Reasons to Restrict Multiclassing?

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure I did.
"When looked at from this view point, there is no reason."
It's a perfectly valid point.

Reminds me of a Monty Python skit I literally just watched.

Guy goes to a Argument Clinic and pays to have an argument with someone.

M: You just contradicted me!

O: No I didn't!

M: You DID!

O: No no no!

M: You did just then!

O: Nonsense!

M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

O: No it isn't!

M: I came here for a good argument!

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

[Zuras]

I mostly DM Adventurers League games, and thus do multiclassing & feats all day long, but in home games I have restricted Multiclassing.

Nothing major, you can still multiclass PHB classes, but if you want to play an Unearthed Arcana or homebrew class or subclass, no Multiclassing, because I don’t want to worry about balancing playtest material.

[stoutstien]

A list if common multi class combos and easy wats to prevent them from over shadowing single class:
-Paladin smite combo with higher spell slot classes.
Only allow smite with paladin spell slots.
- eldritch blast giving over normal at will damage or super spike with meta magic.
EK is now a warlock class feature that only scales with warlock levels.
-hex blade is too front loaded.
Move the Cha as weapon attack stat to the thirsting blade invocation and change wording to disallow hex curse to work with magic missile (add a line that you need an attack roll to proc it)

- Booming blade.
Add a ST for damage when target moves

What I miss?

[Willie the Duck]

Sure I did.
"When looked at from this view point, there is no reason."
It's a perfectly valid point.

Sigh. Okay, first, this is Sparky McDibben's fight. However, "Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb." is a statement, not an argument (See Man_Over_Game's sendup/takedown). If you don't want to give Sparky anything to work with, don't. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

[Yakmala]

When I'm DM'ing AL, I'm obligated to allow all multi-classes, as long as they conform to PHB+1 and don't use any UA stuff.

Mostly, they are not a problem, with the exception of Sorlocks and Sorcadins. These two have caused me huge problems in the past.

For those not familiar, AL uses a Tier system to determine which characters play together. Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16 and Tier 4 is levels 17-20.

Tier 1 is not really a problem. Even multi-classes are not that strong at this stage. And Tier 4 is fine as well. This is Demi-Gods teaming up to fight world changing enemies.

But Tiers 2 and 3 lead to situations where you might, for example, have a table mostly of fairly new players with level 5-6 single class characters with 1-2 uncommon magic items paired up with 1-2 level 10 characters that are fully optimized Sorlocks/Sorcadins/Hexadins with best in class magic items granted via DM Rewards and/or trading.

This leads to encounters where the majority of the table is lucky to land a hit for 20 damage while the power-gamers are regularly churning out damage in the 50-100 range.

If you are lucky, you'll have friendly power-gamers that adjust their style to the table and hold back on abilities that can one-shot all the encounters so that everyone can shine. But sometimes you'll get a munchkin/murder hobo who takes great pleasure in demonstrating how irrelevant every other character at the table is compared to them. I've had times where I adjusted encounters so that there was a challenging Big Bad for the multi-classing power gamer(s) and some lower level minions for the rest of the party to fight, only to have the power-gamer(s) wipe out the minions on the first round, just because they can.

In a home game, I'd probably be kicking that player, or at least asking them to bring a different character. But in AL, they've technically done nothing wrong.

[darknite]

If the written rules support it and it fits the milieu of the game then I don't see a reason, as a DM, to bad-fun a player's choice.

[stoutstien]

When I'm DM'ing AL, I'm obligated to allow all multi-classes, as long as they conform to PHB+1 and don't use any UA stuff.

Mostly, they are not a problem, with the exception of Sorlocks and Sorcadins. These two have caused me huge problems in the past.

For those not familiar, AL uses a Tier system to determine which characters play together. Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16 and Tier 4 is levels 17-20.

Tier 1 is not really a problem. Even multi-classes are not that strong at this stage. And Tier 4 is fine as well. This is Demi-Gods teaming up to fight world changing enemies.

But Tiers 2 and 3 lead to situations where you might, for example, have a table mostly of fairly new players with level 5-6 single class characters with 1-2 uncommon magic items paired up with 1-2 level 10 characters that are fully optimized Sorlocks/Sorcadins/Hexadins with best in class magic items granted via DM Rewards and/or trading.

This leads to encounters where the majority of the table is lucky to land a hit for 20 damage while the power-gamers are regularly churning out damage in the 50-100 range.

If you are lucky, you'll have friendly power-gamers that adjust their style to the table and hold back on abilities that can one-shot all the encounters so that everyone can shine. But sometimes you'll get a munchkin/murder hobo who takes great pleasure in demonstrating how irrelevant every other character at the table is compared to them. I've had times where I adjusted encounters so that there was a challenging Big Bad for the multi-classing power gamer(s) and some lower level minions for the rest of the party to fight, only to have the power-gamer(s) wipe out the minions on the first round, just because they can.

In a home game, I'd probably be kicking that player, or at least asking them to bring a different character. But in AL, they've technically done nothing wrong.

you cant really blame players from optimizing in AL. you have no idea who you will be playing with so you will tend to want to build to be self sufficient and powerful. killing stuff dead is still teh best debuff in the game.

[Corran]

As a DM, I require a solid explanation of why and how the character multiclasses. This goes double for multiclass options that don't make much lore sense but are mechanically very strong.

I think this is needlessly restrictive. Unless by ''solid explanation'' you mean the sort of thing you would ask from someone playing an arcane trickster, or an eldritch knight.... or a thief rogue or a champion fighter. My interpretation of ''not making much lore sense'' is ''something that is not in accordance to the DM's taste''. I don't disagree if any DM wants to restrict player options because the DM wants to steer the players towards playing character concepts the DM would enjoy more having the game world interact with them. But I wouldn't call it anything else than that. Furthermore, it's not the only and far away from an efficient way to communicate that fact to your players, but sometimes it might work.

------------------------------------
@op: Not permitting multiclassing is equivalent to sth like not allowing point buy (and rolling) and thus defaulting to the standard array. Essentially you restrict player options. The only good reason I can see for doing something like that, would be to protect the players from their own choices. The standard array will not always be the best choice, but it's always better than 13,13,13,12,12,12. And if we were to make an analogy between people's multiclassing choices and point buy options, I'd say that there is more in common with a 13,13,13,12,12,12 option than with a 15,15,13,12,10,8 or sth along these lines.

[Man_Over_Game]

A list if common multi class combos and easy wats to prevent them from over shadowing single class:
-Paladin smite combo with higher spell slot classes.
Only allow smite with paladin spell slots.
- eldritch blast giving over normal at will damage or super spike with meta magic.
EK is now a warlock class feature that only scales with warlock levels.
-hex blade is too front loaded.
Move the Cha as weapon attack stat to the thirsting blade invocation and change wording to disallow hex curse to work with magic missile (add a line that you need an attack roll to proc it)

- Booming blade.
Add a ST for damage when target moves

What I miss?

Hmm...1 level Fighter dips for heavy armor on a Wizard, I guess?

Eldritch Knights using Abjuration Wizard.

That's about most of what I can think of.

[stoutstien]

Hmm...1 level Fighter dips for heavy armor on a Wizard, I guess?

Eldritch Knights using Abjuration Wizard.

That's about most of what I can think of.

with the str requirements for h armor still takes some opportunity cost.

Arcane Ward isn't that good without a bunch of wizard levels. I still think war wizard is a better dip for the long game for a fighter. Neither are so powerful that they potential are better than straight fighter or wizard x before tier 4

[Benny89]

But if the assumption of the designers is that those are optional rules then the focus won’t be as tight there. A table can do what it wants but it is easier to see where exploits are with less playtested optional rules and that is more work for the table.

This very thread shows examples of some multi classes being flat out better than a single class (sorcadin vs. paladin).

That is not the point. Point is that by including it, designers predicted that those are possible mechanics, they made whole mechanic for it, requirements, spell slots counting, proficiencies from multiclass, min. ability scores etc.

You don't make whole chapter and mechanic for something that was not designed to be used. It's optional because "the default setting is simple and easy to follow, only with ASI". Feats and multiclassing is "those are advanced rule that are not simple and introduce a lot of possibilities and outcomes that make system more complicated, therefore for simplicity it's as optional rule. They are not required to make game/combat enjoyable and fair".

The difference is like in video games. You have "normal difficulty" which is default DnD 5e setting, only ASI, not feats, no multiclass, easy CR to follow. Then you have hard difficulty (for both DM and players) that adds additional complexity with feats and multiclasses, which also requires DM to dynamicaly scale CR of combat as normal CR table does not longer work.

So multiclass, point buy and feats are definitely part of 5e system. It's not default setting as default tries to be as simple and friendly to new DMs and players as possible.

However for increase enjoyment/options/roleplaying/building and DM challange you have optional rules that makes everything more complex.

It's part of the system, whenver you like it or not.

[Particle_Man]

Are all of the options in the dmg also part of the system? I think what we have is a verbal disagreement since I could say that the parts of the system that are optional are not as playtested and not as balanced as the parts of the system that are not optional. Whereas GURPS, for example, has advantages and disadvantages at their core and have playtested their relative values over many decades and editions. That systemic design focus of the separate game designers makes a difference to the ease of use for the tables using or adapting those separate games.

And this is not saying one is better. It is saying that designers playtested to a certain set of rules and assumptions more than to the optional parts of the system, and the listed exploits of various multi class options in this thread is proof of that.

[Astofel]

Sure, individual features (or even chains or bundles of features) have in game lore associated with them (without refluffing of course). But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing? Why is having a deal with an otherworldly being a Warlock thing? Etc.

Because that's what's written in the PHB, and also I like it that way. The class fluff was written to be used, after all. At the end of the day this is just my preference, and if you prefer the classes as bundles of features more power to you. Personally if I wanted a character made of bundles of features I'd just play a classless system that lets me pick freely, unlike D&D multiclassing where if you want a 5th level class feature you'll need the other 4 levels of class features to get there, even if they don't fit your character idea.

At my table, putting paladin on your sheet means your character adheres to a set of values, at your table it only means they have the class features listed under the paladin heading in the PHB. That's all fine and dandy, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't go around calling my preferred style of play dumb.

[Pex]

When I'm DM'ing AL, I'm obligated to allow all multi-classes, as long as they conform to PHB+1 and don't use any UA stuff.

Mostly, they are not a problem, with the exception of Sorlocks and Sorcadins. These two have caused me huge problems in the past.

For those not familiar, AL uses a Tier system to determine which characters play together. Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16 and Tier 4 is levels 17-20.

Tier 1 is not really a problem. Even multi-classes are not that strong at this stage. And Tier 4 is fine as well. This is Demi-Gods teaming up to fight world changing enemies.

But Tiers 2 and 3 lead to situations where you might, for example, have a table mostly of fairly new players with level 5-6 single class characters with 1-2 uncommon magic items paired up with 1-2 level 10 characters that are fully optimized Sorlocks/Sorcadins/Hexadins with best in class magic items granted via DM Rewards and/or trading.

This leads to encounters where the majority of the table is lucky to land a hit for 20 damage while the power-gamers are regularly churning out damage in the 50-100 range.

If you are lucky, you'll have friendly power-gamers that adjust their style to the table and hold back on abilities that can one-shot all the encounters so that everyone can shine. But sometimes you'll get a munchkin/murder hobo who takes great pleasure in demonstrating how irrelevant every other character at the table is compared to them. I've had times where I adjusted encounters so that there was a challenging Big Bad for the multi-classing power gamer(s) and some lower level minions for the rest of the party to fight, only to have the power-gamer(s) wipe out the minions on the first round, just because they can.

In a home game, I'd probably be kicking that player, or at least asking them to bring a different character. But in AL, they've technically done nothing wrong.

The problem is not multiclassing or powergamers (There is absolutely nothing wrong with power gamers to need "friendly" as a qualifier) but having level 5 characters adventuring with level 10 characters.

[Yunru]

At my table, putting paladin on your sheet means your character adheres to a set of values, at your table it only means they have the class features listed under the paladin heading in the PHB. That's all fine and dandy, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't go around calling my preferred style of play dumb.

Did you... somehow miss the part (that you quoted) where I said:
"But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing?"

Putting Paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values, yes. It doesn't, however, make your character a Paladin narratively.

[Particle_Man]

It does in games I DM!

[Potato_Priest]

I don't allow multiclassing for one major reason.

Namely, some of my players are optimizers, but when their only tools for optimizing are feats, they manage to build thematically consistent characters almost 100 percent of the time. I am not confident that they would do so if they had the option of multiclassing.

[2D8HP]

Sure, individual features (or even chains or bundles of features) have in game lore associated with them (without refluffing of course). But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing? Why is having a deal with an otherworldly being a Warlock thing? Etc.

Some of us like the "fluff" and "lore" that go with the mechanics.

I started D&D with 0e + the Monster Manual and the idea of a "powers only" Paladins would be pretty outlandish back then, and a "lore-less" game even today doesn't inspire my imagination, sounds like it would just be rules based battle tactics only, and thus pretty boring to me.

NO THANKS!

Anyway, when I last offered to put the DM hat on I wanted (for the adventures I had in mind) all the PC's to come from the same village and start as the crew of a Viking longship, and I specified that PC's could take levels in Barbarian (Frenzy), Fighter (Champion), and Rogue (Swashbuckler and Thief), and the first two levels of Paladin and Ranger only, for thematic reasons as well as that making it easier for me to handle rules adjudication.

No takers, and now I have an almost 3 year-old son who keeps me too busy, so I want be DM'ing again for years, if every again.

[Yunru]

Some of us like the "fluff" and "lore" that go with the mechanics.

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.

[Astofel]

Did you... somehow miss the part (that you quoted) where I said:
"But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing?"

Putting Paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values, yes. It doesn't, however, make your character a Paladin narratively.

I didn't miss anything, in fact as far as I was concerned I answered that very question.

Because that's what's written in the PHB, and also I like it that way.

See? Although now seeing your other post, I think I understand what you might be getting at. If you want to be a fighter who follows a strict code of conduct but doesn't have paladin on their sheet, then sure. If you want to play a bard who is a devout follower of a god but doesn't have cleric on their sheet, that's fine too. The fluff of a class is just a jumping off point, as far as I'm concerned you're free to add whatever other traits onto it that you'd like so long as you don't tamper with the core identity of the class (paladins and oaths, warlocks and patrons, etc.).

If I may ask, though, if putting paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values and acting in accordance with them, but that does not in turn make your character a paladin narratively, then what does?

[Yunru]

If I may ask, though, if putting paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values and acting in accordance with them, but that does not in turn make your character a paladin narratively, then what does?

Well that depends what a Paladin is in the narrative.
In a historical setting, being a soldier of faith.
In base DnD... being a soldier of faith, is what I would of said right up until 5e.

As a default I tend to match the "most common" version of a class with it's in world identity, so for a 5e Paladin, they're soldiers that serve a cause, but they also draw power from that cause in order to perform miracles. The switching to oaths instead of gods actually makes for a less cohesive stereotype.

Let's take a Cleric, in narrative a Cleric is someone who follows one or more faiths, who performs miracles in their name. Now this is a perfect fit for your typical Cleric class, but a Cleric class doesn't have to follow this stereotype, and other classes aren't barred from being it.

[Particle_Man]

For me that could be covered by the background. So one could have a cleric with the entertainer background or a bard with the acolyte background.

[Yunru]

For me that could be covered by the background. So one could have a cleric with the entertainer background or a bard with the acolyte background.

Right, and once you're okay with a Bard as a "Cleric", what's wrong with a Bard/Sorcerer as a "Cleric", etc.

[Particle_Man]

Right, and once you're okay with a Bard as a "Cleric", what's wrong with a Bard/Sorcerer as a "Cleric", etc.

The slash between bard and sorcerer. I still like my archetypes and backgrounds are for me a fine stopping point for mixing things up without getting into less designer-play-tested and more exploitable combos, as shown in this and so many other threads. There are other classless systems that work for those that want them, and their designers have put their primary focus on play testing those. So if I were going that route I would simply switch systems.

[Great Dragon]

For me, I say that Multi-classing must make sense for the Character: From their PoV.

Like Grog Logs, I discourage obvious abuse of the Game's mechanics, and have the "two Short Rests per Long Rest" rule. UA and Homebrew is also usually limited to single classing.

A great example that was pointed out to me in another thread, is the Fighter 2 Sorcerer 5 combo - for being able to cast spells in Heavy Armor as well as going: Fireball - Action Surge - Fireball
Especially if the Player has no IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the Character did this class combo.

But then, I also know that they are exchanging the higher level 'power' of their Prime Class for the low-level abilities of the Secondary Class. (In this case Prime is the Highest level Class, regardless of when taken)

For example: the above Fighter/Sorcerer gave up 4th level spells and most likely their ASI for War Caster to keep their shield bonus.

The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

I could see an Oathbreaker, Vengeance or Conquest Paladin going for this, but yeah the other Oaths (even w/o gods) don't make as much sense. Evil Paladins, and Clerics of Evil Gods, do Necrotic damage, instead of Radiant.

I suppose that a Player that came to me with the Hexblade/Paladin but was bonded with a Legendary Sword (Holy Avenger) at Character Creation with a solid RP; I would be more likely to work with them.
But, just for raw power? Not so much.

[stoutstien]

I had a player with a Paladin/ warlock multi-class. the character was literally had multiple souls sharing a body day to day. Did that player make this just for the mechanical advantages? Who knows.

[Yunru]

I could see an Oathbreaker, Vengeance or Conquest Paladin going for this, but yeah the other Oaths (even w/o gods) don't make as much sense. Evil Paladins, and Clerics of Evil Gods, do Necrotic damage, instead of Radiant.

What?
1. All oaths don't have gods.
2. The hexblade is a completely alignment neutral patron.
3. Nowhere is the cost of the pact discussed. "Selling your soul" is just setting up one specific example in an attempt to ignore other case, because they contain examples that logically work.
4. Let's say the Paladin does worship a god, and gets to interact with them:

Random god: I see you have offered your services to the blade in exchange for power?
Paladin: Well yeah, it didn't have any goals that don't align with mine, and the most it's asked of me is to kill undead when I see them which is what I already do.
/Conversation

[Boci]

A great example that was pointed out to me in another thread, is the Fighter 2 Sorcerer 5 combo - for being able to cast spells in Heavy Armor as well as going: Fireball - Action Surge - Fireball
Especially if the Player has no IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the Character did this class combo.

What sort of IC explanation are you looking for there? If we go with the bloodline interpretation of a sorceror, a fairly popular one, then your IC explanation probably isn't much more than "a distant ancestor had hot sex with a red dragon", and fighter can often explained as "I fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, and joined a mercenary group after the war".

So would you accept a wordier version of: "A distant ancestor had hot sex with a red dragon. Generations later I was born. I fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, and joined a mercenary group after the war" for a sorceror fighter?

[Corran]

A great example that was pointed out to me in another thread, is the Fighter 2 Sorcerer 5 combo - for being able to cast spells in Heavy Armor as well as going: Fireball - Action Surge - Fireball
Especially if the Player has no IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the Character did this class combo.
(bolded for emphasis)

That's where the issue is. You are thinking of characters as classes and not as persons. Do you also require IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the sorcerer hit level 3 and can now quicken spells? What if it does not satisfy you? Do they not get the level?

[Great Dragon]

@Boci - what you gave is an IC Explaination.

That's where the issue is. You are thinking of characters as classes and not as persons. Do you also require IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the sorcerer hit level 3 and can now quicken spells? What if it does not satisfy you? Do they not get the level?

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.