Reasons to Restrict Multiclassing?

[Zuras]

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.

Level imbalance is often an issue in AL, but the difference between heavily optimized characters run by experienced players and unoptimized characters played by casual players is a very real issue.

It usually isn’t, because most players are considerate, and nobody really cares if you aren’t stepping on someone else’s toes, but I have personally played quite a few AL games where I quickly realized I needed to tone it down so other players could contribute, usually with a multiclassed PC with SS or GWM.

[Arkhios]

The thing I find troublesome in players' (apparently fairly common) way of thinking is that many seem to think that DM is a role that has to somehow be readily compliant to players' every whimsical wants and needs.

Just. No. DM is just as much a player in this game. DM may be pulling the strings of what happens in the "background", but that's part of how DM interacts with the game, thus playing it just as much as the people on the other side of the proverbial (if not actual) DM screen.

DM sets the scene. DM is the final arbiter of what works or doesn't in their table. It's fully within DM's rights to limit what players have access to, if it makes it easier to handle or more fitting to their vision of the game they are running. Players have to understand that they can't force someone to DM for them, in a way they want. Without someone being a DM, there's no game.

[JNAProductions]

The thing I find troublesome in players' (apparently fairly common) way of thinking is that many seem to think that DM is a role that has to somehow be readily compliant to players' every whimsical wants and needs.

Just. No. DM is just as much a player in this game. DM may be pulling the strings of what happens in the "background", but that's part of how DM interacts with the game, thus playing it just as much as the people on the other side of the proverbial (if not actual) DM screen.

DM sets the scene. DM is the final arbiter of what works or doesn't in their table. It's fully within DM's rights to limit what players have access to, if it makes it easier to handle or more fitting to their vision of the game they are running. Players have to understand that they can't force someone to DM for them, in a way they want. Without someone being a DM, there's no game.

The reverse is also true. A DM with no players is, at best, an author.

But, considering the DM has a higher workload, players should generally be amiable to a DM's preferences. Obviously don't play in a game you don't like, but don't kick up a fuss if the DM has a difference in style. Accept the difference and enjoy the game, or, if you can't, just don't play.

[2D8HP]

I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.

Sure it is.

..The DM is just as much a player in this game....

The reverse is also true. A DM with no players is, at best, an author....

Yes.

Look, a bit over a couple of decades ago I really wanted to play or DM D&D again, or to play or GM King Arthur Pendragon (where all the PC's are Knights), a couple of people who I gamed with wanted Ars Magica (where every PC is a magician) which wasn't what I wanted, and between that and their vicious ferret I didn't game with them anymore.

At every other table I could find everyone else wanted modern-ish settings with guns, and I did GM some games with that to give the players what they wanted, and I was a player in some of those games - and I really didn't like it at all so I walked away from RPG's for decades.

I have a pretty good idea of what settings I enjoy, and the amount of rules complexity and quantity I can master - I know my limits, plus I'm really not interested in handling and watching the adventures of high power "gishes" and it's just not worth it to me to try.

I'll compromise some, but no I won't run what would be popular - some anime/comic book/shoot'em up thing, 'cuz that's just not fun enough for me, I did it before and didn't like it, and I'd rather take my kid to a playground, read a book, or go for a bicycle ride these days.

I wish it were otherwise but I've accepted that what I'm willing to DM/GM doesn't have willing players, and what would have willing players would be too much of a chore for me.

[Tanarii]

If someone is put in a position where allowed to make decisions that influence others as well, and the reason behind the decision making process is 'personal preference while at the same time disregarding everyone else's preferences', then that's problematic in my eyes. The reasoning behind the decision making process is invalid (nevermind if the decision is actually good or bad).

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Joking aside, it pretty much depends on how the table comes together.

If the DM is putting together a campaign and soliciting players, they can set the initial rules whatever reasons they like, including personal preferences, and it's valid reasoning. They may not get many players depending on how much those players don't like the initial rules of course.

Alternately if it's a bunch of friends getting together and choosing someone to DM, choosing the initial rules should probably be collaborative.

In fact, any situation in which the DM solicits players first, then puts together the initial rules second, probably needs to take into account the individual players involved opinions. If it's the other way around, the DM merely needs to consider if the rules will impact number and kind of players they will attract.

[Great Dragon]

So would you require more justification from a player wanting to go with a battlemaster/transmuter, than from a player who wants to go with an EK? If yes, why?

Answer: A little.
Transmuter is an interesting choice with F/BM.

First, I would ask the Player OoC what are they trying to accomplish with the Ftr/Wiz

If their idea can be done with EK, then I'll suggest that.

Let's say they like the EK, but not the limit to 4th level spells, so are mainly focused on Wizard over Fighter. And can accept the loss of spell slots of three levels higher, at least one ASI, plus the Wizard's 18th level Spell Mastery and 20th level Signiture Spell capstones.

If they are going for that double Fireball combo (once per encounter) with heavy armor, fine. The EK doing the spell - action surge - spell and sticking to targeting Mooks at range or being spell-attack based. Without looking: Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade; or Scorching Ray(?).

The only real difference here would be that the Evoker can control his evocation AoEs to not hit other PCs in melee with foes. The player stating this up front would be great. (I'd ask that only one player in the Party did this; other players optimizing with other Subclass combos, is fine) I'd most likely suggest BM/Evoker for that, and offer help and ideas for IC Explaination, Background, and History to support it.

But, I also accept that not everyone will want to play in my games.

Edit - If I missed someone, sorry.
I'm tired - and couldn't read every post.
I'll try again, when I can.

[Xetheral]

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Joking aside, it pretty much depends on how the table comes together.

If the DM is putting together a campaign and soliciting players, they can set the initial rules whatever reasons they like, including personal preferences, and it's valid reasoning. They may not get many players depending on how much those players don't like the initial rules of course.

Alternately if it's a bunch of friends getting together and choosing someone to DM, choosing the initial rules should probably be collaborative.

In fact, any situation in which the DM solicits players first, then puts together the initial rules second, probably needs to take into account the individual players involved opinions. If it's the other way around, the DM merely needs to consider if the rules will impact number and kind of players they will attract.

I agree with this. Soliciting players to play in a specific game is different than making a game to play with specific players.

[Particle_Man]

I guess it is a bit of supply and demand. Where I am there is a dm shortage so a DM can almost always find players but players can’t always find DMs and this frankly gives the DM more power to say what game they will play because they know they can get some players for it regardless. Players have fewer options so either accept one of the few available DMs, with that DM’s conditions, or become a DMthemselves.

[Pex]

The thing I find troublesome in players' (apparently fairly common) way of thinking is that many seem to think that DM is a role that has to somehow be readily compliant to players' every whimsical wants and needs.

Just. No. DM is just as much a player in this game. DM may be pulling the strings of what happens in the "background", but that's part of how DM interacts with the game, thus playing it just as much as the people on the other side of the proverbial (if not actual) DM screen.

DM sets the scene. DM is the final arbiter of what works or doesn't in their table. It's fully within DM's rights to limit what players have access to, if it makes it easier to handle or more fitting to their vision of the game they are running. Players have to understand that they can't force someone to DM for them, in a way they want. Without someone being a DM, there's no game.

What the DM says goes. If he says enough unreasonable stuff, the players go too.

[Corran]

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Joking aside, it pretty much depends on how the table comes together.

If the DM is putting together a campaign and soliciting players, they can set the initial rules whatever reasons they like, including personal preferences, and it's valid reasoning. They may not get many players depending on how much those players don't like the initial rules of course.

Alternately if it's a bunch of friends getting together and choosing someone to DM, choosing the initial rules should probably be collaborative.

In fact, any situation in which the DM solicits players first, then puts together the initial rules second, probably needs to take into account the individual players involved opinions. If it's the other way around, the DM merely needs to consider if the rules will impact number and kind of players they will attract.

I agree with this. Soliciting players to play in a specific game is different than making a game to play with specific players.

I agree with this too.

Answer: A little.
Transmuter is an interesting choice with F/BM.

First, I would ask the Player OoC what are they trying to accomplish with the Ftr/Wiz

If their idea can be done with EK, then I'll suggest that.

I might actually do the same for certain players. Though I suspect we have different reasoning for this. I will not mention my reasoning, because I think it goes very off topic, but if you really want to read my rambling I will edit a spoiler. (Edit: Basically it comes down to if I am afraid that the player is building a gimmicky charater of which they'll get bored of quickly, and I want to avoid players getting bored of the characters if I can help it.) I don't know your reasoning, I wouldn't like to guess, and that's what I am interested in hearing about and discussing.

[Yunru]

Level imbalance is often an issue in AL, but the difference between heavily optimized characters run by experienced players and unoptimized characters played by casual players is a very real issue.

That's not a problem with the characters, rather it's a problem with the experience gap (and I'm not talking about the number on the sheet).

[Great Dragon]

How big a reason do you need? Would longer versions of the following backstories be permissible in your games:

At least you came up with an idea of why.

1. "My character's ancestor was a dragon, whilst he fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, so I am running him as a sorceror/fighter if that's okay,"

No real problem here.
Now, Ftr at lv 1 and 2 just to get Heavy Armor and Action Surge to go with Gold/Red Dragon Sorcerer for Fireball nuking, is a bit more of a problem. But, with this PC starting out in the War, and discovering his magical powers during the battles - ok.

2. "My character was an assassin who became obsessed with the idea of using animals forms to catch his mark offguard. Using his skill at disguise he infiltrated a druid circle and gained there trust, then fled once they had learned what he needed. If its okay I want him to be a moon druid 2 / rogue (assassin) x"

Um, I'm wondering why you (the PC) chose Moon Druid, since their real power comes in at 18th level, with CR 6 beasts.

Now, if the Rogue (Assassin) PC did not know what Circle it was and it just happened to be Moon, sure.

But, if you're just trying to get CR 1 beasts to stack with your PC's Sneak Attack, not so much.

3. "My character was a noble and as traditional attended the Academy of Our Radient lady in the capital, however he was one of the few who then joined the army, becoming a war wizard. Since the enemy had taken to targetting wizards, he also studied weapon training and how to wear armour. If its okay I'd run him as a wizard/fighter"

A much more acceptable way to get the F-BM/Evoker.

4. "My character was a foundling riase in the temple as a cleric rarely leaving the compound until his 16th birthday. Once out in the real world however the teachings he had grown up with started to seem a little trite. As he explored the land and got a feel for everyday life he diversified his talents, picking up singing, and a new form of magic. If its okay, I'd run him as a cleric/bard,"

Again, no real problem.

I might actually do the same for certain players. Though I suspect we have different reasoning for this. I will not mention my reasoning, because I think it goes very off topic, but if you really want to read my rambling I will edit a spoiler. (Edit: Basically it comes down to if I am afraid that the player is building a gimmicky charater of which they'll get bored of quickly, and I want to avoid players getting bored of the characters if I can help it.)
I don't know your reasoning, I wouldn't like to guess, and that's what I am interested in hearing about and discussing.

Some of the reasons are listed above.

But, in addition to the reason you gave (bolded), I'm also against one player making a Power Character when no one else is and/or trying to dominate the game by 'solving' every problem with their Mary Sue.
Be a part of the team, please.

[Boci]

Um, I'm wondering why you (the PC) chose Moon Druid, since their real power comes in at 18th level, with CR 6 beasts.

Now, if the Rogue (Assassin) PC did not know what Circle it was and it just happened to be Moon, sure.

But, if you're just trying to get CR 1 beasts to stack with your PC's Sneak Attack, not so much.

Its not to get SA in animal form (which I don't think works by RAW), but to use animal form to sneak up on targets and catch them offguard. He likes the idea, and wants it to become part of his calling card.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's both amusing and sad how quickly these discussions devolve into disputes about who is "in charge", who has "power", whose enjoyment is "legitimate" vs whose enjoyment is "silly", etc.

I guess it's true that the smaller the pie, the pettier the stakes, the more vicious the fight.

[Arkhios]

It's both amusing and sad how quickly these discussions devolve into disputes about who is "in charge", who has "power", whose enjoyment is "legitimate" vs whose enjoyment is "silly", etc.

I guess it's true that the smaller the pie, the pettier the stakes, the more vicious the fight.

It is legitimate concern though. Belittling it doesn't make the issue disappear.

[Great Dragon]

Its not to get SA in animal form (which I don't think works by RAW), but to use animal form to sneak up on targets and catch them offguard. He likes the idea, and wants it to become part of his calling card.

I do know that Druids can access Class abilities while shifted. (Barbarian Rage Resistances, including Bear Totem, for example.)
“You retain the benefit of any features from your Class, Race (except Darkvision, unless the form has it), or other sources so long as the form is physically capable of performing them.”
You also gain the physical stats, movement types, and abilities (Blindsight, etc) of that beast, but not multi-attack.
Druids can't cast spells while Shifted, until 18th level.

If sneaking in is all you want, any Druid Circle can work.

So, again - why Moon? If you are going for the Bonus Action Shifting, you might as well use Brown Bear with SA by having at least one friend in melee with you.

However, you will be required to RP through multi-class training, because why would I waste a perfectly good adventure hook? As such, you will need to tell me at least one level ahead of your dip what you want to dip, why, and how it fits into your character.

Like Sparky McDibben, I run a World where each Class has History, and the members are proud of being part of it.

I also tend to use conflict (some would say Drama) even with straight Classes. Something like Rivalry between Subclasses of the same Class. "Friendly competition" between other Classes/Subclasses.

Multiclass Characters are almost always Solo acts, and are usually treated poorly by full members of both their Classes. The NPCs will either think that they are exploiting the combo for power, or the NPCs will try to use them - either as a Guild, or for personal gain.

Also, convincing someone to teach you their class when they know that you are already a member of another Class is tricky, but can be done.
Decieving them is possible, but you better hope they never find out.

"Adventuring" People (NPCs) tend to band together to cover as many bases as possible, and rarely have more than one of the same Class in the party.

So, yeah. You could get the Rogue/Druid combo.
But you're most likely hiding Druid from everyone, lest you become targeted by other members of both Classes/Subclasses.
Plus, the mystery of exactly how your PC gets access to the target could enhance his reputation. But, once it is known that he's a Druid, people take precautions against it.
And, the higher level of target, the more chance of getting caught.

[Boci]

I do know that Druids can access Class abilities while shifted. (Barbarian Rage Resistances, including Bear Totem, for example.)
“You retain the benefit of any features from your Class, Race (except Darkvision, unless the form has it), or other sources so long as the form is physically capable of performing them.”
You also gain the physical stats, movement types, and abilities (Blindsight, etc) of that beast, but not multi-attack.
Druids can't cast spells while Shifted, until 18th level.

If sneaking in is all you want, any Druid Circle can work.

So, again - why Moon? If you are going for the Bonus Action Shifting, you might as well use Brown Bear with SA by having at least one friend in melee with you.

Because the character wanted to become a druid because of wildshape, the whole natural magic is cool enough but its not what drew him to the idea, and moon is the best at wildshaping.

As for SA whilst wildshaped, natural attacks are not melee weapon with the finerssable quality, so it won't work.

So, yeah. You could get the Rogue/Druid combo.
But you're most likely hiding this from everyone, lest you become targeted by other members of both Classes/Subclasses.

He'd hide it even if classes didn't have proud histories, because he doesn't anyone copying his style.

[Great Dragon]

Because the character wanted to become a druid because of wildshape, the whole natural magic is cool enough but its not what drew him to the idea, and moon is the best at wildshaping.

Ok. But wouldn't you rather go Moon Druid 17/Assassin Rogue 3 to get more powerful beasts? Up to CR 5.

Or was he going more for Assassin 18/Moon Druid 2? Get in with tiny beast, 9d6 SA target + Assassin abilities, BA shift to tiny beast again and escape? Assuming no one has the ability to detect shapechangers.

As for SA whilst wildshaped, natural attacks are not melee weapon with the finerssable quality, so it won't work.

Aha! Good point.

He'd hide it even if classes didn't have proud histories, because he doesn't anyone copying his style.

I see. It's a shame that we are most likely never to meet in person; I'd like to see how far you can take this Character.

This is an interesting Character idea.
Thanks for the debate, and the Idea for a Villain for my game!😁

[Boci]

Or was he going more for Assassin 18/Moon Druid 2? Get in with tiny beast, 9d6 SA target + Assassin abilities, BA shift to tiny beast again and escape? Assuming no one has the ability to detect shapechangers.

Yeah, that's what he's aiming for. Wildshape to set up strike and/or escape, assassin abilities to actually take down the target.

I see. It's a shame that we are most likely never to meet in person; I'd like to see how far you can take this Character.

This is an interesting Character idea.
Thanks for the debate, and the Idea for a Villain for my game!😁

No problem, I'm glad you like the character concept. Let me know how he performs if you end up using him.

[Corran]

But, in addition to the reason you gave (bolded), I'm also against one player making a Power Character when no one else is and/or trying to dominate the game by 'solving' every problem with their Mary Sue.
Be a part of the team, please.

I'll tell you something. I have very specific opinions about how dnd should be played. To hear me talking about it and it might even sound like preaching. In truth, I am very easy going when actually playing the game. If I like the people and I am having a good time at the table, I'll play no matter if my ''axioms'' (using the word a bit self sarcastically) are satisfied or not. There is one exception to that though. It has to do with xp and how they should be awarded. If a player does not agree, they are out. If a DM does not agree to have it go my way, I am out. That simple. This is because of two reasons. One of the reasons is because I dont want to facilitate imbalance between the players' characters. It's the lesser of the two reasons, granted, but it shows that I feel strongly about it. That's why I also dont like for the players to individually roll their stats as well, or for bringing back the fallen to carry xp penalties.

There is a limit to that though. And that limit is exactly where player agency begins. I wont go out of my way to instruct players how to allocate stats or how to pick their characters' powers. If someone was to modify their character sheet in such a way that their character will be good at thing X or generally in combat/exploration/social, that's their choice. If someone wants to do the exact opposite, that's their choice as well.

If I thought multiclassing is part of the problem, I'd be happy to ban it (or see a DM ban it in the games I play). But I have no clue as to how anyone could actually support the opinion that multiclassing is anything other than character customization and also something completely distinct from optimization.

But the above is not even the issue. I dont want to speak about you, both because I dont know you and because it would be impolite, so I'll speak about others in general. The heart of the issue for me, is that the majority of DM's that ban multiclassing (and this is my guess), do it because they want to punish/prevent optimization. I am not sympathetic to this view because I cannot understand it. One of the ways with which the DM's try to achieve this, is by taking a dump on character customization, such as by preventing multiclassing. I am even more unsympathetic to this (assuming the reasoning is what I described), firstly because I dont agree with the intent, and secondly because this does nothing to solve the supposed issue.

Hope I didn't tire you too much.

Like Sparky McDibben, I run a World where each Class has History, and the members are proud of being part of it.

This is purely preference so I cannot even dare utter words like 'right' or 'wrong', but I'll say this. I dont like this idea, because it leads (at least for me) to immersion breaking due to silliness. That is because I think that player characters should identify with their class(es) only a tiny bit more than actual people with their horoscope (or whatever that's called). Otherwise the player characters are not believable as human beings and the game world is not believable as an actual world (even a fantasy one). What is a class? A collection of features. Do you see player character identifying so much with these features? Do fighters have conversations about how many weeks they trained so that they can second wind, and that is something that bonds them? Do they test if the can action surge by bringing a wizard who is smart enough to find a way to count the seconds needed for the fighter to attack two times reliably? Caution, they should bring in a wizard to do this, not a sorcerer or a warlock. That's because wizards are the one casting with intelligence so they are the smart ones. And assuming we are playing in a game where pc's do in fact identify that much with their class features, doesn't that make multiclassing even more necessary so that we can have more distinct characters? Or do you think it is a good thing for pc's to have the personality of a character from an arcade game? I dont. But I am guessing that if the pc's have less of a personality it might be easier for a DM to narrate a story...

Edit: To be fair, from a player's perspective, this whole structure seems to me like a cheap way to disguise meta knowledge as IC knowledge.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is purely preference so I cannot even dare utter words like 'right' or 'wrong', but I'll say this. I dont like this idea, because it leads (at least for me) to immersion breaking due to silliness. That is because I think that player characters should identify with their class(es) only a tiny bit more than actual people with their horoscope (or whatever that's called). Otherwise the player characters are not believable as human beings and the game world is not believable as an actual world (even a fantasy one). What is a class? A collection of features. Do you see player character identifying so much with these features? Do fighters have conversations about how many weeks they trained so that they can second wind, and that is something that bonds them? Do they test if the can action surge by bringing a wizard who is smart enough to find a way to count the seconds needed for the fighter to attack two times reliably? Caution, they should bring in a wizard to do this, not a sorcerer or a warlock. That's because wizards are the one casting with intelligence so they are the smart ones. And assuming we are playing in a game where pc's do in fact identify that much with their class features, doesn't that make multiclassing even more necessary so that we can have more distinct characters? Or do you think it is a good thing for pc's to have the personality of a character from an arcade game? I dont. But I am guessing that if the pc's have less of a personality it might be easier for a DM to narrate a story...

"...player characters should identify with their class(es) only a tiny bit more than actual people with their horoscope..." might be the best line I've ever seen to sum up how silly the whole "I'm a Level 5 Fighter!" thing is to me.

That's pretty much my opinion on the thing, as well. Classes, etc, are just a set of tools (and kinda clunky ones at that) for translating a character into the rules of the game, nothing more, as far as I'm concerned.

I have no interest in creating characters to fulfill a trope/cliche/stereotype/archetype.

[HamsterKun]

When I DM, triple-classing is hard-banned and the infamous Paladin/Sorcerer is soft-banned.

[JNAProductions]

When I DM, triple-classing is hard-banned and the infamous Paladin/Sorcerer is soft-banned.

What do you mean by "Soft-banned"?

[HamsterKun]

What do you mean by "Soft-banned"?

Not prohibited outright, but discouraged.

I personally hate Sorcadins because of one campaign where a munchkin made one and made her an obnoxious AF Mary Sue (she was also a gender-swapped self-insert of the player). I ended up having to kill her with a lightning bolt from the heavens to shut her up.

[JNAProductions]

Not prohibited outright, but discouraged.

I personally hate Sorcadins because of one campaign where a munchkin made one and made her an obnoxious AF Mary Sue (she was also a gender-swapped self-insert of the player). I ended up having to kill her with a lightning bolt from the heavens to shut her up.

That's never a good answer.

OOC problems need OOC solutions.

[HamsterKun]

That's never a good answer.

OOC problems need OOC solutions.

Like what?

[stoutstien]

Like what?

Tell the player in question that they are causing you and probably the other players to have less fun. this isn't a problem with multi-class. She could be a pure pally and still have the same issue

Using the rocks fall you die button is why players feel they need to build min/max build because now it's a GM vs other player state of mind.

[Yuroch Kern]

Hey guys,

How many of y'all restrict multiclassing?

If y'all do, what reasons do you give (narratively and/or mechanically) for the restrictions?

I usually talk with the player during creation. A desire to multi should be planned somewhat. Even if it's for mechanical gain, I won't be surprised when it happens. It helps if the player also knows the probable end level the game will reasonably go to. That alone tends to shut down really wacky multiclasses.

[Kalashak]

Tell the player in question that they are causing you and probably the other players to have less fun. this isn't a problem with multi-class. She could be a pure pally and still have the same issue

Using the rocks fall you die button is why players feel they need to build min/max build because now it's a GM vs other player state of mind.

Alternatively, don't play with people who annoy you

[Lyracian]

Really, it just boils down to this

• Don't let casters dip for tons of AC.

.

Amusingly one of the main reasons I see too Multiclass is extra Armour.

The classic First Edition Fighter/Mage wants a level or two as Fighter to get Heavy Armour and weapon use. Probably end up as Fighter 11 Wizard 9 for 3 attack’s and level 5 spells.

A Wizard dip is also nice to expand an Arcane Tricsters spell options.

There are certainly some characters that work without multiple classes and I actually prefer single class in 5th ed at least until Tier 3 but there are other concepts that work better with Feats and Multi-class.

In the game I run we only use PHB and XGtE in the two I play in we only use PHB options. We have a mix of pure class characters and those with a small dip.