I'm a pretty new(COVID inspired) DM and am pretty excited about the idea of opening up my (also new) players to multiclassing. With that being said, there's one thing I really don't like about the multiclassing mechanic that I see in many multiclass builds out there which is the weaving in and out of new classes. If your Paladin wants to break bad and embrace a warlock patron or whatever; that's fine and I like the flavor. If your character wants to go back to being a Paladin every second level to optimize their power at any given level; that breaks the flavor of pretty much any character in my opinion. So before my players start multiclassing (some of them are very much optimizers) I want to introduce the rule that states:
"You cannot multiclass into a class that you currently have levels in."
The idea is to prevent players from thrashing between classes and ruining any flavor that a multiclassing could bring.
What do you think? Would your players appreciate this rule or would they complain it into non-existence because it ruins their perfectly optimized build?
Switching between classes multiple times isn't really a problem balance wise (there's no flavor problem between having half your levels in X, the other half in Y, and maintaining that indefinitely), most of the exploits relate to class dips (I take a level of Hexblade Warlock so I can using Charisma for weapon attacks, and then the rest of my levels in Paladin), and other than requiring a specific build order (must take your first level class as Hexblade), your proposed rule doesn't affect that.
I'd suggest just disallowing dips -- say, "You cannot multiclass until you have 4 levels in your current class".
Just being honest, I don’t like this from a DM or player viewpoint. I think multiclassing should have a narrative reason for dipping into another class but other than that I say level up as you please.
"You cannot multiclass into a class that you currently have levels in."
The idea is to prevent players from thrashing between classes and ruining any flavor that a multiclassing could bring.
So... with multiclassing, you're not switching back and forth between the 2 things. You are both things. You don't stop being a Paladin (generally) because you are now a Warlock. You could potentially be forced to become an Oathbreaker, depending on how your choice of Patron interacts with your Oath, but that doesn't change the fact that you are still a Paladin.
It kinda seems like you're fundamentally understanding what multiclassing is and how it works.
"If your character wants to go back to being a Paladin every second level to optimize their power at any given level; that breaks the flavor of pretty much any character in my opinion."
It sounds as if your main concern is maintaining the concept of the character and the integrity of that individual within your campaign world. If that is the case then you don't need to limit multi-classing as a mechanic. You just need your players to have a good reason for their choices. Even you Paladin warlock would work for several combinations like Oath of Devotion / Celestial patron or as drag0n_77 pointed out above. The character is a member of both classes.
In my current campaign I have a Rogue/Fighter who focuses on ranged attacks and a Cleric of the Nature Domain who recently met a Druid and decided to learn from him. Neither of these cases "breaks the flavor" in my opinion, and I see no problem with them continuing to take levels in both classes when as as they choose.
I'd suggest that rather than making a rule to limit your players options, you talk with them and work out the reasons for their choices from an in character perspective. If they want a fallen paladin turned warlock great. If not, it is possible to find a way to be both and as Pantagruel666 stated the mechanic will not unbalance your party.
Not sure what you are objecting to. I see no problem with going in in Paladin, then going up in Cleric, then switching back to Paladin. That is not a real problem and shouldn't be. Does not increase the power level in any significant way.
But if you meant that you did no want a player to take levels in Divination Wizard and to also take levels in Abjurer Wizard, that is not a house rule, it's a regular rule.
That actually used to be a 1e rule, kind of, for dual classing, which at the time was different from multi-classing. Without getting into the history lesson, I’ll just say I for one wouldn’t go back.
Dungeons and Dragons is designed to have well-made rules but on the other hand, to allow you to change these rules in a way that keeps the adventure interesting and fun to the players.
Keeping the adventure fun should always be the same goal, whether you guys are using multiclass correctly or not. You will see a lot of people say "but it doesn't make sense for roleplaying" or something similar, but my question is: does it make sense for you and your players? If so, go ahead and play multiclass as you wish.
However, I highly recommend that if you are running an adventure for new players, let them get a flavour of the game first. Wait until they get to level 4-5 and start using extra attack, cool spells and such. At the first levels you are unlikely to understand what that class really means, especially if you are a new player.
Your objection to multiclassing appears to be some sort of narrative issue where you don't understand how a character can be both a paladin and a warlock at the same time for example, thus they can choose to be something for a while then can choose to be something else but can't go back to being what they were even though they don't lose anything. If that is correct it seems to me that a makes less narrative sense than a character that is both a paladin and a warlock at the same time. Most narrative multiclassing happens because the character concept can use elements from other classes to flesh it out. Perhaps an oath of ancients paladin who joins forces with the fey to protect nature and the forest. They can easily be both a paladin and a fey warlock ... and yet your rule would have them forced to choose one over the other and only advance one at a time never to go back to the other. This narratively breaks the concept of the character (which is advancing as both a paladin and a warlock) and honestly makes no sense to me.
The other thing you mention, and perhaps this is your main issue with multiclassing, is people building "optimized" builds by combining classes. Honestly, after playing 5e for over 3 years now (D&D in general for 40) ... this issue in 5e is massively exaggerated. Earlier editions had far worse balance issues than 5e does even it's worst cases ... and those aren't really bad. Yes, there are some cases that provide some additional utility but is a 5 paladin/2 warlock so much more powerful than a 7 paladin? No. 9 paladin/2 warlock vs 11 paladin. No. The paladin-warlock is probably mechanically more versatile with some spells slots, invocations and other abilities but it isn't overpowered. Is a 6 paladin/5 sorcerer so much better than a 11 paladin? Again no. Different abilities, better spells, more versatile - Lacks the upgraded auras and improved divine smite.
Finally, your suggested rule won't stop some of the most effective multiclassing. 2 fighter/X wizard, 1 cleric/X bard, 2 hexblade/ X bard, 1 cleric/X wizard ... all these combinations are quite decent, delays spell progression in exchange for better AC, starting hit points and some additional spells or abilities. They aren't overpowered though they are more "versatile" and some would look at a high level action surging wizard dropping two fireballs on a bunch of targets in the first turn powerful ... others just call it fun. However, these are actually encouraged by your house rule, not prevented by it.
Anyway, one piece of advice I have for newer DMs to 5e especially when they have come from earlier editions is to ideally play through tier 3 before making changes. The game is surprisingly well balanced even for higher tiers of play. I haven't played tier 4 yet myself but in my experience so far, the basic game works pretty well without any changes so if you have experienced issues then by all means make changes. On the other hand, if the changes you want to make are made on the basis of forums and theory crafting, I'd suggest trying it out first. "Optimization" is far different in 5e than the earlier versions of the game.
I find houserules like these to just diminish fun at the table. It limits player agency which you have to ask yourself why? Your the DM you control every other aspect of the game in its entirety. The players only control their PCs is it really necessary to limit that?
Multi-classing is so fun for so many people. Don't be the guy that tells people they aren't having fun "the right way".
If min/maxing is their version of fun, embrace it as a DM and throw harder challenges at them. It makes them even MORE excited when they defeat something that a "normal" level X party would never have been able to.
If they have a character concept that is a mix between Rogue and Warlock (or whatever) but they aren't able to make it "make sense" who cares? Help them figure it out! Give them ideas on how they can make it fit into your game and lift them up. Praise their successes as they figure out how to make theircharacter concept work.
Is far more rewarding when the player can get excited about what they CAN do rather than watch them deflate over telling them what they cant.
This is overly restrictive and doesn't fix any real world problems at the game table. It's pretty hard to justify adding more rules that your players have to keep track of if they're not serving a useful purpose. Players multiclass for all sorts of reasons, and they should be allowed to if it increases the amount of fun they have and doesn't get in the way of anyone else's fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi Y'all,
I'm a pretty new(COVID inspired) DM and am pretty excited about the idea of opening up my (also new) players to multiclassing. With that being said, there's one thing I really don't like about the multiclassing mechanic that I see in many multiclass builds out there which is the weaving in and out of new classes. If your Paladin wants to break bad and embrace a warlock patron or whatever; that's fine and I like the flavor. If your character wants to go back to being a Paladin every second level to optimize their power at any given level; that breaks the flavor of pretty much any character in my opinion. So before my players start multiclassing (some of them are very much optimizers) I want to introduce the rule that states:
"You cannot multiclass into a class that you currently have levels in."
The idea is to prevent players from thrashing between classes and ruining any flavor that a multiclassing could bring.
What do you think? Would your players appreciate this rule or would they complain it into non-existence because it ruins their perfectly optimized build?
Switching between classes multiple times isn't really a problem balance wise (there's no flavor problem between having half your levels in X, the other half in Y, and maintaining that indefinitely), most of the exploits relate to class dips (I take a level of Hexblade Warlock so I can using Charisma for weapon attacks, and then the rest of my levels in Paladin), and other than requiring a specific build order (must take your first level class as Hexblade), your proposed rule doesn't affect that.
I'd suggest just disallowing dips -- say, "You cannot multiclass until you have 4 levels in your current class".
Just being honest, I don’t like this from a DM or player viewpoint. I think multiclassing should have a narrative reason for dipping into another class but other than that I say level up as you please.
So... with multiclassing, you're not switching back and forth between the 2 things. You are both things. You don't stop being a Paladin (generally) because you are now a Warlock. You could potentially be forced to become an Oathbreaker, depending on how your choice of Patron interacts with your Oath, but that doesn't change the fact that you are still a Paladin.
It kinda seems like you're fundamentally understanding what multiclassing is and how it works.
It sounds as if your main concern is maintaining the concept of the character and the integrity of that individual within your campaign world. If that is the case then you don't need to limit multi-classing as a mechanic. You just need your players to have a good reason for their choices. Even you Paladin warlock would work for several combinations like Oath of Devotion / Celestial patron or as drag0n_77 pointed out above. The character is a member of both classes.
In my current campaign I have a Rogue/Fighter who focuses on ranged attacks and a Cleric of the Nature Domain who recently met a Druid and decided to learn from him. Neither of these cases "breaks the flavor" in my opinion, and I see no problem with them continuing to take levels in both classes when as as they choose.
I'd suggest that rather than making a rule to limit your players options, you talk with them and work out the reasons for their choices from an in character perspective. If they want a fallen paladin turned warlock great. If not, it is possible to find a way to be both and as Pantagruel666 stated the mechanic will not unbalance your party.
Not sure what you are objecting to. I see no problem with going in in Paladin, then going up in Cleric, then switching back to Paladin. That is not a real problem and shouldn't be. Does not increase the power level in any significant way.
But if you meant that you did no want a player to take levels in Divination Wizard and to also take levels in Abjurer Wizard, that is not a house rule, it's a regular rule.
That actually used to be a 1e rule, kind of, for dual classing, which at the time was different from multi-classing. Without getting into the history lesson, I’ll just say I for one wouldn’t go back.
Dungeons and Dragons is designed to have well-made rules but on the other hand, to allow you to change these rules in a way that keeps the adventure interesting and fun to the players.
Keeping the adventure fun should always be the same goal, whether you guys are using multiclass correctly or not. You will see a lot of people say "but it doesn't make sense for roleplaying" or something similar, but my question is: does it make sense for you and your players? If so, go ahead and play multiclass as you wish.
However, I highly recommend that if you are running an adventure for new players, let them get a flavour of the game first. Wait until they get to level 4-5 and start using extra attack, cool spells and such. At the first levels you are unlikely to understand what that class really means, especially if you are a new player.
I have just a couple of comments.
Your objection to multiclassing appears to be some sort of narrative issue where you don't understand how a character can be both a paladin and a warlock at the same time for example, thus they can choose to be something for a while then can choose to be something else but can't go back to being what they were even though they don't lose anything. If that is correct it seems to me that a makes less narrative sense than a character that is both a paladin and a warlock at the same time. Most narrative multiclassing happens because the character concept can use elements from other classes to flesh it out. Perhaps an oath of ancients paladin who joins forces with the fey to protect nature and the forest. They can easily be both a paladin and a fey warlock ... and yet your rule would have them forced to choose one over the other and only advance one at a time never to go back to the other. This narratively breaks the concept of the character (which is advancing as both a paladin and a warlock) and honestly makes no sense to me.
The other thing you mention, and perhaps this is your main issue with multiclassing, is people building "optimized" builds by combining classes. Honestly, after playing 5e for over 3 years now (D&D in general for 40) ... this issue in 5e is massively exaggerated. Earlier editions had far worse balance issues than 5e does even it's worst cases ... and those aren't really bad. Yes, there are some cases that provide some additional utility but is a 5 paladin/2 warlock so much more powerful than a 7 paladin? No. 9 paladin/2 warlock vs 11 paladin. No. The paladin-warlock is probably mechanically more versatile with some spells slots, invocations and other abilities but it isn't overpowered. Is a 6 paladin/5 sorcerer so much better than a 11 paladin? Again no. Different abilities, better spells, more versatile - Lacks the upgraded auras and improved divine smite.
Finally, your suggested rule won't stop some of the most effective multiclassing. 2 fighter/X wizard, 1 cleric/X bard, 2 hexblade/ X bard, 1 cleric/X wizard ... all these combinations are quite decent, delays spell progression in exchange for better AC, starting hit points and some additional spells or abilities. They aren't overpowered though they are more "versatile" and some would look at a high level action surging wizard dropping two fireballs on a bunch of targets in the first turn powerful ... others just call it fun. However, these are actually encouraged by your house rule, not prevented by it.
Anyway, one piece of advice I have for newer DMs to 5e especially when they have come from earlier editions is to ideally play through tier 3 before making changes. The game is surprisingly well balanced even for higher tiers of play. I haven't played tier 4 yet myself but in my experience so far, the basic game works pretty well without any changes so if you have experienced issues then by all means make changes. On the other hand, if the changes you want to make are made on the basis of forums and theory crafting, I'd suggest trying it out first. "Optimization" is far different in 5e than the earlier versions of the game.
I find houserules like these to just diminish fun at the table. It limits player agency which you have to ask yourself why? Your the DM you control every other aspect of the game in its entirety. The players only control their PCs is it really necessary to limit that?
Multi-classing is so fun for so many people. Don't be the guy that tells people they aren't having fun "the right way".
If min/maxing is their version of fun, embrace it as a DM and throw harder challenges at them. It makes them even MORE excited when they defeat something that a "normal" level X party would never have been able to.
If they have a character concept that is a mix between Rogue and Warlock (or whatever) but they aren't able to make it "make sense" who cares? Help them figure it out! Give them ideas on how they can make it fit into your game and lift them up. Praise their successes as they figure out how to make their character concept work.
Is far more rewarding when the player can get excited about what they CAN do rather than watch them deflate over telling them what they cant.
This is overly restrictive and doesn't fix any real world problems at the game table. It's pretty hard to justify adding more rules that your players have to keep track of if they're not serving a useful purpose. Players multiclass for all sorts of reasons, and they should be allowed to if it increases the amount of fun they have and doesn't get in the way of anyone else's fun.
The Forum Infestation (TM)