Lore wise, I think it's fun and gives a lot of flavor. Mechanically, everyone do it, but maybe some classes multiclass better than others. Your opinions?
What you're doing there is taking whichever level your campaign ends at and removing the ability to use that level of their chosen class. So if the campaign runs from level 1 to 20, then you are denying the players any chance to have a level 20 barbarian/wizard/paladin/whatever.
It feels restrictive, rather than fun or flavourful. Flavour (to me) would be having the character roleplay their experiences so that you can't take a level in barbarian unless you get angry and try to hit things once in a while, or take paladin unless you demonstrate the devotion of paladins to their oaths, or take wizard if you don't spend your downtime reading. Contrary to your approach, it warrants justification to the multiclass, rather than being forced into it. You'll never learn magic if you don't try, nor will you gain a warlock patron if you don't attract ones attention somehow. Some are easier to justify than others (we spent ages in the woods, I'm a ranger now) but it adds more flavour to a character if their actual gameplay reflects the class they intend to go towards. There's nothing lacking in flavour or fun about a pure-class character, provided they make some sense!
If you wanted to take the task on as DM, you could offer each player the classes you think they have reflected to level up in. This can even not include existing classes - if a fighter/wizard spent the whole level-up period (between their last level and this one) hitting things, then they can't level up as a wizard, because they did not practice. It would be a LOT of bookkeeping, though!
I generally think it's a bad idea to force anything on your party. Maybe as a 1 shot just encourage everyone to play some multiclass character with bonus points for it being weird. That could be fun. But for a whole campaign I do not like the idea at all.
What your doing is forcing the players to fit their characters to your ideas of what should be fun - taking away their agency. That is never fun for a player. Yes many players multiclass to build their characters but it their decision when and what. The most you should be doing is telling them in session zero that you will not allow a multiclass unless there is roleplay beforehand to justify the multiclass. If your players regularly multiclass you could discuss the idea with them - if they agree that’s a different story. Multiclassing or straight classing has no real effect on the game in terms flavor or fun.
It is a terrible idea. There's a good chance players will hate it and if they do, they'll be justified. As mentioned, maybe for a one-shot as a built in and clearly stated gimmick but for an extended campaign hell no. It removes player agency to play the class they want to play and that's worse than just restricting a class to begin with (and even that should only be considered for extremely good reasons, like something very important about the campaign setting or such). Players will not like being told to play their character how you think is fun. They are not you.
I agree with what others have said, but I wanted to offer a singular exception - the start of your campaign. Once the campaign gets moving, the DM should not get involved in player level choices, as this is both forcing them to change their play style and forcing them to change how they role play a character.
However, before the campaign begins, the DM has a little more control over players. If you want to do this, you could start the players at level 4–this way they take one level in their other class and enough levels in their primary task that they can subclass. While this does have some effects on the players making their backstory, they kind of influence is not quiet as problematic as forcing someone to change a character they’ve already been in the shoes of.
Ask your players what they think. Give them time to consider. If they think it's fun, for whatever, reason then great. Personally, it seems a bit contrived to me.
Lore wise, I think it's fun and gives a lot of flavor.
Why is that? Genuine question, I don't see it. You can already do a ton between class and background, subclass choice and just plain flavouring your single class concept. I have nothing against multiclassing per se, I just don't get what you're after here and forced multiclassing after level 1 is mechanically annoying for a bunch of starting classes.
I agree with what others have said, but I wanted to offer a singular exception - the start of your campaign. Once the campaign gets moving, the DM should not get involved in player level choices, as this is both forcing them to change their play style and forcing them to change how they role play a character.
However, before the campaign begins, the DM has a little more control over players. If you want to do this, you could start the players at level 4–this way they take one level in their other class and enough levels in their primary task that they can subclass. While this does have some effects on the players making their backstory, they kind of influence is not quiet as problematic as forcing someone to change a character they’ve already been in the shoes of.
You just said it's bad to force players to change the way they play their character, then said it's okay to force them to accommodate your preferred way to play their character if you do it at the beginning of the game. That's self contradictory. You just said that you are wrong, so I don't have to.
Lore wise, I think it's fun and gives a lot of flavor. Mechanically, everyone do it, but maybe some classes multiclass better than others. Your opinions?
Gives a lot of flavor? Only if you're assuming the single-class character is inherently lesser in flavor, right? If your players agree, you don't need this rule, and if they don't, you shouldn't use it.
I played a 3.5 game where we all had to start with 5 levels of a caster class for some reason before changing classes. Total waste. All it did was slow down our XP progression lol. Well, that and make our characters seem kind of incompetent because at level 10 we were really more like level 5.
I agree with what others have said, but I wanted to offer a singular exception - the start of your campaign. Once the campaign gets moving, the DM should not get involved in player level choices, as this is both forcing them to change their play style and forcing them to change how they role play a character.
However, before the campaign begins, the DM has a little more control over players. If you want to do this, you could start the players at level 4–this way they take one level in their other class and enough levels in their primary task that they can subclass. While this does have some effects on the players making their backstory, they kind of influence is not quiet as problematic as forcing someone to change a character they’ve already been in the shoes of.
You just said it's bad to force players to change the way they play their character, then said it's okay to force them to accommodate your preferred way to play their character if you do it at the beginning of the game. That's self contradictory. You just said that you are wrong, so I don't have to.
As clearly established, the differentiation is over whether a player has already stepped into the role of the character. There is a substantial and relevant difference between whether a character is still in the conceptualization stage or if that character has been finalized and actualized within the game itself.
Once actualized and played, the character begins to take on a life of its own. It has its own personality, its own narrative, and its own set of goals. These elements are all going to be informed by how the player plays the character and how the campaign unfolds. Forcing a player to change their path mid-narrative is untenable--this is the DM not only forcing their desires on the player, but also forcing the player to change the narrative course they have already begun to walk for an arbitrary reason.
However, before the character is played in a campaign, the DM has lot more control over that yet-actualized character's creation process. There is not a firm narrative the still-uncreated character has set upon,
This is a well-established reality. The DM can dictate what rulebooks are utilized, whether certain content, such as Magic content is off limits, whether players are required to play races present in a specific region (ex. whether the DM allows Warforged in a non-Eberron campaign), etc. Telling players "part of this campaign is going to involve getting players to explore beyond the traditional class boundaries, so I want everyone to take a single level in multiclass at the beginning" is just another Session Zero restriction a DM could impose.
So, no, there is no internal contradiction--there is a significant, distinguishable, and well-established difference between pre-start character creation, where a character does not fully exist, and post-start character modification, where a character exists and has a whole lot of baggage.
Now, would I impose this kind of restriction on my players? Absolutely not. But the OP might have a legitimate reason for wanting to impose the restriction (perhaps they know their players tend to fall into rails and think it would benefit them to branch out a little and try something new). Rather than simply say "this is a bad idea", it is much more helpful to provide a "this is not a great idea as you have it written, but, if you are committed to doing something like this, here's when it should be done."
I agree with what others have said, but I wanted to offer a singular exception - the start of your campaign. Once the campaign gets moving, the DM should not get involved in player level choices, as this is both forcing them to change their play style and forcing them to change how they role play a character.
However, before the campaign begins, the DM has a little more control over players. If you want to do this, you could start the players at level 4–this way they take one level in their other class and enough levels in their primary task that they can subclass. While this does have some effects on the players making their backstory, they kind of influence is not quiet as problematic as forcing someone to change a character they’ve already been in the shoes of.
You just said it's bad to force players to change the way they play their character, then said it's okay to force them to accommodate your preferred way to play their character if you do it at the beginning of the game. That's self contradictory. You just said that you are wrong, so I don't have to.
It’s not forcing anyone to do anything if it’s discussed during session 0 and then agreed upon by everyone involved. A session 0 suggestion that all the characters have to be multi class is no more egregious than a session 0 suggestion that there is no multi-classing or any other particular limit or requirement for character generation.
Lore wise, I think it's fun and gives a lot of flavor.
I don't really understand what you mean here. "Lore wise" does that mean for the campaign's story? What factors to the game is compelling your players to branch into different classes? Personally while I encourage consideration of multi-classing when it's time to level up, I restrict multi-classing in that they have to make some sort of narrative sense. Like a Druid who's generally played a support role in combat isn't just going get the OK to MC into Paladin. Force multi-classing may similarly compel your players to engage in your game world to come up with reasons for a mandated multi classing, but that to me seems more like narrative twister/contortions to satisfy a house rule than enriched interactive storytelling.
Which gets to flavor, I think the only flavor you get is characters will have to "think of the build" more knowing that a MC build is hanging over their heads.
I will say forcing the MC at level X doesn't feel organic at all and counter to the "good" multi-classing where a player chooses the option in a way that makes sense to the game. I can't see a in game circumstance that will require the whole party to take on new classes.
Mechanically, everyone do it, but maybe some classes multiclass better than others. Your opinions?
There are so. many. threads. on optimal or comparative mutliclassing builds throughout this forum, you can ask folks who happen to see this thread to put forth their thinking, or you could look at all. those. threads. and decide on your own.
EDIT: Again, since the "why" is unclear, if it's a matter of boredom, it's probably better to do a one shot or mini-arc with new characters with the rule that everyone has to play a different class from the main campaign.
Have them all take a free feat at level X instead. Encourage picking feats that are like a taste of a particular class (Fighting Initiate, Magic Initiate, Eldritch Adept, etc.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I agree with what others have said, but I wanted to offer a singular exception - the start of your campaign. Once the campaign gets moving, the DM should not get involved in player level choices, as this is both forcing them to change their play style and forcing them to change how they role play a character.
However, before the campaign begins, the DM has a little more control over players. If you want to do this, you could start the players at level 4–this way they take one level in their other class and enough levels in their primary task that they can subclass. While this does have some effects on the players making their backstory, they kind of influence is not quiet as problematic as forcing someone to change a character they’ve already been in the shoes of.
You just said it's bad to force players to change the way they play their character, then said it's okay to force them to accommodate your preferred way to play their character if you do it at the beginning of the game. That's self contradictory. You just said that you are wrong, so I don't have to.
It’s not forcing anyone to do anything if it’s discussed during session 0 and then agreed upon by everyone involved. A session 0 suggestion that all the characters have to be multi class is no more egregious than a session 0 suggestion that there is no multi-classing or any other particular limit or requirement for character generation.
This is pretty much it. If the table agrees that everyone has to do it, then it's ok. That's the end of the discussion about it.
I don't agree with the automatic "it adds more flavor" because at the end, that's a player decision. It allows for more inherent and instant power creep. Some classes are ABSOLUTELY a stronger multiclass base option than others, while others wouldn't want this because casters potentially lose spell progression, etc.
I played a 3.5 game where we all had to start with 5 levels of a caster class for some reason before changing classes. Total waste. All it did was slow down our XP progression lol. Well, that and make our characters seem kind of incompetent because at level 10 we were really more like level 5.
You also run into situations like this where now characters have some form of potential impediment if this is done wrong.
If the goal is to give more flavor to the character and let them kind of branch out, just give them a free feat. This lets them specialize in a way that gives them a minor power boost, but at the same time lets them focus on something that is easily identifiable from a flavor perspective.
The entire party wiped fighting a red dragon. The session ended with everybody unconscious.
I privately asked each player if they wanted their PC to live. Most decided to come back with a cost being implied.
The cost was the loss of 1 level in their main and a gain in something different - the explanation being whoever/whatever brought them back took some of their magic in exchange for life. i.e. lose a Paladin level, gain a Fighter level. If they did not make this choice, they would be dead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lore wise, I think it's fun and gives a lot of flavor. Mechanically, everyone do it, but maybe some classes multiclass better than others. Your opinions?
What you're doing there is taking whichever level your campaign ends at and removing the ability to use that level of their chosen class. So if the campaign runs from level 1 to 20, then you are denying the players any chance to have a level 20 barbarian/wizard/paladin/whatever.
It feels restrictive, rather than fun or flavourful. Flavour (to me) would be having the character roleplay their experiences so that you can't take a level in barbarian unless you get angry and try to hit things once in a while, or take paladin unless you demonstrate the devotion of paladins to their oaths, or take wizard if you don't spend your downtime reading. Contrary to your approach, it warrants justification to the multiclass, rather than being forced into it. You'll never learn magic if you don't try, nor will you gain a warlock patron if you don't attract ones attention somehow. Some are easier to justify than others (we spent ages in the woods, I'm a ranger now) but it adds more flavour to a character if their actual gameplay reflects the class they intend to go towards. There's nothing lacking in flavour or fun about a pure-class character, provided they make some sense!
If you wanted to take the task on as DM, you could offer each player the classes you think they have reflected to level up in. This can even not include existing classes - if a fighter/wizard spent the whole level-up period (between their last level and this one) hitting things, then they can't level up as a wizard, because they did not practice. It would be a LOT of bookkeeping, though!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I generally think it's a bad idea to force anything on your party. Maybe as a 1 shot just encourage everyone to play some multiclass character with bonus points for it being weird. That could be fun. But for a whole campaign I do not like the idea at all.
What your doing is forcing the players to fit their characters to your ideas of what should be fun - taking away their agency. That is never fun for a player. Yes many players multiclass to build their characters but it their decision when and what. The most you should be doing is telling them in session zero that you will not allow a multiclass unless there is roleplay beforehand to justify the multiclass. If your players regularly multiclass you could discuss the idea with them - if they agree that’s a different story. Multiclassing or straight classing has no real effect on the game in terms flavor or fun.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It is a terrible idea. There's a good chance players will hate it and if they do, they'll be justified. As mentioned, maybe for a one-shot as a built in and clearly stated gimmick but for an extended campaign hell no. It removes player agency to play the class they want to play and that's worse than just restricting a class to begin with (and even that should only be considered for extremely good reasons, like something very important about the campaign setting or such). Players will not like being told to play their character how you think is fun. They are not you.
I agree with what others have said, but I wanted to offer a singular exception - the start of your campaign. Once the campaign gets moving, the DM should not get involved in player level choices, as this is both forcing them to change their play style and forcing them to change how they role play a character.
However, before the campaign begins, the DM has a little more control over players. If you want to do this, you could start the players at level 4–this way they take one level in their other class and enough levels in their primary task that they can subclass. While this does have some effects on the players making their backstory, they kind of influence is not quiet as problematic as forcing someone to change a character they’ve already been in the shoes of.
Anything can be a good idea if people like it.
Ask your players what they think. Give them time to consider. If they think it's fun, for whatever, reason then great. Personally, it seems a bit contrived to me.
Why is that? Genuine question, I don't see it. You can already do a ton between class and background, subclass choice and just plain flavouring your single class concept. I have nothing against multiclassing per se, I just don't get what you're after here and forced multiclassing after level 1 is mechanically annoying for a bunch of starting classes.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You just said it's bad to force players to change the way they play their character, then said it's okay to force them to accommodate your preferred way to play their character if you do it at the beginning of the game. That's self contradictory. You just said that you are wrong, so I don't have to.
Gives a lot of flavor? Only if you're assuming the single-class character is inherently lesser in flavor, right? If your players agree, you don't need this rule, and if they don't, you shouldn't use it.
I played a 3.5 game where we all had to start with 5 levels of a caster class for some reason before changing classes. Total waste. All it did was slow down our XP progression lol. Well, that and make our characters seem kind of incompetent because at level 10 we were really more like level 5.
As clearly established, the differentiation is over whether a player has already stepped into the role of the character. There is a substantial and relevant difference between whether a character is still in the conceptualization stage or if that character has been finalized and actualized within the game itself.
Once actualized and played, the character begins to take on a life of its own. It has its own personality, its own narrative, and its own set of goals. These elements are all going to be informed by how the player plays the character and how the campaign unfolds. Forcing a player to change their path mid-narrative is untenable--this is the DM not only forcing their desires on the player, but also forcing the player to change the narrative course they have already begun to walk for an arbitrary reason.
However, before the character is played in a campaign, the DM has lot more control over that yet-actualized character's creation process. There is not a firm narrative the still-uncreated character has set upon,
This is a well-established reality. The DM can dictate what rulebooks are utilized, whether certain content, such as Magic content is off limits, whether players are required to play races present in a specific region (ex. whether the DM allows Warforged in a non-Eberron campaign), etc. Telling players "part of this campaign is going to involve getting players to explore beyond the traditional class boundaries, so I want everyone to take a single level in multiclass at the beginning" is just another Session Zero restriction a DM could impose.
So, no, there is no internal contradiction--there is a significant, distinguishable, and well-established difference between pre-start character creation, where a character does not fully exist, and post-start character modification, where a character exists and has a whole lot of baggage.
Now, would I impose this kind of restriction on my players? Absolutely not. But the OP might have a legitimate reason for wanting to impose the restriction (perhaps they know their players tend to fall into rails and think it would benefit them to branch out a little and try something new). Rather than simply say "this is a bad idea", it is much more helpful to provide a "this is not a great idea as you have it written, but, if you are committed to doing something like this, here's when it should be done."
It’s not forcing anyone to do anything if it’s discussed during session 0 and then agreed upon by everyone involved. A session 0 suggestion that all the characters have to be multi class is no more egregious than a session 0 suggestion that there is no multi-classing or any other particular limit or requirement for character generation.
I don't really understand what you mean here. "Lore wise" does that mean for the campaign's story? What factors to the game is compelling your players to branch into different classes? Personally while I encourage consideration of multi-classing when it's time to level up, I restrict multi-classing in that they have to make some sort of narrative sense. Like a Druid who's generally played a support role in combat isn't just going get the OK to MC into Paladin. Force multi-classing may similarly compel your players to engage in your game world to come up with reasons for a mandated multi classing, but that to me seems more like narrative twister/contortions to satisfy a house rule than enriched interactive storytelling.
Which gets to flavor, I think the only flavor you get is characters will have to "think of the build" more knowing that a MC build is hanging over their heads.
I will say forcing the MC at level X doesn't feel organic at all and counter to the "good" multi-classing where a player chooses the option in a way that makes sense to the game. I can't see a in game circumstance that will require the whole party to take on new classes.
There are so. many. threads. on optimal or comparative mutliclassing builds throughout this forum, you can ask folks who happen to see this thread to put forth their thinking, or you could look at all. those. threads. and decide on your own.
EDIT: Again, since the "why" is unclear, if it's a matter of boredom, it's probably better to do a one shot or mini-arc with new characters with the rule that everyone has to play a different class from the main campaign.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Have them all take a free feat at level X instead. Encourage picking feats that are like a taste of a particular class (Fighting Initiate, Magic Initiate, Eldritch Adept, etc.)
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
This is pretty much it. If the table agrees that everyone has to do it, then it's ok. That's the end of the discussion about it.
I don't agree with the automatic "it adds more flavor" because at the end, that's a player decision. It allows for more inherent and instant power creep. Some classes are ABSOLUTELY a stronger multiclass base option than others, while others wouldn't want this because casters potentially lose spell progression, etc.
You also run into situations like this where now characters have some form of potential impediment if this is done wrong.
If the goal is to give more flavor to the character and let them kind of branch out, just give them a free feat. This lets them specialize in a way that gives them a minor power boost, but at the same time lets them focus on something that is easily identifiable from a flavor perspective.
I did something similar to one of my campaigns.
The entire party wiped fighting a red dragon. The session ended with everybody unconscious.
I privately asked each player if they wanted their PC to live. Most decided to come back with a cost being implied.
The cost was the loss of 1 level in their main and a gain in something different - the explanation being whoever/whatever brought them back took some of their magic in exchange for life. i.e. lose a Paladin level, gain a Fighter level. If they did not make this choice, they would be dead.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale