankfully, even those are more "mediocre" than "actively bad." An Elements Monk is still a Monk; they'll still do decent damage and stun everything. A Beastmaster will still have a Fighting Style, Extra Attack, Hunters Mark and other spells. You'll still CONTRIBUTE.

In 3.5, you can accidentally get situations like the actively useless Dragon Shaman in my current group. (Who, at level 7, manages to deal 3-8 damage to a couple targets about twice/fight, and otherwise bupkiss)

[Vaz]

5e currently has notable imbalance.

Four Elements Monk is not as good as Moon Druid.

PHB Beastmaster Ranger is not as good as Oath of Ancients Paladin.

Champion Fighter has fewer things to do outside of combat than Totem Barbarian.

The designers refuse to fix their mistakes, and instead only want to create new classes & subclasses.

Fine. Then at least give me enough subclasses that I can remove the mistakes, and still have enough viable options.

Yep. Which means that wanting archetypes which you can ban to recreate the effect of Multiclassing without multiclasing is pointless.

You can always power up a build. You can always incease the encounter difficulty. You're the DM.

Empower your players. They are there to have fun. If Frodo's player had fun on his campaign, and Gandalf's player had fun, does it matter the vast disparity differences? Aragorns player had a strop, and suddenly got a Magic Sword, hidden destiny, and a hot elf chick. Boromir's player got pissed and decided to leave after failing a Sleight of Hand check to steal blatant Op item, and then left, until the DM decided to give him an honorary sending off and epic death scene.

[Pex]

There's no shame in enjoying the game mechanics.

[Finney]

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.

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?

[Nifft]

Thankfully, even those are more "mediocre" than "actively bad." An Elements Monk is still a Monk; they'll still do decent damage and stun everything. A Beastmaster will still have a Fighting Style, Extra Attack, Hunters Mark and other spells. You'll still CONTRIBUTE.

In 3.5, you can accidentally get situations like the actively useless Dragon Shaman in my current group. (Who, at level 7, manages to deal 3-8 damage to a couple targets about twice/fight, and otherwise bupkiss)

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.

Yep. Which means that wanting archetypes which you can ban to recreate the effect of Multiclassing without multiclasing is pointless.

Man what?

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.

[Galactkaktus]

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.

[Saiga]

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).

I agree that 5E has a lot of redundancy, and given that Paladins and Rangers started as Fighter subclasses it does make me wonder why they need to be full classes.

Do you have a link to this hack of yours?

[Lombra]

Yeah I'm still kind of grumpy that there's not a fencer duelist type of subclass for fighter.

A Battle Master doesn't count because they can use any weapon they want to with their abilities I'm talking about a specific nice old-fashioned duelist subclass

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.

[Twigwit]

Im my view multiclassing being an "optional" rule is yet another handwaving of the design team to relieve themselves of the responsibility of actually designing the game to be fun. They did the same with skills in the PHB and most things introduced in the DMG. Given the more, uh, interesting UAs and rulings recently from Mearls and JC I'm inclined to believe the development of the core rules was just as unguided and sloppy, so they shifted the responsibility to the DM.

[Finney]

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

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.