D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[GMforPowergamers]

So... because your "friend" Ross wouldn't agree to Kender-Apartheid, you were going to walk on his campaign? You guys sound swell.

I don't want to sidetrek the discussion by listing all of my reason to dislike kenders, but I will say Ross (still a player and DM in my group of friends today) wanted to enforce his "Im the DM, what I said goes" and the players didn't agree... so I don't know how "Swell" we are, but you tell me what you think we should have done...

 

[drowdude]

I never claimed they would be the exact same character... that's a strawman that you seem to be setting up. My concerns are centered on his main niche. What is the difference in core rogue skills between a rogue and a rogue/fighter with a difference of say 2-3 levels in the rogue class? I realize the classes and subclasses give out individual abilities but can a fighter/rogue pick locks, use sleight of hand, sneak, etc. just as well as a pure rogue... if so I'd consider that stepping on his toes.

EDIT: I would be interested in hearing exactly what these differences are in play however... would you care to go into some detail?

If you have two (or more) players playing "roguish-types", the real solution is to talk to them and make sure that, other than some core necessities (i.e. perception or stealth), they are mostly doing different shtick with their expertise choices. And it would also be important to determine if any of the players involved even care (which is the only reason any of this would be an issue in the first place).

 

[Imaro]

If you have two (or more) players playing "roguish-types", the real solution is to talk to them and make sure that, other than some core necessities (i.e. perception or stealth), they are mostly doing different shtick with their expertise choices. And it would also be important to determine if any of the players involved even care (which is the only reason any of this would be an issue in the first place).

Yeah you could, but it was a hypothetical issue for a hypothetical situation... I was asked for a reason players might not want multi-classing in a particular campaign and I responded with maybe the players would rather avoid the possibility of loosing niche protection by choosing not to use multi-classing in a particular campaign, but no it's not a real issue i am dealing with currently.

 

[sidonunspa]

This may be for nothing, but here is a guideline for the MC parameters I use in my game. Maybe someone playing 5e who want to limit their PC's exposure, offer MCing in a "controlled" fashion, and/or prefer an older/more AD&D flavor to their games might be so kind as to try them out and let us all know how they work in a 5e game.

Hum.... I think you should rethink warlock.. warlock can happen at any time during a campaign, the character makes a deal with some powerful being and is granted the ability to learn warlock powers...

again, Harry Dresden is a perfect example.. he is a wizard and now became knight of the winter court gaining warlock (of the blade I would say) powers

 

[MrMyth]

I never claimed they would be the exact same character... that's a strawman that you seem to be setting up. My concerns are centered on his main niche. What is the difference in core rogue skills between a rogue and a rogue/fighter with a difference of say 2-3 levels in the rogue class? I realize the classes and subclasses give out individual abilities but can a fighter/rogue pick locks, use sleight of hand, sneak, etc. just as well as a pure rogue... if so I'd consider that stepping on his toes.

EDIT: I would be interested in hearing exactly what these differences are in play however... would you care to go into some detail?

A lot of it does depend on what you define as a rogue's 'core features'. Let's go ahead and assume it is the following:

1) Finding Traps (Perception / Investigation)
2) Scouting (Perception / Stealth)
3) Disarming Traps and Opening Locks (Thieves' Tools)

You could also make an argument for social skills (Deception/Persuasion), or agile exploration (Athletics/Acrobatics), or skillful manipulation (Sleight of Hand) - but for now, let's go with the scout/trap role as the primary niche. Let's see how a pure Thief compares to a Fighter/Thief at certain levels.

Level 2: A Fighter 1 / Rogue 1 can get Deception and Stealth from the Criminal Background, Acrobatics and Perception from Fighter, and Investigation and Thieves' Tools from multiclassing into rogue. He can also get Expertise with Stealth and Thieves' Tools. The Level 2 Rogue can get all those skills from his class, plus has room to get two more from a Background. So at this level, the Fighter is indeed about the same on the primary niche, but the Rogue has a bit more versatility in other areas. The Rogue also has Cunning Action, which likely makes the Rogue a superior scout with how it helps his ability to hide and move around the field.

Level 4: The Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 now also has Cunning Action, catching up to the Rogue in that regards. However, the Rogue 4 is now in the Thief archetype, giving them Second Story work (providing significant scouting ability via climbing and jumping), and Fast Hands (letting them use their Cunning Action for picking locks or disarming traps.) So the Rogue gains a big boost in their ability to deal with such obstacles when time is of the essence.

Level 6: The Fighter 3 / Rogue 3 now is also a Thief, and gains Second Story Work and Fast Hands. However, the Rogue 6 now gets two more skills with Expertise (say, Perception and Investigation), making them again the best at the total skill package.

Level 12: The Fighter 6 / Rogue 6 now also has his second set of Expertise options, and finally thinks he will catch up to the rogue with his skills. However... the Rogue got Supreme Sneak at 9th level from the Thief archetype (making him excellent at Stealth checks), and got Reliable Talent at 11th level (where he can't roll below a 10 on trained skills.) The Fighter/Rogue is certainly *good* at being a scout and dealing with traps, but the pure Rogue remains the *best*.

Now, with or without multiclassing, the truth is that you can make a competent scout/trapfinder with any class in 5E via the right backgrounds and ability scores. But I'd say Rogue certainly lets you do it rather effortlessly, and while getting quite a few useful features that really supports that approach. For me, that's kinda the best of both worlds - the ability to cover a variety of roles without being 'locked in' to bringing along a specific class... but also feeling, when that class is present, that they have something special they still bring to the table in that regard.

 

[keterys]

again, Harry Dresden is a perfect example.. he is a wizard and now became knight of the winter court gaining warlock (of the blade I would say) powers

Thankfully, Harry isn't a 5E character, because adding levels of warlock _especially of the blade_ would be nigh useless to his character.

It'll also get really strange if he has to give up those "levels" in a future book.

The real trick is that he gained those powers without the rest of the baggage of levels of warlock. Which is actually something that's reasonable to do with the feat system, by swapping powers out from your existing class with another, etc.

I'm guessing Harry and his DM just have a pretty good working relationship. At least from the DM's perspective. I'm sure the DM gives Harry all sorts of extra powers all the time. Harry just gets to be cognizant of the costs.

 

[steeldragons]

Hum.... I think you should rethink warlock.. warlock can happen at any time during a campaign, the character makes a deal with some powerful being and is granted the ability to learn warlock powers...

again, Harry Dresden is a perfect example.. he is a wizard and now became knight of the winter court gaining warlock (of the blade I would say) powers

Yeah. I wasn't sure what to do with that one. My thinking [for where I placed it] is Warlocks are a particularly specialized kind of arcane spellcaster, as Paladin is to Fighter, Druid is to Cleric, and Bard is to Rogue. So, Warlocks go in that same category. Plus, I like the story fluff of Patrons not wanting someone who already has some other kind of training/power. They want the warlock beholden to/dependent on them for power. Someone who can do other stuff [the patron has no say in] is not really, to my mind, what a patron is looking for.

Plus, the entity that is the Patron, what they are/think/do/mechanizations, is the purview of the DM. So, you can't really become a warlock "whenever"...or rather, it doesn't make too much sense to me, that someone could.

The "rules" as I presented them still allow a PC to work toward/become a Warlock if that is what the player wants. But the specialized nature of their powers seems to warrant that it doesn't "play well with others [sources of power]", so to speak. And then the added potential story/setting potential of organizations/cults/secret guilds (another element for my classes that can't MC) of Warlocks, even if it's just some secluded mushroom circle/standing stone/any source of running water/fireplace in the backroom of the inn/etc...etc... with only the patron, the warlock and a few mooks the patron conjures up/keeps around to make the warlock feel "in charge"/important...those kinda possibilities get me all a-twitter.

"Because [some character from a book/movie] can do it" has never been all that...mind-/opinion-changing for me.

So, for me, I'll leave them where they are/would be for my games.

But by all means, if someone else wants to try them as a MC option (en par with Rangers, Illusionists, Assassins, etc...) and see how it goes, go for it! I will be interested to hear how it plays out.

--Steel the Big Meaniest -nixing Drow PCs since 1988- Dragons

 

[sidonunspa]

So, Warlocks go in that same category. Plus, I like the story fluff of Patrons not wanting someone who already has some other kind of training/power. They want the warlock beholden to/dependent on them for power. Someone who can do other stuff [the patron has no say in] is not really, to my mind, what a patron is looking for.

Otheside of the coin... a fey queen comes across a talented bard and wishes him to become her herald and sing of her.. or that same queen looking to a powerful warrior and making him her champion, serve me and I will give you power!

Heck an infernal patron temping a kind hearted fighter who has lost his loved ones to an orc raid "I can give you the power you need, all you have to do is say yes...."

There is a reason why Mab picked Dresden.. he is NOT easy to control but as the character said "she was tired of inept knights"

Warlocks in 5e represent the "mechanics of temptation"

 

[sidonunspa]

Thankfully, Harry isn't a 5E character, because adding levels of warlock _especially of the blade_ would be nigh useless to his character.

Maybe as you see it, but in my home game I have a wizard (Inv) 3/ Warlock of the Blade (4) and he is having a blast..

The real trick is that he gained those powers without the rest of the baggage of levels of warlock. Which is actually something that's reasonable to do with the feat system, by swapping powers out from your existing class with another, etc.

You and I read diffrent books... there is a steap price.. dresden IS mab's... she can take his powers away with a snap of her fingers.. she already did it once to prove a point.

If you think she is not going to have him on a tight chain, I advice you read Cold Days again.

that story would be a perfect 5e character story arc.... its not a mix max build for sure, but can be one hell of a story

 

[Hussar]

I don't want to sidetrek the discussion by listing all of my reason to dislike kenders, but I will say Ross (still a player and DM in my group of friends today) wanted to enforce his "Im the DM, what I said goes" and the players didn't agree... so I don't know how "Swell" we are, but you tell me what you think we should have done...

I always have to laugh. People keep saying, "If you don't like what the DM is putting on the table, you should walk away", but, any time someone talks about how they did just that, they are automatically bad players and bad friends. It's so ridiculous.

If you are a DM, not one single person, no one in the world, owes you a damn thing. Nothing. They do not "owe" you, in the sense of being obligated, anything. You provide the game. Nothing more. Sitting down at the game table with the expectation that just because you are sitting behind the DM screen automatically entitles you to anything is just as wrong headed as any player thinking the same thing.

Life is too short to play games you don't like. If someone bringing in anything to the game will result in you hating that game, don't play. It should never, ever be a problem to say, "Sorry guys, this isn't for me, I'll catch you the next time around". That's true for the DM and the players. If including MC'ing (as an example) causes the DM no end of angst, then don't include it. Easy peasy. If including Kender will cause a player no end of angst, then the player should be allowed to step away without being labeled a bad player for not wanting to play. If I don't want to play a Planescape campaign (heh), then I should be able, as a player, to say, "Sorry guys, this isn't for me" without any problem.

Far, far too many DM's out there have an over inflated sense of entitlement that seems to make them think that just because they're sitting behind the screen that their poop don't stink. Get over it. If a player isn't interested, you have a choice to make - which is more important to you, and there is no right answer here - keep that thing or keep the player. Compromise is key, but, compromise means that both sides have to be willing to move. If compromise isn't possible, which does happen, then make the decision. Don't think for a moment that just because you are running a game that your players owe you anything.

/end rant