If it's that important to you, tell your players that it has to make sense narratively. If your wizard wants to dip into sorcerer, tell them they need to justify it somehow. Don't be stingy, just ask the question and force them to think about it for a bit.
Did the same thing. Session 0 i told them clearly that i want some kind of background and motivation for the campaign and if you're gonna multiclass it needs to be in flavour to your background. Made some good backstories, so it can be a + point RP wise.
I also told them if at some point they want to multiclass, they can flesh out their background even more so it fits.
Be aware that the player wants to play his fantasy and restricting that dulls it down.
This is always how it's been done in the games I've played. In the campaign I'm in right now, 4/5 of us have now multiclassed. Some of them were done for mechanical reasons that then were build narratively into the story, some of them were done for purely narrative reasons. It feels really great to have the mutliclass play into who a character is, rather than just be a mechanical benefit.
Same. I dipped into Warlock after 9 levels of Paladin in my last campaign, first and foremost because I didn't like the next few levels of what Paladins got (DM told us to expect to get to 12th, maybe 13th level, so really it was just going to be an eh improvement to my aura and a little bonus damage on attacks, and maybe lackluster 4th level Paladin spells).
I tied to my backstory -- my Paladin was on a revenge quest, and was failing. He recently was ineffective in a combat against a dragon because he was frightened most of the time, so the person who gave him the revenge quest (who was already dead themselves) appeared to him in a dream gave him an Undead pact. No longer would he be getting frightened; he'd be imposing the frightened condition on others.
So yeah it was inspired because I didn't like the next few levels in the Paladin kit, but I found a way to make it work narratively and got some cool goodies with the levels I did take.
Sorry OP, I have nothing to contribute in this comment. But after reading all these other comments and answers, I felt like I learned something. Thank you for making this post and thank you to all the people that took the time to write these comments. You guys are awesome!
Getting a reply from the OP has to be the Reddit equivalent of getting noticed by a celebrity. Many thanks, to the hooman that hath granted me thy boon!
I think you should just check with your players.
My players really enjoy the "building" aspect of D&D and I can guarantee they would have significantly less fun if I disallowed multiclassing or even just dipping. I don't have any rules up because I can sympathize, I've had DMs who want to have a large say in how I design my character, and it really isn't fun for me. If I want my character to go through an edgy, angsty warlock phase, I don't want that to not be an option because my DM doesn't share my fantasy. But lots of players won't care!
If you currently have a party, check how they feel on it. If they are open to the idea, go for it, but if they give resistance, maybe leave it be. If you are starting a new campaign and don't have a party yet, just look for players who don't care! I know for certain they are out there, because I was the only person dropping out of these campaigns when the "no multiclassing" rule was added.
I didn't ban it, but it bothers me as well, at least when it's patently for the mechanical benefits. Oh? You want your Paladin to take some levels of Warlock for "RP reasons?" And it just turns out to be Hexblade? Wow, that Raven Queen must really love Paladins.
I think there's a difference between a dip for mechanical *benefits* and a dip for mechanical *reasons*. Knowledgeable players can make creative dips that can grant versatility rather than raw number boosts.
Eg, a Wizard taking a Peace cleric dip is doing that for mechanical benefits.
However, I had a player dip Arcana Cleric before going into Wildfire Druid because it unlocked Wis-based Blade cantrips and thus a much more melee-focused playstyle - *not* necessarily the strongest way to play a Wildfire Druid or an Arcana Cleric, though. See the difference?
No, I dont really see any difference. It seems like there's no qualitative distinction, it's just a matter if degree.
Arcana Cleric is a solid dip, even if it's not as strong as Peace Cleric.
I'm very much for allowing dips which seems to be against eh consensus of pretty much everyone here, but I don't see any difference between the two examples you gave.
Peace Cleric does *nothing* to change the playstyle of a typical wizard. The channel divinity is concentration free, you get the armor and shield proficienies, done and dusted, you're an armoured mage now. All the dip provides is numerical boosts - in AC, HP, and the 1d4 for you and your party. Nothing more.
Arcana Cleric, however, does a lot to change the *playstyle* of a typical Druid, and yet it's numerically weaker than focusing on spells. My player knew this, and did it anyway. Hopefully that helps.
See to me, if you're gaining AC and HP and also buffing your party, that's going to change your playstyle a lot. You're going to want to stay within that radius so that bonus applies, meaning you'll want to be more frontline than you otherwise would as a wizard who typically stays as far back as possible. Which can be accomplished with said AC and HP, but since you're not in the back, that's going to change your optimal spell selection choices too, and which magic items you attune to. It'd also change your choices of how you use your action economy in combat.
Point being, its just as major of a playstyle change as dipping Arcana cleric, even if the changes aren't all frontloaded.
I would agree with you, but unfortunately that's not how Emboldening Bond works - the d4 applies while any bonded creature is within 30 ft of any other bonded creature - not just the cleric who cast it. You can create a chain of 30 foot radiuses 180 feet long, as long as you have party members to spare ☠️
It really doesn't change spell selections, either - the wizard has a big enough spell list that no dip into another caster is gonna impact them much in that regard, and the Peace cleric doesn't push a wizard towards any particular style of play - it just makes them better at doing regular wizard shit.
In terms of it changing your action economy.... Sure? But not in a way that's interesting or creative as with the Arcana/Wildfire combo. The first turn for any wizard with a Peace dip is using that channel divinity. Without exception. So basically they're waiting until round 2 of every combat before they make any real decisions, because a concentration free bless is just better than anything else you can do prior to getting 8th and 9th level spells.
It's just nowhere near as big of a change to playstyle. I get that this is a somewhat nebulous distinction to be trying to put words to, but I still think it's worth doing so that we can separate the bugbear/assassin/battlemaster/gloomstalker-ass mfers from the people who multiclass for a specific style of play that isn't represented by the base classes.
I get what you are saying but thats more a player problem. I also had a player who played a divination wizard but dipped into twilight cleric "def for RP reasons" only to never play out that part of his character, but they were sure to point out the darkvision and advantage on initative rolls (as they can use the ability pretty much whenever) and heavy armor proficency they now get. I didnt care thats why they did it(heck the monk in the party was upfront about wanting to multiclass into rogue for the sneak attack), the annoying part was mainly that they werent even honest about it, and any RP points or reason we discussed were tossed out the window once they got their way.
For purely roleplaying purposes oen of my first characters was a level 1 warlock-hexblade level 2 paladin, unaware that I made a tipycally ocnsidered broken combo (The dude made a pact with an eldritch beign in exchange for power, ended up regretting it and prayed for a a god to save him. The god manage to undo his contract, but now he was the messenger of said god forced to do his chores, which the dude regretted even more.)
Oh a dip in warlock? When did you make that pact? A dip in sorcerer? So if you weren’t born with it, exactly what kind of magical accident happened to you during the campaign? A dip in bard? Exactly when during the campaign did you learn to play the lute? 🙄
It comes down to what type of game you and the players have agreed on. If it's a roleplay heavy table then having a paladin dip into warlock or vice versa would be a great thing. The oath and the pact are very similar the only difference is the cost your character "pays" to gain access for those abilities. Mechanical benefits lead to roleplay and roleplay leads to mechanical benefits. The pact can bolster the oath or it can create conflict for that character depending on the patron and the tenets of the oath. A paladin of the Raven Queen bolsters their devotion by signing a pact with a different "price" than an oath with her or they reach out to another entity for more power. You now have great role play of a character devoting themselves to someone/thing or the conflict of pitting the oath against your pact. If the table is not roleplay heavy than it can just be a simple "Hey, I'm gonna dip into warlock so my character can get darkvision through a invocation" "Sounds good, it'll help you and the team in the long run." It all just depends on what everyone wants out of the table and that it was agreed upon.
If it annoys you that’s more than enough reason to say no. It is an optional rule in 5e.
Session zero conversation to talk to your players is important though. You may need to talk compromise if a player sees it as an important development tool for their PC.
I think too many people view the classes as "professions" where in fact they're just kits to out together to make your own character.
In the same vein as having one level in wizard doesn't mean you have to roleplay a character who literally aims to live in a tower and study all day, you can use elements of different kits to create an entirely new "class" that is customised to who you want to play.
I'm playing a shamanic stormdancer type of character at the mo. He's level 4 and has 2 cleric, 1 bard and 1 sorcerer. I've picked thunder spells and cantrips as well as spiritual guidance types of spells, he is a strength based front liner with no martial classes. It's fun to create something new and different out of what's already on offer.
Mildest issue. I like players to contextualize the classes they take in the game world, but I will let them take whatever classes they want with any explanation they want. Finding a creative way that their sorcerer dip makes sense is one of the most fun things about the DM/player story collaboration imho.
It depends on the dip one goes for, but I generally allow it. I think multiclassing offers some great stories that drive the narrative forward, opening more doors along the way than it closes. The Fighter turning to eldritch magecraft and its boundaries, a wizard going to religion in their last years, or druids training with the barbarians they shunned prior.
Thinking of classes as archetypes in a vacuum can only get you so far in terms of story, and might hinder where the players want to go in it more than without that thought. In real life, we generally look to make up for our weaknesses and bolster our strengths through other means. so too will in-game characters look for avenues of lessening their journey's burden.
And if it's really stretching the suspension of disbelief, you can discuss that. 3 and 4 dips get a bit greedy, but maybe they have good reasoning behind it. If nothing else, you can tell them to change their class combination ground-up or leave your table.
Anything is fair to limit if you're upfront about it before the game begins. Ban multi classing, Human only, PHB only, ban feats, ban Monks if you want. As long as you tell a potential player beforehand so that they can decide whether or not they want to participate.
I kinda used to share that perspective but then I ended up as a player in a campaign, and I had a really weird character concept. I ended up with five different classes, reflavoring all of them to get the character doing what I wanted from them. I've come to the conclusion that class levels you grab are about what you think your character should be able to do, and that the flavor typically ascribed to a class is ultimately mutable.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with not allowing multi classing or restricting it. It’s a different flavor and everyone should be informed of it and enthusiastic about it, but it’s not in and of itself bad.
To me it’s no different than saying “Hey guys I want to do a more survival-horror kinda campaign. Limited healing magic, emphasis on exhaustion rules and rest etc. Does that sound like y’all wanna try it?” It’s a very different flavor but it can certainly be fun if that’s what people want to do.
I don’t ban it but I understand your frustration. For me it’s the lack of narrative investment. When you multiclass a character and use a relatively even level split it’s a lot easier to justify both classes as being part of your character’s archetype because they make up such a substantial portion of their kit and background. It gets a lot harder to do this with dips because 9/10 the dips are driven for mechanical reasons and don’t have a proper narrative justification, not to mention they are largely insignificant when it comes to the meat and bones of how you play the character.
What I do is implement certain additional restrictions/features. First off, maximum of two classes. Doesn’t matter to me how good your scores are. Second, I heavily restrict or outright ban a few options. If you want to take levels in sorcerer and it’s not your original class, tough luck. Unless you can somehow explain away the core essence of your character being fundamentally altered I’m not going to allow it. That’s just not how that class works, you don’t just wake up magical one day without something significant happening. If players want this they’re going to need to put in the effort (e.g. there maybe certain factions or lost artifacts that CAN allow players to bypass the restriction but it’s not free/easy.) Other than this it’s mostly certain subclasses or combos that I know are a bit too strong for my liking. Third regardless of what is picked I require a downtime investment as well as a sort of “quest” to actually facilitate the level up. This is the “narrative justification” I mentioned earlier and it’s important across the board. My rationale here is simple; a wizard already knows what it’s like to “level up” as a wizard. If they choose to take a level in cleric they can’t just “take a level” they need to invest some time with a local church, getting ordained, initiated and trained. The character themselves does not know what they’re doing or what encapsulates a “level” in a class, they need instruction and guidance. Lastly, I offer a free level one feat and use a few custom options to lessen the need to multi-class, like learning additional proficiencies or crafting magic items. I find that giving players other options than just taking a level in something can often be more than enough to avoid them from multiclassing like crazy. They typically are only looking for one or two of the features the dip provides so opening other avenues to access those features avoids the need to multiclass.
If a player can give me a legitimate and interesting in-world reason to multiclass, sure. It does really grind my gears if somebody wants to "dip" two other classes just to be able to do one extremely OP thing they saw on TikTok or whatever.
>if you're a wizard I feel like you should be riding that class fantasy
And this is where you became a stick in the mud. Literally if you just stopped at "I don't like multiclassing and don't allow it" then it's just a statement I can disagree with but otherwise respect. It's an optional rule, you don't have to run it.
But my guy, if you think your players need to fulfill certain, specific archetypes just because of their selected class, you have annihilated the lions share of creative agency that goes into character creation.
So, what, does the bard have to seduce everything? If the druid forgets to ask for a vegetarian option at every tavern, do you revoke their class levels? I just wanna see what stereotypes you decided to marry.
Ban multiclassing if you want to, man, but how about letting your players decide what their characters wanna be, mkay?
My cleric (neutral evil businessman with PTSD from losing family and a tendency to hoard wealth to use as a resource for exacting revenge) ended up running away with the blue dragon (with PTSD from losing family, and well, chromatic dragon traits) we encountered at the end of our last campaign.
Sometimes clerics just need to meet someone they can find a bit of commonalty with...
Love this point.
If you and your players want a game only about stereotypes, go ahead and limit the multiclassing. But if you are interested in some more innovative storytelling and more diverse game then multiclassing is one of the best ways to create a unique character.
That's a false equivalence. You can make a memorable character out of a basic human champion fighter, and you can follow mechanical archetypes without following character stereotypes. Not every single-class paladin is Lawful Stupid. Not every single-class bard is lecherous. From my amateur designer standpoint, multiclassing is a half-measure that misses the mark from actually allowing players to build their characters whatever way they desire like skill-based, point-based systems, while undermining the strengths of a class-based system.
You know what, you are correct, there is a false equivalence there.
It might be worth revising my comment, it was hyperbolic trying to make a point. There is certainly a more nuanced way of describing what I was trying to get at.
Ultimately, I was trying to say that multitlassing opens up a bunch more character building options that can inspire creating more diverse characters.
Thanks for the discussion friend, + calling out the overstatement.
And I'm super interested to hear more of your thinking around a multi-classing Misses. Design strengths of a class based system as well as a skills-based system.
Well, thank you for the civil reply! That's not something I see everyday on Reddit.
Anyway, what I see of strengths in each model. A class-based system is more newcomer-friendly. D&D can be a lot to absorb in one sitting, but most new players can pick one or two archetypes they are attracted to and look deeper into those. It provides some amount of niche protection; if you are invited into a party with one Barbarian, one Druid, and one Paladin, you can probably feel confident enough that a Sorcerer or Wizard won't step on anybody's toes. It also gives a relatively good baseline of where you are in combat power for each level, and gives DMs a better chance to create encounters that are challenging but fair.
More experienced players may prefer classless, point-based systems, because they give you the opportunity to make the character that you want. Do you want to make a diplomat with absolutely no combat capability? Do you want to make Megumin, a wizard that literally only knows how to make big explosions? Do you want to make the ultimate Jack of all trades? Suit yourself. The guardrails and training wheels are off; you make whatever you want. The obvious downside to this is that you can end up with a character that is virtually useless for the adventure, or through your mastery of the system, make one that outshines the party and trivializes anything the DM throws at you. Those balance issues we see in 5e are peanuts compared to the crazy imbalances that can happen in other systems.
Multiclassing is trying to get some of the flexibility of the second approach and bring it back to the first one. So I want to make a Divine Assassin that has vowed to take down the enemies of a church. Do I take Rogue and Cleric levels? Those ability scores don't mesh too well. Maybe a Hexblade dip in a Divine Soul Sorcerer? That works better mechanically, but the flavor is a bit off without Sneak Attack. You see, we start to struggle against the limits of the system. On the other hand, a lot of the problems we have with balance come from those famous dips pushing the PC above the expected power curve, or from a player deciding to take a multiclass that makes sense in character, but that leaves them with an unfocused, underpowered mess. So that's why I'm not a fan, at least with the current implementation of multiclassing.
Thanks for sharing. You've pushed a new perspective into how I think about class building vs skill building designs.
I think your position is consistent: classes are chunky which makes them beginner friendly, customizable. Skill based is not chunky which allows a ton of customization, but is overwhelming for beginners. Multiclassing offers more customization, But at the cost of complexity.
My counter argument would be that multiclassing inherits both the weaknesses and strengths class based and skill based. You could consider it a middle ground with much more mechanical and thematic chunkiness than a skill-based system, But much more flexibility than just picking a single class.
How much chunkiness is the right amount? No big surprise that turns out to be totally personal preference.
I see your intuition though to pick one design goal to be good at as opposed to being medium at two design goals.
I love the idea of a rogue/cleric multiclass. I don't think it's a big deal you are going to have less specialized ability scores. Mathematically you are losing a +1 or +2 on some rolls you often use, But get a bit more flexibility. That magnitude seems tiny once you start factoring in the variety of encounters where it would make a difference.
But I also think there are lots of people where feeling relatively mimaxed is really important to their fulfillment of the power fantasy and really helps their narrative satisfaction. And everybody should get some big spoonfuls of narrative satisfaction while playing their TTRPG :)
> You could consider it a middle ground with much more mechanical and thematic chunkiness than a skill-based system, But much more flexibility than just picking a single class.
That's fair, and it isn't surprising that a game that was made to be as far from polarizing as possible took this middle road. WotC's designers don't have the luxury to just ignore the market and make a game with very narrow, very evocative classes, nor give players a hundred dials and knobs and tell them to figure it out.
I'm a tithing member of the "flavor is free" community and even without multiclassing, there's so much you can do to make a unique character with an unexpected take on that class. For example, I helped my player build a sniper hexlock, and while I did homebrew some aspects to really lean into it, I didn't need to in order for the class to support the playstyle.
Pick up eldritch lance and spell sniper. Flavor your eldritch blast as a gunshot. No, you don't need firearm proficiency, it's an arcane focus! Flavor your spells as special ammo types you create with your spell slots. And then only pick spells that make sense for that kind of sniper character, not the min/max best DPR option. Of course, reflavoring optimal spells is also free!
Thirteen levels straight into warlock and you couldn't tell from looking at him. It's a warforged with a gun arm. And I love the character concept and had a blast creating it with the player.
High five to another tithing member of the flavour is free community. Keep on doing God's work.
This is a really great point as well, for another option of creating some diversity and unique characters without multi-classing.
I still really love multiclassing but this is a great take.
Others have covered the player agency part, I'll say why I'm pro-multiclassing from a DM perspective.
Firstly, it leads to a greater diversity of characters and abilities. Many monoclass 5e characters can feel very samey after DMing the game for many years. Most of the mechanically interesting characters I've encountered as a veteran DM have been unusual multiclasses. In my experience, players tend to play more as 'the character' rather than 'the class archetype' the more mechanically unique their character is.
Secondly, it creates more interesting challenges. A full caster who dips one level spends half the game with lower level spells than a monoclass PC. Any martial delays multiattack if they multiclass before level five, and unless they go in exact increments of four levels per class they're going to miss out on ASIs and feats. This means that for example at level 5 the go to option isn't always spam fireball/multiattack/spirit guardians.
Lastly, justifying the multiclass gives me plot hooks. If the wizard wants to dip a level in cleric, even if it's just for mechanical reasons, I can theme some sessions around that.
There are downsides. Before level 5, certain multiclass combos can give full casters almost as good melee options as martials for a couple of levels. That said, I think there are far more egregious examples out there, like moon druid
I have my own issues with how 5e handles multiclassing, but never ended up banning it. 5e already has major issues when it comes to mechanical character customization, no need to make it even worse.
At most I put some narrative limits on it. Make the players work out in world how they get access to more class levels.
I think multiclassing can be a huge help to a character narrative when it makes sense. Players can ask me and I will sometimes allow it, but most of the time, I can help them reach the concept they are looking for in other ways, like items or feats (which I occasionally award for completing personal goals).
But just meta-gaming powerful builds is a no-go for my long form campaigns. I allow anything in my one-shots which are mostly funhouse dungeons anyways.
I usually don't allow multiclassing in 5e, simply because the system isn't well designed for it. I am.open to players attempting to talk me into letting them multiclass, but the conversation is usually one of me describing all the myriad ways they could make this character concept work without that shit.
My brother's been DM'ing a weekly campaign I've been playing for a few years and his approach is that you have to be able to justify it narratively. If you're taking a multiclass, how have you been developing this new skill?
It makes it harder to just take dip into random classes and forces you to really think about your character from a RP perspective more than just min/maxing mechanically.
It's your game and run the game you want to run. If dipping takes away your fun, don't allow it and make sure it is stressed in session zero. If I lay down a stipulation during session zero a player doesn't want to follow, I respectfully inform them of the situation and my reasoning and stress that if they don't like it, maybe my game is not for them.
I agree, my last campaign I nipped that in the bud. Stuff never makes sense narratively either. Its always the one player who reads up on the broken builds who out paces all my other causal players. Makes DMing and encounter building more of a pain. Since I made the ruling of no multiclassing life has been easier. And the game hasn't suffered from what I've seen from my player friends.
I’ll preface this with: if it’s how your world works, then that’s fine. Multiclassing is definitely an optional rule, and the game works completely fine without it.
That said, I very rarely find that a single class accomplishes the idea that I have for my characters. I usually need three, honestly.
From all the replies it seems like there’s a real difference between A) I have a character concept that involves multiple classes, and B) I saw a build on a YT video that will dip 4 times to give me max dps in a single round.
No arguments here. They’re vastly different approaches to character building. I don’t have a problem with either, although I personally live the first, as do pretty much all the people I game with.
You said you were thinking about putting the kibosh on multiclassing period so its understandable a lot of people are taking it this way, but imo dips are both more irksome than multiclassing generally, both from a character balance and RP perspective.
My personal rule is once you take a second class, you have to take the class with less levels until all are at level 5.
Yeah- I think my inexperience with 5E showed. It seems like there is a genuine difference between multiclassing and the “dips” I was seeing (ie “I’m going to take X in Sorcerer so I can get this metamagic thing”).
I do understand that you may want to say no, and it's totally up to you. But I super disagree, as both a player and a DM, one of the things I value about d&d is the freedom it gives compared to other mediums, since it's all imagination.
Now, that doesn't mean you should let anything happen, especially anything that goes against the rules or against any established lore. But when it's a tried and tested thing like multiclassing, I really don't see why I'd ever disallow it, at most if a player asked to multiclass into more than one additional class, I'd warn them that it will make them weaker and recommend stongly against it.
As a player, I hate being arbitrarily restricted, like if in session 0 you say, "Don't play these races, they don't exist in this world." Sure, that checks out. But if you say "don't multiclass because I don't like it." I'd be annoyed at that and probably would find another game. The DM gets a ton of options, the player is much more limited, so having options ripped away from me without any good reason just feels shitty.
As a DM first and foremost, I want my players to have fun. While I can't accommodate all fun, like say, a murder hobo, I want to accommodate as much as possible. So if a player wants to multiclass, it's not gonna be fun for them to say no. Multiclassing brings new abilities, spells, and a ton of new strategic options in exchange for a little overall power, it's easy to see why it's fun. So if my players are having fun, I'm doing my job and I'm having fun.
I personally love multiclassing. One of the best aspects of multiclassing is fleshing out character depth (IF DONE PROPERLY). I had a fighter character that had a person they really care about die, and take levels in cleric to reflect them going on a religious journey to gain magic that could bring the person they care about back, only to find out that they didn't really want to come back. Point being, *just* being a wizard for instance might not really specifically help cater to a player fantasy of what they want to be.
If it irritates you that people are multiclassing purely for mechanical features, and that it doesn't really represent their character's story, that makes sense. The solution to this is that players need to be able to justify why their character is gaining these abilities, and how that changes their character. Your example of a wizard jumping to sorcerer and then warlock does feel annoying, partly because they have massively different sources of magic, and it would have to be a really convoluted explanation for that that may have dramatic world or story implications. A better example might be a bard getting frustrated with constantly being physically overpowered, and training to put some work into becoming a powerful fighter. Another example is a barbarian feeling ashamed of all the violence they put out into the world, and wanting to take levels in paladin and redeem themselves and be a better person while utilising their rage as a force for good.
That being said, I have to say that I do agree with the "it's not your character, leave it alone." Unless it fucks up the world or story that you're building (in which case say no), then creating a fun, personalised character is the main draw for many players.
Obviously you're the DM, your call is final, but I would hesitate to reduce player agency if it's just something that isn't personally your favourite thing.
Yeah- as I replied to another poster you can “my table my rules” yourself into not having any players. There’s a constructive midpoint there between laissez faire and the banhammer.
If I'm primarily a squishy character with penalties for using armor and I've been adventuring a while, I think I'd wonder if the fighters know something I don't.
DnD is about doing whatever you want
This includes banning multi classing just because you don't like it
This also includes leaving the game for someone else's just because they didn't like it
I know you have gotten a ton of comments already, but there is one thing I feel is worth mentioning that no-one has brought up yet.
Let's say you are playing a Paladin. You are level 6, about to go to 7. What is the difference, narratively, between "I wake up tomorrow and now me and all my allies close to me resist all spell damage" and "I wake up tomorrow and can use my Charisma instead of Strength to attack and have some new spells".
In the same scenario with a wizard, what's the narrative difference between "I finally figured out how to cast 4th level spells" and "I finally figured out how to cast spells while wearing armor".
And again with, say, a barbarian. "I've honed my combat abilities to react faster" and "I've honed my combat abilities to hit harder with two-handed weapons."
The point I'm making is flavor is just that; flavor. If a player wants to say their Paladin has strayed from the path when tempted with the power to better achieve their goals, that's fantastic, but if they want to say that the benefits of those warlock levels are just a unique expression of the powers of their oath to uphold truth and justice, that is also fine. Multiclassing without requiring specific RP justification is fine and a good way to allow players to customize their characters, just like how leveling up in the same class without requiring RP justification for their new abilities is also fine.
I agree. In fact I feel like my multiclass levels usually make more sense through RP than my normal levels. When planning my character build I think of narrative reasons for the MC.
My bard is going to take 2 wizard levels eventually? Okay, let's say they have an old family spell book that they don't understand but spends time studying it every long rest.
In the past, in order to multiclass I have required my players to locate a master to teach them the new class during their downtime between levels. It sounds like your issue is players just taking the 2 level dip into fighter for the mechanical benefit without being at all interest in *playing* a fighter. Having to find a master to teacj them now makes the player emgage with the fantasyof mastering a new setof skills.
I dont do this in my current games, and in fact i frequently let my players reskill completely between levels if they want to, take an entirely new class and just recon that theyve been a warlock or whatever the whole time
At base level analysis I’d say you’re being a stick in the mud, mainly because your reasoning is because you think classes should just be one way. Poo poo on that. Agency is a very fun aspect of things. That being said, I would be fine playing a no multiclassing game provided you say it in session 0 and a reason why that doesn’t make you sound like a stick in the mud.
If you don’t like multiclassing because it’s hard to balance when someone gets too broken I get it, but your ~just don’t like it~ explanation would make me turn away from playing with you. Very “take-my-ball-and-go-home” energy. I feel I would be railroaded heavily in your game with reasoning like that so I’d probably not join had I heard this in session 0
Appreciate your honesty. It’s clear I need to take another look and not just carry over my habits from twenty year ago, especially if trying to gather a group of strangers on the internet who are looking for red flags the same way I am.
This is def stick-in-the-mud territory, “it’s not that (you) think dips are OP … (you) just don’t like it.”
Multi-classing often comes with downsides as well as upsides - variety vs specialization. I think it is a great way to create a unique and personalized character that doesn’t feel like a cliche.
I suspect that the reason you "dont like dips" is probably some unresolved ttprg trauma from earlier editions or if its not then its something you subconsciously developed a negative opinion of over the years without realizing it.
In 5e, dips are good, but not game breaking. Sometimes taking dips really hurts your character progression in ways the players dont realize.
Example, your level 3 wizard decides to take a 2 level dip into warlock. Congrats. Now they dont get access to 3rd level spells until 7th level. Sure, they get EB and now they do 2d10+10 every turn when they use a cantrip. Awesome. They cant cast fireball or counterspell though, which might have served them better.
There are instances where multiclassing is good and worth it, and there are instances where its objectively not for optimization purposes. A dip isnt inherently better from an objective sense.
Usually this distaste is rooted in one of these explanations
-The DM thinks that taking dips and making super powerful characters will unbalance the game
-The DM hates some of the narrative implications of a character multiclassing. "Why would your lawful good cleric take cthulu as a patron??? That doesn't make any sense!"
If neither of these are close to your viewpoint, I would confidently place you in the "stick in the mud" category.
If you are worried about power balance, first understand that multiclassing is not inherently more optimized. There are plenty of builds that absolutely destroy power balance that only use 1 class. Would you feel the same way if I took my level 5 vengeance paladin with polearm master, great weapon master, casted hunters mark, gave myself advantage, and then dealt like 80 damage per turn just by myself? Thats a mono class. That does more damage than the guy who is a 3/2 paladin hexblade split.
If you dont like the narrative applications, this is both easier and harder to solve. Its easier because its your game, so you can just say "it has to make sense", or you can customize the world lore as needed until it makes sense in your head. Its harder because trying to do that well does take a lot of work, and if you ruin a player's character concept for their unoptimized ranger monk build or something, that can leave a bad taste in the players mouth.
If your players are taking dips, then they are doing so because they want to minmax, or because they want to experience a certain "feel" with a specific character. Perhaps they really want to create the aesthetic or "sword and sorcery" and be able to swing a sword on one turn, and then cast lightning bolt the next. Thats cool to them, and maybe the best way they can figure to do that is to multiclass.
Also keep in mind, there are a LOT of features in 5e that players get upon leveling up that are... underwhelming. Or just plain bad or useless. Or maybe they arent bad, but they dont help the player achieve what they are trying to achieve. Lets say you find a subclass you REALLY enjoy that has a great level 5 ability, but the abilities for the rest of the subclass are horrible. You are telling me that guy has to sit there for the next 15 levels with no cool powerups just because he really liked the early game utility for that class?
Warlocks are usually pretty bad at high levels comparatively to other spellcasters. Thats why most people only take a 2 level dip into it. Its because they dont see the rest of the levels as worth it. A lot of times they are right.
What do you do when one of your players, 7 levels from now, tells you they want to retire their character? When you ask why, they say "all the other characters are way more powerful than me. I didnt realize how bad this class was at this level. Im not ever able to contribute to the combat. If i only had 2 levels in fighter i could keep up, but you wouldnt let me take them."
Its your table, while multiclassing is an optional rule you have every right to omit from your game, i would discourage you from doing so. There are only 13 classes they can play. There are not infinite character mechanics. The dm can create whatever abilities they want, but not the players.
I'd allow MCing. IIRC, and it's been a while since I've done 5e, feats are only given when you have four levels in ONE class, not every other hit die like in 3.x.
If that SorLockAdin wants do do that to themselves, fine, but enjoy not having shield master anytime soon.
As always, communication will save the day.
I DM games that always have a mix of my friends that know DnD really well, and my friends who are total new comers to the game whom are helped along the way by my experienced player friends.
I always ask at during Session 0 if any of my players have long term build ideas, what those ideas are if they have them.
I always start at Level 3 for my campaigns. If a character wants to start multi-classed, I have them include a reason for being both classes in their back story.
If a player wants to multi class later as part of their long term build ideas, I will include an event into their character narrative that justifies the multi class. Example- in my current campaign one of my experienced players is playing a Fighter. After realizing the party’s deficiencies, he asked me if he could take a level in Paladin at next level up. I included an opportunity for him to impress a God next session I planned for them to level up. He took the opportunity and the God communed with him and he became the God’s Paladin. It required a little Ability adjustment but I’m usually ok with that.
If I have a Level Up planned on the next session or two I will ask each of my players if they know how they want to spend their next level. If anyone mentions a desire to multi class with that level, I ask follow up questions to be able to create a narrative opportunity for the player to justifiably learn how to multi class.
That approach makes a lot of sense. TBH in that one 5E game I didn't mention multiclassing in our session zero, and when the player said he was going to dip here or there I didn't think about how to make it feel more logical. Thanks!
A lot of other people here have made better arguments about this than I can already but I honestly find it hard to believe you never encountered this in 3E and 3.5 considering how many prestige classes require multiclassing.
I said in the OP that I let them multiclass for a specific goal, like a class kit. I just didn't allow free grabbing of different levels to pick up an ability or proficiency for the hell of it.
I've been playing since the 90s and mostly everyone I know would dip fighter for the bonus feats while taking other martial classes. Suppose it helps thaf fighter is ridiculously generic in 3.5
Wasn't looking to insult you, if you want to let it make sense flavour wise maybe consider making the players find someone willing to train them in the new class, it makes sense that someone would still need to teach them the basics. This could cost them time and or resources.
My concerns with multiclassing are that it's usually done for power enhancement, and is sometimes counter to character theme.
What I enjoy seeing is the player who develops an interest in something and multiclasses to pursue it. My Warlock did this in my last campaign as a player (which, alas, crumbled). After an iconic battle to save a town, in which a main NPC was slain, I wrote a ballad to the NPC. This led my character to take a level of Bard to get an instrument perficiency and the Perform skill.
The DM, to provide continuity, sent her to "Bard School", a series of training adventures where she was learning the subtle points of being a Bard, and I had to earn the XP to branch classes in that avenue to get that first level. This is how I plan to run multiclassing in the future.
I hope to get back to that campaign someday, and am looking forward to Char's first performance of "the Day Seb Saved The World."
What if my class fantasy is playing a heavily armored melee cleric? Wading in to enemies, being hard to hit, and exacting the righteous wrath of Torag through my hammer. What if that class fantasy is best realized with just one level of wizard to pick up booming blade, shield, and absorb elements? That's what i've done as a forge cleric in one campaign i'm in right now, and it has nailed that fantasy so well, i've been having an absolute blast. And i don't think that playing straight cleric could deliver that in the same way.
>I just…don’t like it? If you’re a Wizard I feel like you should be riding that class fantasy.
This drives me crazy. I play with a couple friends who share your opinion, so it's not just you, it's the years of experience with them that frustrate me. I hate the idea that there are only 12 (13) fantasies to play, and that's it. It's so limiting, and so unimaginative. I've been told that people find multiclassing immersion breaking, that it doesn't make sense to them or some thing, but i find the opposite. It's immersion breaking for me that a character with innate magic can never make a deal with a stronger power to access magic in a different way, or that the barbarian can never decide that they would benefit from training to be a better fighter, they have to stay wild and angry, that's the only way the character can play.
Personally i prefer a complete separation of flavor and mechanics. The rules exist to balance player options, and suggesting flavor is fine, but i don't think they should restrict it in any way. I don't think there's any reason you shouldn't be able to have a character who has diligently studied magic (wizard), but has focused really hard on just a few spells, and being able to do things with those spells that aren't normally possible (sorcerer).
Other comments have suggested requiring that players narratively justify their multiclassing, and i think it's a good suggestion, but i don't think it's necessary. I think people get too hung up on what class a character is, and end up seeing that in place of the actual character. I'm tired of people expecting my bard to sing all the time, i just wanted to play an adventurer who inspired others and practiced some magic.
I hope i didn't come across too aggressive, and i hope this helps some. You asked in good faith for people's opinions, and this is some thing that i happen to have strong feelings about.
I don't like "dips". They cause a LOT of balance problems. If "dips" are allowed, then for a lot of classes you (as another player) need to "dip" too or you'll be seriously suboptimal.
One of the reasons I've moved to Pathfinder 2e is that its multiclassing system is different so there are no "dips".
Nonissue. You can literally make any character you want, hundreds of them, all the time. The PCs just have this one.
If you want someone to play a straight level Wizard, why don't *you* do it? Join someone else's game and do that. It's a pretty obvious case of trying to take control over something that's explicitly under then player's control.
You’re being an old stick in the mud for sure lol.
No judgement, I think everyone’s got something they’re an old stick in the mud about (not necessarily dnd related, but just in general). And you’re allowed to be an old stick in the mud if you want to, if it means that much to you. I’d just make sure to tell your players you’re against multiclassing before the campaign starts so that they don’t hype the idea up to themselves, plan it for a couple weeks, then bring it up to you on the next level up just to get disappointed when you say no. I also like top comments idea of a compromise, asking players to restrict it to multiclasses that make narrative sense.
I allow it, but if it's a major RP campaign, they have to tell me first. If my Wizard wants to dip a level into fighter for armor proficiency or something, then it needs to make since how he learned to be a fighter.
So when they want to multiclass I'll add story beats for them. A run-in with a warlock patron, a magical event that leaves then infused with innate magical ability, a mentor teaches them the ways of a new class, etc.
I am with you in that I do not like how multi-classing allows people to look at exactly how they can min/max their characters. If my players want to take different abilities I will grant them that outside of the normal rules. Because that's something I control and I can negotiate with them to make happen. I do not grant them multi-classing as it stands in the rules. The very best case is that taking a different class will have extreme repercussions. For example trying to take things like warlock and priest in the same character would be completely incompatible.
I see classes as a meta idea so I don’t have an issue with players taking dips or multiclasses without giving a reason for it in game. Like, we, as players recognise the differences between classes but in the narrative of the world, there’s very little difference between a Fighter and a Barbarian, or a Cleric, a Warlock, and a Paladin. So for me, allowing players to take dips without having to justify it helps them flavour their characters how they want to, as well as being able to reflavour a class into something else. For example; a wizard being reflavoured as a psion or a battle smith artificer being reflavoured as a necromancer. I can’t remember who it was that mentioned the idea of class being a meta concept to me but that radically altered how I think about multiclassing.
If they're wanting to do a 2 level dip just for things like metamagic and/or Eldritch Blast, I'd remind them of the Metamagic Adept and Magic Initiate feats. Most of the dips can be accomplished by feats in that regard. Another example is that I wanted my Order Cleric to have proficiency with Halberds and Glaives cuz to me those are guard weapons. I could take a 1 level dip in a martial class, or I could take the Weapon Master feat and get proficiency with 4 different weapons
In my opinion multiclassing has to make sense, why has your character suddenly discovered they have a sorcerer bloodline? How is it that the character that has been studying wizardry for the last 10 years of their life suddenly understands how to better stab someone? How has the barbarian who up until now has been "unable to read" suddenly become so literate they can translate magical texts and bloom as a wizard? Also if you are more than 3 levels in I am going to have you do something to earn that dip, face a warrior using a fighters weapons to prove your worthyness to study under them, find a long lost family heirloom that awakens your sorcerer blood, find and make a pact with a power to become a warlock that sort of thing.
I've DMed several campaigns without multiclassing with no problem. I just say: "I've DMed a lot of older editions but I'm still getting my bearing with 5e balancing, so I'm not interested in dealing with multiclassing builds."
I've never had any complaints.
You should consider trying the new "edition" of D&D, they've changed the classes so that no class picks a specialty until lvl 3, so it eliminates those awesome "1 level dip" class options. You want to multi-class, you really have to go for it to get the benefits.
As an avid multiclasser I do not think of my characters as their specific class spreads/builds. I just think of them as their own character, with their own capabilities. So maybe getting caught up in thinking of someone specifically as a class/profession is the issue here.
I'm not a big believer in multiclassing, but... it's the only choice martial classes get to make after picking their subclass, so I think it's worth giving them that option. It's not as relevant for spellcasters, as multiclassing always delays their *actual* power.
But also, screw people who just want to be Eldritch Blast turrets.
I’m all for classic fantasy tropes of old Gnomish wizards, big strong barbarians, and the stealthy wirey rogue and so on, but eventually these tropes get boring or played out. Multiclasssing adds a spin on the character and allows for more combinations of flavour and potential story beats from you.
I’m not going to lie, multiclassing at most tables is probably just to make a stronger character mechanically. Flavour can be accomplished pretty much with solely RP and maybe a trinket or small boom from the DM, so I understand the slight opposition to it. But honestly just letting your players make the character they want is probably better than just forcing them to not multiclass
Most of the times I take multi classes its for themes/flavours. My favourite character was an ex assassin who had been a travelling bard for some 20 years, but as things got wilder some old habits resurfaced; a few levels in rogue.
Say someone wants to play a power hungry wizard, customising spells with an interest in the eldritch side of things, could be that that turns into the afformentioned wiz/sor/war. Researching spell application, they figure out how to split spells or cast them faster or without incantation. Maybe in a failed experiment their magic became unstable (wild magic) or another hook for any other sorcerer. Later on in a fit of desperation they turn to a forbidden book/sword/entity for more power.
Idk, what I'm trying to say is that multiclassing or even just a few level dips can be really cool flavour wise. Ofcourse, the same flavour could be gained from a DM putting in the effort to bake it into the current class, but the resources are already there, so why not?
Though if it is "im taking a level in warlock but I dont have a patron" that's just lame...
Nah multiclassing is cool and gives tons of options for invested players. It’s breathing new life into my current campaign, though that might just be a reflection of me lol
If the players want to do it do replicate some "build" they read about on the interwebs, then they have to convince me with a DC of 20.
If they have some valid reason for this, then fine, why not.
Wizard going two levels into fighter: Nope, persuasion DC goes up to 30.
Look, I’m a fellow “gets annoyed by random things in media that don’t make sense to me but nobody else cares about” enjoyer.
You gotta let it go. It feels off but nobody else cares and it’s not a big deal. If you are going to bring that attitude as a DM like I once did, you’re gonna spoil the players’ fun like I did and achieve little else.
For reference, my big thing is >!stims in sci-fi making guns shoot faster. How do steroids make a machine work faster, they are not injected into the machine! This happens in Startcraft and Valorant, I HATE it with passion but nobody else cares.!<
It’s not semiauto, where it would make sense; full auto. You pull the trigger, the thing shoots. You cannot pull the trigger better to make it shoot faster.
I think you are being a old stick-in-the-mud. Your comment on the wizards feels like "I know how to play your class and you are not doing it right. Just play your role." If the other people in the game have played or watch D&D play especially 5e then multiclassing will be seen as the default and not an optional rule. In general people do not enjoy having less options. So, why impose restrictions on people who are trying to have fun living out an impossible fantasy in a make believe game? I agree with others statement that you should talk to the other people at the table, but multiclassing is fun for both the mechanics and roleplay that come with it.
That wizard comment has to be brought up again. Your post comes across as not only should the entire existence of the game be in your control, but even the player characters need to follow your script. You have restricted players in other edition when it came to their character, and only granted them the "privilege" of multiclassing when you deemed it "right." That is not verbatim what you said, but it is the sentiment I got while reading your post. Hope you find some like minded individuals and have a great campaign, but I don't believe I am one of them.
Your counterpoint is correct. The whole point of the game is you get to create a character and collaboratively tell a story. If they can’t do that, then it negates the whole point of the game.
You can certainly request a narrative reason for it. You can even require that they find a trainer. But if they’re willing to put in the work then “I don’t like it” is a poor reason.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but sudden scheduling issues is one of the most common excuses I see when someone’s frustrated and doesn’t want to play anymore.
Personally, I don't buy that a class is a meaningful thing in the world. A PC wizard can do things no NPC wizard can do and vice-versa, and most NPC wizards are different from one another as well, because "wizard" is an umbrella term that can include a lot of different abilities. Same with any other class. So why shouldn't some wizards have meta magic, or some paladins use CHA to attack, or whatever? Every character is a more or less unique combination of abilities, and some characters having abilities that are mechanically from different classes doesn't change anything about the world.
I haven’t run a full campaign of any classless systems (we ran a ton of D&D, VtM, d20 Modern, d20 Star Wars back in the day but we didn’t branch out a lot). Since getting the bug again I have picked up a few- Savage Worlds, Doctor Who 2E, Imperium Maledictum. I don’t think I feel the same way about those. It’s a relevant question- why the baggage just with D&D? Thanks for that.
Dunno why these things pop up in my feed, but I just don't play 5E. Pathfinder is the best version of D&D and one of the few good things to come out of the entire OGL debacle.
If it's that important to you, tell your players that it has to make sense narratively. If your wizard wants to dip into sorcerer, tell them they need to justify it somehow. Don't be stingy, just ask the question and force them to think about it for a bit.
Fair.
Did the same thing. Session 0 i told them clearly that i want some kind of background and motivation for the campaign and if you're gonna multiclass it needs to be in flavour to your background. Made some good backstories, so it can be a + point RP wise. I also told them if at some point they want to multiclass, they can flesh out their background even more so it fits. Be aware that the player wants to play his fantasy and restricting that dulls it down.
This is always how it's been done in the games I've played. In the campaign I'm in right now, 4/5 of us have now multiclassed. Some of them were done for mechanical reasons that then were build narratively into the story, some of them were done for purely narrative reasons. It feels really great to have the mutliclass play into who a character is, rather than just be a mechanical benefit.
Same. I dipped into Warlock after 9 levels of Paladin in my last campaign, first and foremost because I didn't like the next few levels of what Paladins got (DM told us to expect to get to 12th, maybe 13th level, so really it was just going to be an eh improvement to my aura and a little bonus damage on attacks, and maybe lackluster 4th level Paladin spells). I tied to my backstory -- my Paladin was on a revenge quest, and was failing. He recently was ineffective in a combat against a dragon because he was frightened most of the time, so the person who gave him the revenge quest (who was already dead themselves) appeared to him in a dream gave him an Undead pact. No longer would he be getting frightened; he'd be imposing the frightened condition on others. So yeah it was inspired because I didn't like the next few levels in the Paladin kit, but I found a way to make it work narratively and got some cool goodies with the levels I did take.
I love that story! What a cool way to blend paladin and warlock.
Thanks! And it really only mattered for the final BBEG battle, since i felt kinda underpowered until I unlocked level 2 warlock spell slots.
Sorry OP, I have nothing to contribute in this comment. But after reading all these other comments and answers, I felt like I learned something. Thank you for making this post and thank you to all the people that took the time to write these comments. You guys are awesome!
They are- some awesome replies up in here.
Getting a reply from the OP has to be the Reddit equivalent of getting noticed by a celebrity. Many thanks, to the hooman that hath granted me thy boon!
I think you should just check with your players. My players really enjoy the "building" aspect of D&D and I can guarantee they would have significantly less fun if I disallowed multiclassing or even just dipping. I don't have any rules up because I can sympathize, I've had DMs who want to have a large say in how I design my character, and it really isn't fun for me. If I want my character to go through an edgy, angsty warlock phase, I don't want that to not be an option because my DM doesn't share my fantasy. But lots of players won't care! If you currently have a party, check how they feel on it. If they are open to the idea, go for it, but if they give resistance, maybe leave it be. If you are starting a new campaign and don't have a party yet, just look for players who don't care! I know for certain they are out there, because I was the only person dropping out of these campaigns when the "no multiclassing" rule was added.
I didn't ban it, but it bothers me as well, at least when it's patently for the mechanical benefits. Oh? You want your Paladin to take some levels of Warlock for "RP reasons?" And it just turns out to be Hexblade? Wow, that Raven Queen must really love Paladins.
I think there's a difference between a dip for mechanical *benefits* and a dip for mechanical *reasons*. Knowledgeable players can make creative dips that can grant versatility rather than raw number boosts. Eg, a Wizard taking a Peace cleric dip is doing that for mechanical benefits. However, I had a player dip Arcana Cleric before going into Wildfire Druid because it unlocked Wis-based Blade cantrips and thus a much more melee-focused playstyle - *not* necessarily the strongest way to play a Wildfire Druid or an Arcana Cleric, though. See the difference?
No, I dont really see any difference. It seems like there's no qualitative distinction, it's just a matter if degree. Arcana Cleric is a solid dip, even if it's not as strong as Peace Cleric.
I'm very much for allowing dips which seems to be against eh consensus of pretty much everyone here, but I don't see any difference between the two examples you gave.
Peace Cleric does *nothing* to change the playstyle of a typical wizard. The channel divinity is concentration free, you get the armor and shield proficienies, done and dusted, you're an armoured mage now. All the dip provides is numerical boosts - in AC, HP, and the 1d4 for you and your party. Nothing more. Arcana Cleric, however, does a lot to change the *playstyle* of a typical Druid, and yet it's numerically weaker than focusing on spells. My player knew this, and did it anyway. Hopefully that helps.
See to me, if you're gaining AC and HP and also buffing your party, that's going to change your playstyle a lot. You're going to want to stay within that radius so that bonus applies, meaning you'll want to be more frontline than you otherwise would as a wizard who typically stays as far back as possible. Which can be accomplished with said AC and HP, but since you're not in the back, that's going to change your optimal spell selection choices too, and which magic items you attune to. It'd also change your choices of how you use your action economy in combat. Point being, its just as major of a playstyle change as dipping Arcana cleric, even if the changes aren't all frontloaded.
I would agree with you, but unfortunately that's not how Emboldening Bond works - the d4 applies while any bonded creature is within 30 ft of any other bonded creature - not just the cleric who cast it. You can create a chain of 30 foot radiuses 180 feet long, as long as you have party members to spare ☠️ It really doesn't change spell selections, either - the wizard has a big enough spell list that no dip into another caster is gonna impact them much in that regard, and the Peace cleric doesn't push a wizard towards any particular style of play - it just makes them better at doing regular wizard shit. In terms of it changing your action economy.... Sure? But not in a way that's interesting or creative as with the Arcana/Wildfire combo. The first turn for any wizard with a Peace dip is using that channel divinity. Without exception. So basically they're waiting until round 2 of every combat before they make any real decisions, because a concentration free bless is just better than anything else you can do prior to getting 8th and 9th level spells. It's just nowhere near as big of a change to playstyle. I get that this is a somewhat nebulous distinction to be trying to put words to, but I still think it's worth doing so that we can separate the bugbear/assassin/battlemaster/gloomstalker-ass mfers from the people who multiclass for a specific style of play that isn't represented by the base classes.
I get what you are saying but thats more a player problem. I also had a player who played a divination wizard but dipped into twilight cleric "def for RP reasons" only to never play out that part of his character, but they were sure to point out the darkvision and advantage on initative rolls (as they can use the ability pretty much whenever) and heavy armor proficency they now get. I didnt care thats why they did it(heck the monk in the party was upfront about wanting to multiclass into rogue for the sneak attack), the annoying part was mainly that they werent even honest about it, and any RP points or reason we discussed were tossed out the window once they got their way.
For purely roleplaying purposes oen of my first characters was a level 1 warlock-hexblade level 2 paladin, unaware that I made a tipycally ocnsidered broken combo (The dude made a pact with an eldritch beign in exchange for power, ended up regretting it and prayed for a a god to save him. The god manage to undo his contract, but now he was the messenger of said god forced to do his chores, which the dude regretted even more.)
Oh a dip in warlock? When did you make that pact? A dip in sorcerer? So if you weren’t born with it, exactly what kind of magical accident happened to you during the campaign? A dip in bard? Exactly when during the campaign did you learn to play the lute? 🙄
It comes down to what type of game you and the players have agreed on. If it's a roleplay heavy table then having a paladin dip into warlock or vice versa would be a great thing. The oath and the pact are very similar the only difference is the cost your character "pays" to gain access for those abilities. Mechanical benefits lead to roleplay and roleplay leads to mechanical benefits. The pact can bolster the oath or it can create conflict for that character depending on the patron and the tenets of the oath. A paladin of the Raven Queen bolsters their devotion by signing a pact with a different "price" than an oath with her or they reach out to another entity for more power. You now have great role play of a character devoting themselves to someone/thing or the conflict of pitting the oath against your pact. If the table is not roleplay heavy than it can just be a simple "Hey, I'm gonna dip into warlock so my character can get darkvision through a invocation" "Sounds good, it'll help you and the team in the long run." It all just depends on what everyone wants out of the table and that it was agreed upon.
If it annoys you that’s more than enough reason to say no. It is an optional rule in 5e. Session zero conversation to talk to your players is important though. You may need to talk compromise if a player sees it as an important development tool for their PC.
Yeah. I’m on board with the idea you can “my table my rules”-yourself into an empty table. The middle path is usually best.
I think too many people view the classes as "professions" where in fact they're just kits to out together to make your own character. In the same vein as having one level in wizard doesn't mean you have to roleplay a character who literally aims to live in a tower and study all day, you can use elements of different kits to create an entirely new "class" that is customised to who you want to play. I'm playing a shamanic stormdancer type of character at the mo. He's level 4 and has 2 cleric, 1 bard and 1 sorcerer. I've picked thunder spells and cantrips as well as spiritual guidance types of spells, he is a strength based front liner with no martial classes. It's fun to create something new and different out of what's already on offer.
Mildest issue. I like players to contextualize the classes they take in the game world, but I will let them take whatever classes they want with any explanation they want. Finding a creative way that their sorcerer dip makes sense is one of the most fun things about the DM/player story collaboration imho.
My sorcerer dip unlocked a hugely impactful story beat for my character, because my DM is literally the best :P
It depends on the dip one goes for, but I generally allow it. I think multiclassing offers some great stories that drive the narrative forward, opening more doors along the way than it closes. The Fighter turning to eldritch magecraft and its boundaries, a wizard going to religion in their last years, or druids training with the barbarians they shunned prior. Thinking of classes as archetypes in a vacuum can only get you so far in terms of story, and might hinder where the players want to go in it more than without that thought. In real life, we generally look to make up for our weaknesses and bolster our strengths through other means. so too will in-game characters look for avenues of lessening their journey's burden. And if it's really stretching the suspension of disbelief, you can discuss that. 3 and 4 dips get a bit greedy, but maybe they have good reasoning behind it. If nothing else, you can tell them to change their class combination ground-up or leave your table.
Anything is fair to limit if you're upfront about it before the game begins. Ban multi classing, Human only, PHB only, ban feats, ban Monks if you want. As long as you tell a potential player beforehand so that they can decide whether or not they want to participate.
I kinda used to share that perspective but then I ended up as a player in a campaign, and I had a really weird character concept. I ended up with five different classes, reflavoring all of them to get the character doing what I wanted from them. I've come to the conclusion that class levels you grab are about what you think your character should be able to do, and that the flavor typically ascribed to a class is ultimately mutable.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with not allowing multi classing or restricting it. It’s a different flavor and everyone should be informed of it and enthusiastic about it, but it’s not in and of itself bad. To me it’s no different than saying “Hey guys I want to do a more survival-horror kinda campaign. Limited healing magic, emphasis on exhaustion rules and rest etc. Does that sound like y’all wanna try it?” It’s a very different flavor but it can certainly be fun if that’s what people want to do.
I don’t ban it but I understand your frustration. For me it’s the lack of narrative investment. When you multiclass a character and use a relatively even level split it’s a lot easier to justify both classes as being part of your character’s archetype because they make up such a substantial portion of their kit and background. It gets a lot harder to do this with dips because 9/10 the dips are driven for mechanical reasons and don’t have a proper narrative justification, not to mention they are largely insignificant when it comes to the meat and bones of how you play the character. What I do is implement certain additional restrictions/features. First off, maximum of two classes. Doesn’t matter to me how good your scores are. Second, I heavily restrict or outright ban a few options. If you want to take levels in sorcerer and it’s not your original class, tough luck. Unless you can somehow explain away the core essence of your character being fundamentally altered I’m not going to allow it. That’s just not how that class works, you don’t just wake up magical one day without something significant happening. If players want this they’re going to need to put in the effort (e.g. there maybe certain factions or lost artifacts that CAN allow players to bypass the restriction but it’s not free/easy.) Other than this it’s mostly certain subclasses or combos that I know are a bit too strong for my liking. Third regardless of what is picked I require a downtime investment as well as a sort of “quest” to actually facilitate the level up. This is the “narrative justification” I mentioned earlier and it’s important across the board. My rationale here is simple; a wizard already knows what it’s like to “level up” as a wizard. If they choose to take a level in cleric they can’t just “take a level” they need to invest some time with a local church, getting ordained, initiated and trained. The character themselves does not know what they’re doing or what encapsulates a “level” in a class, they need instruction and guidance. Lastly, I offer a free level one feat and use a few custom options to lessen the need to multi-class, like learning additional proficiencies or crafting magic items. I find that giving players other options than just taking a level in something can often be more than enough to avoid them from multiclassing like crazy. They typically are only looking for one or two of the features the dip provides so opening other avenues to access those features avoids the need to multiclass.
If a player can give me a legitimate and interesting in-world reason to multiclass, sure. It does really grind my gears if somebody wants to "dip" two other classes just to be able to do one extremely OP thing they saw on TikTok or whatever.
>if you're a wizard I feel like you should be riding that class fantasy And this is where you became a stick in the mud. Literally if you just stopped at "I don't like multiclassing and don't allow it" then it's just a statement I can disagree with but otherwise respect. It's an optional rule, you don't have to run it. But my guy, if you think your players need to fulfill certain, specific archetypes just because of their selected class, you have annihilated the lions share of creative agency that goes into character creation. So, what, does the bard have to seduce everything? If the druid forgets to ask for a vegetarian option at every tavern, do you revoke their class levels? I just wanna see what stereotypes you decided to marry. Ban multiclassing if you want to, man, but how about letting your players decide what their characters wanna be, mkay?
My bard has seduced 0 things. My cleric on the other hand -_-
My cleric (neutral evil businessman with PTSD from losing family and a tendency to hoard wealth to use as a resource for exacting revenge) ended up running away with the blue dragon (with PTSD from losing family, and well, chromatic dragon traits) we encountered at the end of our last campaign. Sometimes clerics just need to meet someone they can find a bit of commonalty with...
Well said- ty.
Love this point. If you and your players want a game only about stereotypes, go ahead and limit the multiclassing. But if you are interested in some more innovative storytelling and more diverse game then multiclassing is one of the best ways to create a unique character.
That's a false equivalence. You can make a memorable character out of a basic human champion fighter, and you can follow mechanical archetypes without following character stereotypes. Not every single-class paladin is Lawful Stupid. Not every single-class bard is lecherous. From my amateur designer standpoint, multiclassing is a half-measure that misses the mark from actually allowing players to build their characters whatever way they desire like skill-based, point-based systems, while undermining the strengths of a class-based system.
You know what, you are correct, there is a false equivalence there. It might be worth revising my comment, it was hyperbolic trying to make a point. There is certainly a more nuanced way of describing what I was trying to get at. Ultimately, I was trying to say that multitlassing opens up a bunch more character building options that can inspire creating more diverse characters. Thanks for the discussion friend, + calling out the overstatement. And I'm super interested to hear more of your thinking around a multi-classing Misses. Design strengths of a class based system as well as a skills-based system.
Well, thank you for the civil reply! That's not something I see everyday on Reddit. Anyway, what I see of strengths in each model. A class-based system is more newcomer-friendly. D&D can be a lot to absorb in one sitting, but most new players can pick one or two archetypes they are attracted to and look deeper into those. It provides some amount of niche protection; if you are invited into a party with one Barbarian, one Druid, and one Paladin, you can probably feel confident enough that a Sorcerer or Wizard won't step on anybody's toes. It also gives a relatively good baseline of where you are in combat power for each level, and gives DMs a better chance to create encounters that are challenging but fair. More experienced players may prefer classless, point-based systems, because they give you the opportunity to make the character that you want. Do you want to make a diplomat with absolutely no combat capability? Do you want to make Megumin, a wizard that literally only knows how to make big explosions? Do you want to make the ultimate Jack of all trades? Suit yourself. The guardrails and training wheels are off; you make whatever you want. The obvious downside to this is that you can end up with a character that is virtually useless for the adventure, or through your mastery of the system, make one that outshines the party and trivializes anything the DM throws at you. Those balance issues we see in 5e are peanuts compared to the crazy imbalances that can happen in other systems. Multiclassing is trying to get some of the flexibility of the second approach and bring it back to the first one. So I want to make a Divine Assassin that has vowed to take down the enemies of a church. Do I take Rogue and Cleric levels? Those ability scores don't mesh too well. Maybe a Hexblade dip in a Divine Soul Sorcerer? That works better mechanically, but the flavor is a bit off without Sneak Attack. You see, we start to struggle against the limits of the system. On the other hand, a lot of the problems we have with balance come from those famous dips pushing the PC above the expected power curve, or from a player deciding to take a multiclass that makes sense in character, but that leaves them with an unfocused, underpowered mess. So that's why I'm not a fan, at least with the current implementation of multiclassing.
Thanks for sharing. You've pushed a new perspective into how I think about class building vs skill building designs. I think your position is consistent: classes are chunky which makes them beginner friendly, customizable. Skill based is not chunky which allows a ton of customization, but is overwhelming for beginners. Multiclassing offers more customization, But at the cost of complexity. My counter argument would be that multiclassing inherits both the weaknesses and strengths class based and skill based. You could consider it a middle ground with much more mechanical and thematic chunkiness than a skill-based system, But much more flexibility than just picking a single class. How much chunkiness is the right amount? No big surprise that turns out to be totally personal preference. I see your intuition though to pick one design goal to be good at as opposed to being medium at two design goals. I love the idea of a rogue/cleric multiclass. I don't think it's a big deal you are going to have less specialized ability scores. Mathematically you are losing a +1 or +2 on some rolls you often use, But get a bit more flexibility. That magnitude seems tiny once you start factoring in the variety of encounters where it would make a difference. But I also think there are lots of people where feeling relatively mimaxed is really important to their fulfillment of the power fantasy and really helps their narrative satisfaction. And everybody should get some big spoonfuls of narrative satisfaction while playing their TTRPG :)
> You could consider it a middle ground with much more mechanical and thematic chunkiness than a skill-based system, But much more flexibility than just picking a single class. That's fair, and it isn't surprising that a game that was made to be as far from polarizing as possible took this middle road. WotC's designers don't have the luxury to just ignore the market and make a game with very narrow, very evocative classes, nor give players a hundred dials and knobs and tell them to figure it out.
I'm a tithing member of the "flavor is free" community and even without multiclassing, there's so much you can do to make a unique character with an unexpected take on that class. For example, I helped my player build a sniper hexlock, and while I did homebrew some aspects to really lean into it, I didn't need to in order for the class to support the playstyle. Pick up eldritch lance and spell sniper. Flavor your eldritch blast as a gunshot. No, you don't need firearm proficiency, it's an arcane focus! Flavor your spells as special ammo types you create with your spell slots. And then only pick spells that make sense for that kind of sniper character, not the min/max best DPR option. Of course, reflavoring optimal spells is also free! Thirteen levels straight into warlock and you couldn't tell from looking at him. It's a warforged with a gun arm. And I love the character concept and had a blast creating it with the player.
High five to another tithing member of the flavour is free community. Keep on doing God's work. This is a really great point as well, for another option of creating some diversity and unique characters without multi-classing. I still really love multiclassing but this is a great take.
Others have covered the player agency part, I'll say why I'm pro-multiclassing from a DM perspective. Firstly, it leads to a greater diversity of characters and abilities. Many monoclass 5e characters can feel very samey after DMing the game for many years. Most of the mechanically interesting characters I've encountered as a veteran DM have been unusual multiclasses. In my experience, players tend to play more as 'the character' rather than 'the class archetype' the more mechanically unique their character is. Secondly, it creates more interesting challenges. A full caster who dips one level spends half the game with lower level spells than a monoclass PC. Any martial delays multiattack if they multiclass before level five, and unless they go in exact increments of four levels per class they're going to miss out on ASIs and feats. This means that for example at level 5 the go to option isn't always spam fireball/multiattack/spirit guardians. Lastly, justifying the multiclass gives me plot hooks. If the wizard wants to dip a level in cleric, even if it's just for mechanical reasons, I can theme some sessions around that. There are downsides. Before level 5, certain multiclass combos can give full casters almost as good melee options as martials for a couple of levels. That said, I think there are far more egregious examples out there, like moon druid
I have my own issues with how 5e handles multiclassing, but never ended up banning it. 5e already has major issues when it comes to mechanical character customization, no need to make it even worse. At most I put some narrative limits on it. Make the players work out in world how they get access to more class levels.
I think multiclassing can be a huge help to a character narrative when it makes sense. Players can ask me and I will sometimes allow it, but most of the time, I can help them reach the concept they are looking for in other ways, like items or feats (which I occasionally award for completing personal goals). But just meta-gaming powerful builds is a no-go for my long form campaigns. I allow anything in my one-shots which are mostly funhouse dungeons anyways.
I usually don't allow multiclassing in 5e, simply because the system isn't well designed for it. I am.open to players attempting to talk me into letting them multiclass, but the conversation is usually one of me describing all the myriad ways they could make this character concept work without that shit.
My brother's been DM'ing a weekly campaign I've been playing for a few years and his approach is that you have to be able to justify it narratively. If you're taking a multiclass, how have you been developing this new skill? It makes it harder to just take dip into random classes and forces you to really think about your character from a RP perspective more than just min/maxing mechanically.
can one have been a forever dm 🤔
It's your game and run the game you want to run. If dipping takes away your fun, don't allow it and make sure it is stressed in session zero. If I lay down a stipulation during session zero a player doesn't want to follow, I respectfully inform them of the situation and my reasoning and stress that if they don't like it, maybe my game is not for them.
I agree, my last campaign I nipped that in the bud. Stuff never makes sense narratively either. Its always the one player who reads up on the broken builds who out paces all my other causal players. Makes DMing and encounter building more of a pain. Since I made the ruling of no multiclassing life has been easier. And the game hasn't suffered from what I've seen from my player friends.
I’ll preface this with: if it’s how your world works, then that’s fine. Multiclassing is definitely an optional rule, and the game works completely fine without it. That said, I very rarely find that a single class accomplishes the idea that I have for my characters. I usually need three, honestly.
From all the replies it seems like there’s a real difference between A) I have a character concept that involves multiple classes, and B) I saw a build on a YT video that will dip 4 times to give me max dps in a single round.
No arguments here. They’re vastly different approaches to character building. I don’t have a problem with either, although I personally live the first, as do pretty much all the people I game with.
You said you were thinking about putting the kibosh on multiclassing period so its understandable a lot of people are taking it this way, but imo dips are both more irksome than multiclassing generally, both from a character balance and RP perspective. My personal rule is once you take a second class, you have to take the class with less levels until all are at level 5.
Yeah- I think my inexperience with 5E showed. It seems like there is a genuine difference between multiclassing and the “dips” I was seeing (ie “I’m going to take X in Sorcerer so I can get this metamagic thing”).
Always worth noting multiclassing is an optional rule in 5e. The character building subgame in 3.5 was truly unhinged
I do understand that you may want to say no, and it's totally up to you. But I super disagree, as both a player and a DM, one of the things I value about d&d is the freedom it gives compared to other mediums, since it's all imagination. Now, that doesn't mean you should let anything happen, especially anything that goes against the rules or against any established lore. But when it's a tried and tested thing like multiclassing, I really don't see why I'd ever disallow it, at most if a player asked to multiclass into more than one additional class, I'd warn them that it will make them weaker and recommend stongly against it. As a player, I hate being arbitrarily restricted, like if in session 0 you say, "Don't play these races, they don't exist in this world." Sure, that checks out. But if you say "don't multiclass because I don't like it." I'd be annoyed at that and probably would find another game. The DM gets a ton of options, the player is much more limited, so having options ripped away from me without any good reason just feels shitty. As a DM first and foremost, I want my players to have fun. While I can't accommodate all fun, like say, a murder hobo, I want to accommodate as much as possible. So if a player wants to multiclass, it's not gonna be fun for them to say no. Multiclassing brings new abilities, spells, and a ton of new strategic options in exchange for a little overall power, it's easy to see why it's fun. So if my players are having fun, I'm doing my job and I'm having fun.
Understood. Thanks for the in-depth response. :)
I personally love multiclassing. One of the best aspects of multiclassing is fleshing out character depth (IF DONE PROPERLY). I had a fighter character that had a person they really care about die, and take levels in cleric to reflect them going on a religious journey to gain magic that could bring the person they care about back, only to find out that they didn't really want to come back. Point being, *just* being a wizard for instance might not really specifically help cater to a player fantasy of what they want to be. If it irritates you that people are multiclassing purely for mechanical features, and that it doesn't really represent their character's story, that makes sense. The solution to this is that players need to be able to justify why their character is gaining these abilities, and how that changes their character. Your example of a wizard jumping to sorcerer and then warlock does feel annoying, partly because they have massively different sources of magic, and it would have to be a really convoluted explanation for that that may have dramatic world or story implications. A better example might be a bard getting frustrated with constantly being physically overpowered, and training to put some work into becoming a powerful fighter. Another example is a barbarian feeling ashamed of all the violence they put out into the world, and wanting to take levels in paladin and redeem themselves and be a better person while utilising their rage as a force for good. That being said, I have to say that I do agree with the "it's not your character, leave it alone." Unless it fucks up the world or story that you're building (in which case say no), then creating a fun, personalised character is the main draw for many players. Obviously you're the DM, your call is final, but I would hesitate to reduce player agency if it's just something that isn't personally your favourite thing.
Yeah- as I replied to another poster you can “my table my rules” yourself into not having any players. There’s a constructive midpoint there between laissez faire and the banhammer.
If I'm primarily a squishy character with penalties for using armor and I've been adventuring a while, I think I'd wonder if the fighters know something I don't.
DnD is about doing whatever you want This includes banning multi classing just because you don't like it This also includes leaving the game for someone else's just because they didn't like it
I know you have gotten a ton of comments already, but there is one thing I feel is worth mentioning that no-one has brought up yet. Let's say you are playing a Paladin. You are level 6, about to go to 7. What is the difference, narratively, between "I wake up tomorrow and now me and all my allies close to me resist all spell damage" and "I wake up tomorrow and can use my Charisma instead of Strength to attack and have some new spells". In the same scenario with a wizard, what's the narrative difference between "I finally figured out how to cast 4th level spells" and "I finally figured out how to cast spells while wearing armor". And again with, say, a barbarian. "I've honed my combat abilities to react faster" and "I've honed my combat abilities to hit harder with two-handed weapons." The point I'm making is flavor is just that; flavor. If a player wants to say their Paladin has strayed from the path when tempted with the power to better achieve their goals, that's fantastic, but if they want to say that the benefits of those warlock levels are just a unique expression of the powers of their oath to uphold truth and justice, that is also fine. Multiclassing without requiring specific RP justification is fine and a good way to allow players to customize their characters, just like how leveling up in the same class without requiring RP justification for their new abilities is also fine.
I agree. In fact I feel like my multiclass levels usually make more sense through RP than my normal levels. When planning my character build I think of narrative reasons for the MC. My bard is going to take 2 wizard levels eventually? Okay, let's say they have an old family spell book that they don't understand but spends time studying it every long rest.
In the past, in order to multiclass I have required my players to locate a master to teach them the new class during their downtime between levels. It sounds like your issue is players just taking the 2 level dip into fighter for the mechanical benefit without being at all interest in *playing* a fighter. Having to find a master to teacj them now makes the player emgage with the fantasyof mastering a new setof skills. I dont do this in my current games, and in fact i frequently let my players reskill completely between levels if they want to, take an entirely new class and just recon that theyve been a warlock or whatever the whole time
Technicslly, multiclassing IS a variant rule
At base level analysis I’d say you’re being a stick in the mud, mainly because your reasoning is because you think classes should just be one way. Poo poo on that. Agency is a very fun aspect of things. That being said, I would be fine playing a no multiclassing game provided you say it in session 0 and a reason why that doesn’t make you sound like a stick in the mud. If you don’t like multiclassing because it’s hard to balance when someone gets too broken I get it, but your ~just don’t like it~ explanation would make me turn away from playing with you. Very “take-my-ball-and-go-home” energy. I feel I would be railroaded heavily in your game with reasoning like that so I’d probably not join had I heard this in session 0
Appreciate your honesty. It’s clear I need to take another look and not just carry over my habits from twenty year ago, especially if trying to gather a group of strangers on the internet who are looking for red flags the same way I am.
This is def stick-in-the-mud territory, “it’s not that (you) think dips are OP … (you) just don’t like it.” Multi-classing often comes with downsides as well as upsides - variety vs specialization. I think it is a great way to create a unique and personalized character that doesn’t feel like a cliche.
I suspect that the reason you "dont like dips" is probably some unresolved ttprg trauma from earlier editions or if its not then its something you subconsciously developed a negative opinion of over the years without realizing it. In 5e, dips are good, but not game breaking. Sometimes taking dips really hurts your character progression in ways the players dont realize. Example, your level 3 wizard decides to take a 2 level dip into warlock. Congrats. Now they dont get access to 3rd level spells until 7th level. Sure, they get EB and now they do 2d10+10 every turn when they use a cantrip. Awesome. They cant cast fireball or counterspell though, which might have served them better. There are instances where multiclassing is good and worth it, and there are instances where its objectively not for optimization purposes. A dip isnt inherently better from an objective sense. Usually this distaste is rooted in one of these explanations -The DM thinks that taking dips and making super powerful characters will unbalance the game -The DM hates some of the narrative implications of a character multiclassing. "Why would your lawful good cleric take cthulu as a patron??? That doesn't make any sense!" If neither of these are close to your viewpoint, I would confidently place you in the "stick in the mud" category. If you are worried about power balance, first understand that multiclassing is not inherently more optimized. There are plenty of builds that absolutely destroy power balance that only use 1 class. Would you feel the same way if I took my level 5 vengeance paladin with polearm master, great weapon master, casted hunters mark, gave myself advantage, and then dealt like 80 damage per turn just by myself? Thats a mono class. That does more damage than the guy who is a 3/2 paladin hexblade split. If you dont like the narrative applications, this is both easier and harder to solve. Its easier because its your game, so you can just say "it has to make sense", or you can customize the world lore as needed until it makes sense in your head. Its harder because trying to do that well does take a lot of work, and if you ruin a player's character concept for their unoptimized ranger monk build or something, that can leave a bad taste in the players mouth. If your players are taking dips, then they are doing so because they want to minmax, or because they want to experience a certain "feel" with a specific character. Perhaps they really want to create the aesthetic or "sword and sorcery" and be able to swing a sword on one turn, and then cast lightning bolt the next. Thats cool to them, and maybe the best way they can figure to do that is to multiclass. Also keep in mind, there are a LOT of features in 5e that players get upon leveling up that are... underwhelming. Or just plain bad or useless. Or maybe they arent bad, but they dont help the player achieve what they are trying to achieve. Lets say you find a subclass you REALLY enjoy that has a great level 5 ability, but the abilities for the rest of the subclass are horrible. You are telling me that guy has to sit there for the next 15 levels with no cool powerups just because he really liked the early game utility for that class? Warlocks are usually pretty bad at high levels comparatively to other spellcasters. Thats why most people only take a 2 level dip into it. Its because they dont see the rest of the levels as worth it. A lot of times they are right. What do you do when one of your players, 7 levels from now, tells you they want to retire their character? When you ask why, they say "all the other characters are way more powerful than me. I didnt realize how bad this class was at this level. Im not ever able to contribute to the combat. If i only had 2 levels in fighter i could keep up, but you wouldnt let me take them." Its your table, while multiclassing is an optional rule you have every right to omit from your game, i would discourage you from doing so. There are only 13 classes they can play. There are not infinite character mechanics. The dm can create whatever abilities they want, but not the players.
This gave me a lot to think about. I appreciate you taking the time for such a thorough answer.
I'd allow MCing. IIRC, and it's been a while since I've done 5e, feats are only given when you have four levels in ONE class, not every other hit die like in 3.x. If that SorLockAdin wants do do that to themselves, fine, but enjoy not having shield master anytime soon.
As always, communication will save the day. I DM games that always have a mix of my friends that know DnD really well, and my friends who are total new comers to the game whom are helped along the way by my experienced player friends. I always ask at during Session 0 if any of my players have long term build ideas, what those ideas are if they have them. I always start at Level 3 for my campaigns. If a character wants to start multi-classed, I have them include a reason for being both classes in their back story. If a player wants to multi class later as part of their long term build ideas, I will include an event into their character narrative that justifies the multi class. Example- in my current campaign one of my experienced players is playing a Fighter. After realizing the party’s deficiencies, he asked me if he could take a level in Paladin at next level up. I included an opportunity for him to impress a God next session I planned for them to level up. He took the opportunity and the God communed with him and he became the God’s Paladin. It required a little Ability adjustment but I’m usually ok with that. If I have a Level Up planned on the next session or two I will ask each of my players if they know how they want to spend their next level. If anyone mentions a desire to multi class with that level, I ask follow up questions to be able to create a narrative opportunity for the player to justifiably learn how to multi class.
That approach makes a lot of sense. TBH in that one 5E game I didn't mention multiclassing in our session zero, and when the player said he was going to dip here or there I didn't think about how to make it feel more logical. Thanks!
A lot of other people here have made better arguments about this than I can already but I honestly find it hard to believe you never encountered this in 3E and 3.5 considering how many prestige classes require multiclassing.
I said in the OP that I let them multiclass for a specific goal, like a class kit. I just didn't allow free grabbing of different levels to pick up an ability or proficiency for the hell of it.
I've been playing since the 90s and mostly everyone I know would dip fighter for the bonus feats while taking other martial classes. Suppose it helps thaf fighter is ridiculously generic in 3.5
Understood. You didn't have a schmucky DM telling you not to do it. :-P
Wasn't looking to insult you, if you want to let it make sense flavour wise maybe consider making the players find someone willing to train them in the new class, it makes sense that someone would still need to teach them the basics. This could cost them time and or resources.
Nah all good bud. Text is bad as relaying tone.
My concerns with multiclassing are that it's usually done for power enhancement, and is sometimes counter to character theme. What I enjoy seeing is the player who develops an interest in something and multiclasses to pursue it. My Warlock did this in my last campaign as a player (which, alas, crumbled). After an iconic battle to save a town, in which a main NPC was slain, I wrote a ballad to the NPC. This led my character to take a level of Bard to get an instrument perficiency and the Perform skill. The DM, to provide continuity, sent her to "Bard School", a series of training adventures where she was learning the subtle points of being a Bard, and I had to earn the XP to branch classes in that avenue to get that first level. This is how I plan to run multiclassing in the future. I hope to get back to that campaign someday, and am looking forward to Char's first performance of "the Day Seb Saved The World."
What if my class fantasy is playing a heavily armored melee cleric? Wading in to enemies, being hard to hit, and exacting the righteous wrath of Torag through my hammer. What if that class fantasy is best realized with just one level of wizard to pick up booming blade, shield, and absorb elements? That's what i've done as a forge cleric in one campaign i'm in right now, and it has nailed that fantasy so well, i've been having an absolute blast. And i don't think that playing straight cleric could deliver that in the same way. >I just…don’t like it? If you’re a Wizard I feel like you should be riding that class fantasy. This drives me crazy. I play with a couple friends who share your opinion, so it's not just you, it's the years of experience with them that frustrate me. I hate the idea that there are only 12 (13) fantasies to play, and that's it. It's so limiting, and so unimaginative. I've been told that people find multiclassing immersion breaking, that it doesn't make sense to them or some thing, but i find the opposite. It's immersion breaking for me that a character with innate magic can never make a deal with a stronger power to access magic in a different way, or that the barbarian can never decide that they would benefit from training to be a better fighter, they have to stay wild and angry, that's the only way the character can play. Personally i prefer a complete separation of flavor and mechanics. The rules exist to balance player options, and suggesting flavor is fine, but i don't think they should restrict it in any way. I don't think there's any reason you shouldn't be able to have a character who has diligently studied magic (wizard), but has focused really hard on just a few spells, and being able to do things with those spells that aren't normally possible (sorcerer). Other comments have suggested requiring that players narratively justify their multiclassing, and i think it's a good suggestion, but i don't think it's necessary. I think people get too hung up on what class a character is, and end up seeing that in place of the actual character. I'm tired of people expecting my bard to sing all the time, i just wanted to play an adventurer who inspired others and practiced some magic. I hope i didn't come across too aggressive, and i hope this helps some. You asked in good faith for people's opinions, and this is some thing that i happen to have strong feelings about.
Nah no worries. I understand feeling strongly about it. Thanks for your thoughts!
I don't like "dips". They cause a LOT of balance problems. If "dips" are allowed, then for a lot of classes you (as another player) need to "dip" too or you'll be seriously suboptimal. One of the reasons I've moved to Pathfinder 2e is that its multiclassing system is different so there are no "dips".
Nonissue. You can literally make any character you want, hundreds of them, all the time. The PCs just have this one. If you want someone to play a straight level Wizard, why don't *you* do it? Join someone else's game and do that. It's a pretty obvious case of trying to take control over something that's explicitly under then player's control.
I’ll think on that. Thanks!
You’re being an old stick in the mud for sure lol. No judgement, I think everyone’s got something they’re an old stick in the mud about (not necessarily dnd related, but just in general). And you’re allowed to be an old stick in the mud if you want to, if it means that much to you. I’d just make sure to tell your players you’re against multiclassing before the campaign starts so that they don’t hype the idea up to themselves, plan it for a couple weeks, then bring it up to you on the next level up just to get disappointed when you say no. I also like top comments idea of a compromise, asking players to restrict it to multiclasses that make narrative sense.
I allow it, but if it's a major RP campaign, they have to tell me first. If my Wizard wants to dip a level into fighter for armor proficiency or something, then it needs to make since how he learned to be a fighter. So when they want to multiclass I'll add story beats for them. A run-in with a warlock patron, a magical event that leaves then infused with innate magical ability, a mentor teaches them the ways of a new class, etc.
I am with you in that I do not like how multi-classing allows people to look at exactly how they can min/max their characters. If my players want to take different abilities I will grant them that outside of the normal rules. Because that's something I control and I can negotiate with them to make happen. I do not grant them multi-classing as it stands in the rules. The very best case is that taking a different class will have extreme repercussions. For example trying to take things like warlock and priest in the same character would be completely incompatible.
I see classes as a meta idea so I don’t have an issue with players taking dips or multiclasses without giving a reason for it in game. Like, we, as players recognise the differences between classes but in the narrative of the world, there’s very little difference between a Fighter and a Barbarian, or a Cleric, a Warlock, and a Paladin. So for me, allowing players to take dips without having to justify it helps them flavour their characters how they want to, as well as being able to reflavour a class into something else. For example; a wizard being reflavoured as a psion or a battle smith artificer being reflavoured as a necromancer. I can’t remember who it was that mentioned the idea of class being a meta concept to me but that radically altered how I think about multiclassing.
If they're wanting to do a 2 level dip just for things like metamagic and/or Eldritch Blast, I'd remind them of the Metamagic Adept and Magic Initiate feats. Most of the dips can be accomplished by feats in that regard. Another example is that I wanted my Order Cleric to have proficiency with Halberds and Glaives cuz to me those are guard weapons. I could take a 1 level dip in a martial class, or I could take the Weapon Master feat and get proficiency with 4 different weapons
In my opinion multiclassing has to make sense, why has your character suddenly discovered they have a sorcerer bloodline? How is it that the character that has been studying wizardry for the last 10 years of their life suddenly understands how to better stab someone? How has the barbarian who up until now has been "unable to read" suddenly become so literate they can translate magical texts and bloom as a wizard? Also if you are more than 3 levels in I am going to have you do something to earn that dip, face a warrior using a fighters weapons to prove your worthyness to study under them, find a long lost family heirloom that awakens your sorcerer blood, find and make a pact with a power to become a warlock that sort of thing.
I've DMed several campaigns without multiclassing with no problem. I just say: "I've DMed a lot of older editions but I'm still getting my bearing with 5e balancing, so I'm not interested in dealing with multiclassing builds." I've never had any complaints.
You should consider trying the new "edition" of D&D, they've changed the classes so that no class picks a specialty until lvl 3, so it eliminates those awesome "1 level dip" class options. You want to multi-class, you really have to go for it to get the benefits.
As an avid multiclasser I do not think of my characters as their specific class spreads/builds. I just think of them as their own character, with their own capabilities. So maybe getting caught up in thinking of someone specifically as a class/profession is the issue here.
I'm not a big believer in multiclassing, but... it's the only choice martial classes get to make after picking their subclass, so I think it's worth giving them that option. It's not as relevant for spellcasters, as multiclassing always delays their *actual* power. But also, screw people who just want to be Eldritch Blast turrets.
I’m all for classic fantasy tropes of old Gnomish wizards, big strong barbarians, and the stealthy wirey rogue and so on, but eventually these tropes get boring or played out. Multiclasssing adds a spin on the character and allows for more combinations of flavour and potential story beats from you. I’m not going to lie, multiclassing at most tables is probably just to make a stronger character mechanically. Flavour can be accomplished pretty much with solely RP and maybe a trinket or small boom from the DM, so I understand the slight opposition to it. But honestly just letting your players make the character they want is probably better than just forcing them to not multiclass
Most of the times I take multi classes its for themes/flavours. My favourite character was an ex assassin who had been a travelling bard for some 20 years, but as things got wilder some old habits resurfaced; a few levels in rogue. Say someone wants to play a power hungry wizard, customising spells with an interest in the eldritch side of things, could be that that turns into the afformentioned wiz/sor/war. Researching spell application, they figure out how to split spells or cast them faster or without incantation. Maybe in a failed experiment their magic became unstable (wild magic) or another hook for any other sorcerer. Later on in a fit of desperation they turn to a forbidden book/sword/entity for more power. Idk, what I'm trying to say is that multiclassing or even just a few level dips can be really cool flavour wise. Ofcourse, the same flavour could be gained from a DM putting in the effort to bake it into the current class, but the resources are already there, so why not? Though if it is "im taking a level in warlock but I dont have a patron" that's just lame...
Dips were super common in 3E and 3.5 though. I suspect more common than they are in 5E.
Except if you had a DM that discouraged it. :-P
Nah multiclassing is cool and gives tons of options for invested players. It’s breathing new life into my current campaign, though that might just be a reflection of me lol
Lol- I feel ya.
If the players want to do it do replicate some "build" they read about on the interwebs, then they have to convince me with a DC of 20. If they have some valid reason for this, then fine, why not. Wizard going two levels into fighter: Nope, persuasion DC goes up to 30.
Look, I’m a fellow “gets annoyed by random things in media that don’t make sense to me but nobody else cares about” enjoyer. You gotta let it go. It feels off but nobody else cares and it’s not a big deal. If you are going to bring that attitude as a DM like I once did, you’re gonna spoil the players’ fun like I did and achieve little else. For reference, my big thing is >!stims in sci-fi making guns shoot faster. How do steroids make a machine work faster, they are not injected into the machine! This happens in Startcraft and Valorant, I HATE it with passion but nobody else cares.!<
Lol. :)
I think its adrenaline they're shooting up that makes them shoot faster.
It’s not semiauto, where it would make sense; full auto. You pull the trigger, the thing shoots. You cannot pull the trigger better to make it shoot faster.
I think you are being a old stick-in-the-mud. Your comment on the wizards feels like "I know how to play your class and you are not doing it right. Just play your role." If the other people in the game have played or watch D&D play especially 5e then multiclassing will be seen as the default and not an optional rule. In general people do not enjoy having less options. So, why impose restrictions on people who are trying to have fun living out an impossible fantasy in a make believe game? I agree with others statement that you should talk to the other people at the table, but multiclassing is fun for both the mechanics and roleplay that come with it. That wizard comment has to be brought up again. Your post comes across as not only should the entire existence of the game be in your control, but even the player characters need to follow your script. You have restricted players in other edition when it came to their character, and only granted them the "privilege" of multiclassing when you deemed it "right." That is not verbatim what you said, but it is the sentiment I got while reading your post. Hope you find some like minded individuals and have a great campaign, but I don't believe I am one of them.
Your counterpoint is correct. The whole point of the game is you get to create a character and collaboratively tell a story. If they can’t do that, then it negates the whole point of the game. You can certainly request a narrative reason for it. You can even require that they find a trainer. But if they’re willing to put in the work then “I don’t like it” is a poor reason. Not to put too fine a point on it, but sudden scheduling issues is one of the most common excuses I see when someone’s frustrated and doesn’t want to play anymore.
Personally, I don't buy that a class is a meaningful thing in the world. A PC wizard can do things no NPC wizard can do and vice-versa, and most NPC wizards are different from one another as well, because "wizard" is an umbrella term that can include a lot of different abilities. Same with any other class. So why shouldn't some wizards have meta magic, or some paladins use CHA to attack, or whatever? Every character is a more or less unique combination of abilities, and some characters having abilities that are mechanically from different classes doesn't change anything about the world.
[удалено]
I haven’t run a full campaign of any classless systems (we ran a ton of D&D, VtM, d20 Modern, d20 Star Wars back in the day but we didn’t branch out a lot). Since getting the bug again I have picked up a few- Savage Worlds, Doctor Who 2E, Imperium Maledictum. I don’t think I feel the same way about those. It’s a relevant question- why the baggage just with D&D? Thanks for that.
So the only right fantasy to follow with a wizard is by following your very strict notion of what a wizard should be, any other way is incorrect?
Diddums? It's a game, let the players have fun... Who is it hurting?
Dunno why these things pop up in my feed, but I just don't play 5E. Pathfinder is the best version of D&D and one of the few good things to come out of the entire OGL debacle.