Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass. Do you want to play a soldier who is also a priest? You just have to make a soldier and play him in such a way that he behaves like a priest (not doing anything to the children, but praying at every opportunity). A warrior who knows magic? Eldritch Knight or the feat magic initiate. A Robbin Hood-type thieving ranger? Put the appropriate background on it, and behave like it. Etc... You don't need a multiclass for that.
Is there really a reason to discourage it, beyond "eeeww, I don't like it, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either"? I don't MC myself, but I'm a little confused as to why this is a problem.
It might be a reaction against min-maxing. Multiclassing tends to be a cornerstone of that style of play, and said playstyle has a reputation of clashing against other styles of play in a way that stands out. I mean, all playstyles are valid, but not all mix well.
Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass.
How about if I want to do a human that has always been a thief who suddenly finds that he has draconic ancestry? A Rogue with a level or so dip in Draconic Sorceror would be ideal. Very thematic. I'm not sure that it's any more powerful than just a straight Rogue.
If you're going to respond with something along the lines with that I should be a Rogue and just roleplay the sorceror bit...then really you're against classes. Just cut all of them back to Fighter, Rogue and Wizard and everyone just roleplay the various archetypes. Works exactly the same, so having a Sorceror is just playing mechanics not theme.
Is there really a reason to discourage it, beyond "eeeww, I don't like it, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either"? I don't MC myself, but I'm a little confused as to why this is a problem.
It might be a reaction against min-maxing. Multiclassing tends to be a cornerstone of that style of play, and said playstyle has a reputation of clashing against other styles of play in a way that stands out. I mean, all playstyles are valid, but not all mix well.
Maybe. However, given that most MC builds are worse off, I don't think it's a particularly good target for tackling minmaxxing, and there are many other ways to minmax. For example, I hope the same people insist on standard array rather than point buy or rolling, you don't get to use optional features, and so forth. At the end of the day, they're all tools, and all open to abuse or minmaxxing (which term you use depends on your PoV). I've never seen the point in trying to control what players do because the problem is the attitude, not the tool. I might ban specific builds to stop people going overboard and wrecking the game for others (assuming they're not minmaxxing, if everyone is wanting to do it, then I'm fine with them doing whatever because it's not going to punish anyone), but the concept of banning tools that work fine in general seems restrictive me.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it. The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system. Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features. No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system. Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss. Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight. And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right. None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class. It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
I don't see any mess in the current multiclass system other than ASI's being a bit annoying, but that is rather minor and managable.
It can be both because it already is being both and works just fine. It isn't trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or spits in the sub-class system or anything like that. It is just a crunchier option and there is nothing wrong with that. I also disagree that you are able to make any concept with a single class; I have yet to find a way to accurately recreate Okita Alter in 5E with multiclassing, let alone single classing.
Also, Eldritch Knight is nothing like a proper 2E Fighter/Mage Dual Class. A fighter mage dual class would be closer to a fullcaster, same with Mage/Thief, due to how classes requiring different amount of xp per level.
Well Keep in mind in 2e we used Multi-classing for a different reason than was/is used since 3.x. in 2e and previous we had level limits on certain races. MC was conceived of originally as a way around those limits. as to accurately recreating Okita Alter? I have no clue who that is. But when "re-creating" characters? never carbon copy, emulate, and aproximate. What is the basic concept of the character? What tropes does it use? etc...
I already posted a video of her in a previous response and I have yet to find a way to re-create her in a satisfying manner. A huge noteworthy part of her fighting style is her teleport spam. And no, Eldritch Knight with misty step does not cut it. You say we shouldn't carbon copy, but that does not mean a shadow with barely a resembrence will suffice.
All I saw in that mobile game demo was a poorly animated imitation of a turn based fighters multi-attack and an over the top anime critical hit from an obviously special artifact level magic sword. To me there is nothing there to indicate she is any thing other than a basic fighter.
That's both a cop out and a non-answer. Fact is you can't accurately do it with a single class. It is not due to an artifact level sword, she inherently is able to teleport and shoot beams from her sword which is far more than what a fighter can do. While her sword is magical and sentient, none of the abilities she displays is due to the sword and Fate does make the distinction whether something is coming from the character or the sword. So no, fighter is not the answer.
Taking another character from Fate as an example; Artoria Pendragon is best replicated as a Devotion Paladin/Draconic Sorcerer Multiclass. She literally is a Sorcadin. Lore wise, she generates mana exactly like a dragon, having been said to be born with the magical energy of a dragon. The extra spell slots help approximate her generous use of prana bursts where she actively uses her magical energy to boost her attacks. Now she is probably more paladin than sorcerer due to how she doesn'y display any high level spellcasting, even though she is capable of it, due to a lack of a desire to study magic.
In general, single classing martials generally are not able to recreate the more over the top animes because of how more grounded martials tend to be.
Is there really a reason to discourage it, beyond "eeeww, I don't like it, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either"? I don't MC myself, but I'm a little confused as to why this is a problem.
It might be a reaction against min-maxing. Multiclassing tends to be a cornerstone of that style of play, and said playstyle has a reputation of clashing against other styles of play in a way that stands out. I mean, all playstyles are valid, but not all mix well.
The funny thing is that 5E actually does allow crunchier styles to mix with more RP heavy styles due to how 5E can keep optimized and unoptimized builds fairly close in power. You really have to try to cause a serious gap in power.
Is there really a reason to discourage it, beyond "eeeww, I don't like it, so you're not allowed to have fun with it either"? I don't MC myself, but I'm a little confused as to why this is a problem.
It might be a reaction against min-maxing. Multiclassing tends to be a cornerstone of that style of play, and said playstyle has a reputation of clashing against other styles of play in a way that stands out. I mean, all playstyles are valid, but not all mix well.
I understand what you are saying but I don't know if I agree. I mean, there are multiclasses, like the famous DIP to Hexblade, which are the quintessence of max min. But there are many other multiclasses that are just the opposite. And yet people do them for some reason.
The Problem with Multi-classing over all is that the game was never designed with it in mind and every attempt since has been to shoehorn it into a system not designed for it. The "best" version of it was 3.x and that was conceptually a broken mess.
D&D is/was designed as a Class Based system. Multi-classing (as it is presented these days) is an attempt to turn it into a classless buffet of abilities/features. No amount of hammering is ever going to make that work smoothly. Its a square peg in a round hole. The system needs to commit to one or the other; it cannot by their natures be both.
Another issue with MC? It is a complete spit in the face of the sub-class system. Want the "classic" mage/thief of 2e? Arcane Trickster- no fuss, no muss. Fighter/mage? Eldritch Knight. And so on. Sub-classes is the 3e prestige classes done right. None of this nonsense of dipping 2 or 3 levels of 2 to 4 classes before being allowed to even consider taking the damn class. It is 2e MC done not only right but elegantly as well.
5e MC? And consequently OneD&Ds MC? Feels like a step backwards not forwards.
I don't see any mess in the current multiclass system other than ASI's being a bit annoying, but that is rather minor and managable.
It can be both because it already is being both and works just fine. It isn't trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or spits in the sub-class system or anything like that. It is just a crunchier option and there is nothing wrong with that. I also disagree that you are able to make any concept with a single class; I have yet to find a way to accurately recreate Okita Alter in 5E with multiclassing, let alone single classing.
Also, Eldritch Knight is nothing like a proper 2E Fighter/Mage Dual Class. A fighter mage dual class would be closer to a fullcaster, same with Mage/Thief, due to how classes requiring different amount of xp per level.
Well Keep in mind in 2e we used Multi-classing for a different reason than was/is used since 3.x. in 2e and previous we had level limits on certain races. MC was conceived of originally as a way around those limits. as to accurately recreating Okita Alter? I have no clue who that is. But when "re-creating" characters? never carbon copy, emulate, and aproximate. What is the basic concept of the character? What tropes does it use? etc...
I already posted a video of her in a previous response and I have yet to find a way to re-create her in a satisfying manner. A huge noteworthy part of her fighting style is her teleport spam. And no, Eldritch Knight with misty step does not cut it. You say we shouldn't carbon copy, but that does not mean a shadow with barely a resembrence will suffice.
All I saw in that mobile game demo was a poorly animated imitation of a turn based fighters multi-attack and an over the top anime critical hit from an obviously special artifact level magic sword. To me there is nothing there to indicate she is any thing other than a basic fighter.
That's both a cop out and a non-answer. Fact is you can't accurately do it with a single class. It is not due to an artifact level sword, she inherently is able to teleport and shoot beams from her sword which is far more than what a fighter can do. While her sword is magical and sentient, none of the abilities she displays is due to the sword and Fate does make the distinction whether something is coming from the character or the sword. So no, fighter is not the answer.
No it is an answer. Just not the one you want or like. Given the limited data in the Mobile Game demo there is nothing there to indicate any of the abilities you ascribe to the character. So at this point I can only assume you are moving the goal post. (Unless you have a better example?)
Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass. Do you want to play a soldier who is also a priest? You just have to make a soldier and play him in such a way that he behaves like a priest (not doing anything to the children, but praying at every opportunity).
So basically you're against Paladin being a class, since that is basically what Paladin is, a soldier who is also a priest, you aren't even arguing against a multi-class but a single class with this one.
But no, having features link to a background can mean something. For example a fighter who sold their soul to the devil, you have some levels in warlock but mostly level fighter, you might have a subplot of trying to get your soul back, these things link to better than just trying to 100% role play it without the character classes and it reflects in what your character can and can not do, that they have made such a pact. It's the same thing as being a soldier who prays every where, picking up paladin instead of being a fighter that just prays a lot, shows the power of that character's devotion and belief of their faith.
Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass. Do you want to play a soldier who is also a priest? You just have to make a soldier and play him in such a way that he behaves like a priest (not doing anything to the children, but praying at every opportunity).
So basically you're against Paladin being a class, since that is basically what Paladin is, a soldier who is also a priest, you aren't even arguing against a multi-class but a single class with this one.
They said in that same post that you don't need to multiclass to play a character like that. You're agreeing with the point they were making.
Multiclassing is currently an option the game offers. There are character builds, concepts, and ideas that only really work using this option the game gives people and has given people since it released.
Some people don't like multiclassing and think that if your character build/concept/idea requires multiclassing to work, that build/concept/idea doesn't belong in D&D and should be thrown out.
Easy solution: if you're amongst a group of the folks who dislike multiclassing, ban it from your table. Say "we're not using the optional multiclassing rule." Then let the people who want to multiclass do it at their own tables, where their games don't affect yours.
Well not exactly, because as I understand it, the contention is that multiclassing seems to affect how WoTC designs the game on some level. Or at least, that's the claim some in this thread have been making.
I was able to tell that the sword didn't give the abilities and that wasn't going extremely fast just by watching that trailer.
Is there additional character data available that perhaps you are privy to? Because what I saw (in the only media I am aware of for the character) was a magic beam attack from a sword. Like I said unless I am shown more than that; I can only assume the goal posts are being moved because I did not come to the same conclusion on so little data as Mana.
Well not exactly, because as I understand it, the contention is that multiclassing seems to affect how WoTC designs the game on some level. Or at least, that's the claim some in this thread have been making.
Despite them repeatedly saying they don't really do that and multiclassing as at one's own risk?
Sure, there might be some things they occasionally back off on due to multiclassing nonsense, but the one big thing we know of - rangers getting 'free' Hunter's Mark from the Class Feature Variants UA pre-Tasha's Cauldron - is back in 1DD form now.
The whole "stick to your claaaass! D&D is a class-based system!" thing bugs me because there's exactly thirteen classes in D&D, those same people tend to frown on feats as well, and R5e subclasses are so weak and ineffectual that they do not meaningfully change the play experience of their core classes save in extremely rare edge cases. Once you've played thirteen D&D characters? You're done with 5e and don't have any more room to keep going. There's nothing new for you to try. Multiclassing and building interesting combinations alleviates that issue to a degree and gives the game more longevity for people discontent to play the same dang thing over and over and over and over again.
Well not exactly, because as I understand it, the contention is that multiclassing seems to affect how WoTC designs the game on some level. Or at least, that's the claim some in this thread have been making.
Which nobody can explain in anyway how that works given the game works just as well with no multiclassing as it does with multiclassing, almost as if it remains optional. in one D&D there is more clarification going in for multiclassing, but not in such a way that classes are being altered for it, just that it's more clear what you do and do not get from multiclassing into those classes, which is almost like wotc see it as a popular and beneficial feature which they are trying to simplify to let more people try it out.
Well not exactly, because as I understand it, the contention is that multiclassing seems to affect how WoTC designs the game on some level. Or at least, that's the claim some in this thread have been making.
Every class in the Playtest spells out exactly what you get when multi-classing into it. Couple that with comments made in the YouTube vids about Multi-classing? That is a glaring indication that it is moving back to being a core mechanic. And given how well that worked last time it was core? One should find it concerning.
Well not exactly, because as I understand it, the contention is that multiclassing seems to affect how WoTC designs the game on some level. Or at least, that's the claim some in this thread have been making.
Every class in the Playtest spells out exactly what you get when multi-classing into it. Couple that with comments made in the YouTube vids about Multi-classing? That is a glaring indication that it is moving back to being a core mechanic. And given how well that worked last time it was core? One should find it concerning.
Most tables allow multiclassing in 5E and yet it has not caused issues in 5E, so I do not see any concern given how one d&d is clearly more like 5E than any other system.
I will say that multiclassing is probably one of the few ways martial characters can diversify what they can do beyond what their main class offers them.
It's also an interesting mental exercise when you actually try to think of why the multiclass is the way it is. Maybe the paladin is tired of not being able to do much attacking at range, so they make a deal with a genie or something to get two beams of ranged energy.
Every class in the PHB spells out exactly what you get when multiclassing into it, too. Because for the optional rule to work, you need to know that information. if you don't use the rule? Then you don't care and can disregard that bullet.
Again - easy. Even if the book takes the 'optional' tag off, a DM can forbid multiclassing. And on DDB they can easily see if their players have a multiclass character sheet and can even forcibly remove that class, since a DM has edit privileges over a player's sheet in their campaign. I'd strongly recommend against wholesale screwing with a player's sheet, but a DM has more ability to say no to multiclassing on this platform than on any other.
And frankly, who cares if they design the game with half an eye towards multiclassing? They design the game with an eye towards a lot of things that are irrelevant to someone's personal table. Just play the game that works for you and yours and stop trying to bully other folks into leaving the game because they don't want to play worn-out Tolkienesque tropes every single campaign.
Nah, I think trying to punish a player for making a creative choice by taking away a benefit they've already been given feels super bad. 0/10 would not recommend.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Maybe. However, given that most MC builds are worse off, I don't think it's a particularly good target for tackling minmaxxing, and there are many other ways to minmax.
I understand what you are saying but I don't know if I agree. I mean, there are multiclasses, like the famous DIP to Hexblade, which are the quintessence of max min. But there are many other multiclasses that are just the opposite. And yet people do them for some reason.
I never said they were right. I'm just saying that its a perception some people have, and banning multiclasses has been known to reduce the amount of min-maxers who want to join a game during random pick up games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Multiclasses only make sense mechanically. Thematically you can play any character you want in singleclass. Do you want to play a soldier who is also a priest? You just have to make a soldier and play him in such a way that he behaves like a priest (not doing anything to the children, but praying at every opportunity). A warrior who knows magic? Eldritch Knight or the feat magic initiate. A Robbin Hood-type thieving ranger? Put the appropriate background on it, and behave like it. Etc...
You don't need a multiclass for that.
It might be a reaction against min-maxing. Multiclassing tends to be a cornerstone of that style of play, and said playstyle has a reputation of clashing against other styles of play in a way that stands out. I mean, all playstyles are valid, but not all mix well.
How about if I want to do a human that has always been a thief who suddenly finds that he has draconic ancestry? A Rogue with a level or so dip in Draconic Sorceror would be ideal. Very thematic. I'm not sure that it's any more powerful than just a straight Rogue.
If you're going to respond with something along the lines with that I should be a Rogue and just roleplay the sorceror bit...then really you're against classes. Just cut all of them back to Fighter, Rogue and Wizard and everyone just roleplay the various archetypes. Works exactly the same, so having a Sorceror is just playing mechanics not theme.
Maybe. However, given that most MC builds are worse off, I don't think it's a particularly good target for tackling minmaxxing, and there are many other ways to minmax. For example, I hope the same people insist on standard array rather than point buy or rolling, you don't get to use optional features, and so forth. At the end of the day, they're all tools, and all open to abuse or minmaxxing (which term you use depends on your PoV). I've never seen the point in trying to control what players do because the problem is the attitude, not the tool. I might ban specific builds to stop people going overboard and wrecking the game for others (assuming they're not minmaxxing, if everyone is wanting to do it, then I'm fine with them doing whatever because it's not going to punish anyone), but the concept of banning tools that work fine in general seems restrictive me.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's both a cop out and a non-answer. Fact is you can't accurately do it with a single class. It is not due to an artifact level sword, she inherently is able to teleport and shoot beams from her sword which is far more than what a fighter can do. While her sword is magical and sentient, none of the abilities she displays is due to the sword and Fate does make the distinction whether something is coming from the character or the sword. So no, fighter is not the answer.
Taking another character from Fate as an example; Artoria Pendragon is best replicated as a Devotion Paladin/Draconic Sorcerer Multiclass. She literally is a Sorcadin. Lore wise, she generates mana exactly like a dragon, having been said to be born with the magical energy of a dragon. The extra spell slots help approximate her generous use of prana bursts where she actively uses her magical energy to boost her attacks. Now she is probably more paladin than sorcerer due to how she doesn'y display any high level spellcasting, even though she is capable of it, due to a lack of a desire to study magic.
In general, single classing martials generally are not able to recreate the more over the top animes because of how more grounded martials tend to be.
The funny thing is that 5E actually does allow crunchier styles to mix with more RP heavy styles due to how 5E can keep optimized and unoptimized builds fairly close in power. You really have to try to cause a serious gap in power.
It is more altitude than the actual build.
I understand what you are saying but I don't know if I agree. I mean, there are multiclasses, like the famous DIP to Hexblade, which are the quintessence of max min. But there are many other multiclasses that are just the opposite. And yet people do them for some reason.
No it is an answer. Just not the one you want or like. Given the limited data in the Mobile Game demo there is nothing there to indicate any of the abilities you ascribe to the character.
So at this point I can only assume you are moving the goal post. (Unless you have a better example?)
So basically you're against Paladin being a class, since that is basically what Paladin is, a soldier who is also a priest, you aren't even arguing against a multi-class but a single class with this one.
But no, having features link to a background can mean something. For example a fighter who sold their soul to the devil, you have some levels in warlock but mostly level fighter, you might have a subplot of trying to get your soul back, these things link to better than just trying to 100% role play it without the character classes and it reflects in what your character can and can not do, that they have made such a pact. It's the same thing as being a soldier who prays every where, picking up paladin instead of being a fighter that just prays a lot, shows the power of that character's devotion and belief of their faith.
I was able to tell that the sword didn't give the abilities and that wasn't going extremely fast just by watching that trailer.
They said in that same post that you don't need to multiclass to play a character like that. You're agreeing with the point they were making.
Multiclassing is currently an option the game offers. There are character builds, concepts, and ideas that only really work using this option the game gives people and has given people since it released.
Some people don't like multiclassing and think that if your character build/concept/idea requires multiclassing to work, that build/concept/idea doesn't belong in D&D and should be thrown out.
Easy solution: if you're amongst a group of the folks who dislike multiclassing, ban it from your table. Say "we're not using the optional multiclassing rule." Then let the people who want to multiclass do it at their own tables, where their games don't affect yours.
Boom. Done. Thread solved. Yes?
Please do not contact or message me.
Well not exactly, because as I understand it, the contention is that multiclassing seems to affect how WoTC designs the game on some level. Or at least, that's the claim some in this thread have been making.
Is there additional character data available that perhaps you are privy to? Because what I saw (in the only media I am aware of for the character) was a magic beam attack from a sword.
Like I said unless I am shown more than that; I can only assume the goal posts are being moved because I did not come to the same conclusion on so little data as Mana.
Despite them repeatedly saying they don't really do that and multiclassing as at one's own risk?
Sure, there might be some things they occasionally back off on due to multiclassing nonsense, but the one big thing we know of - rangers getting 'free' Hunter's Mark from the Class Feature Variants UA pre-Tasha's Cauldron - is back in 1DD form now.
The whole "stick to your claaaass! D&D is a class-based system!" thing bugs me because there's exactly thirteen classes in D&D, those same people tend to frown on feats as well, and R5e subclasses are so weak and ineffectual that they do not meaningfully change the play experience of their core classes save in extremely rare edge cases. Once you've played thirteen D&D characters? You're done with 5e and don't have any more room to keep going. There's nothing new for you to try. Multiclassing and building interesting combinations alleviates that issue to a degree and gives the game more longevity for people discontent to play the same dang thing over and over and over and over again.
Please do not contact or message me.
Which nobody can explain in anyway how that works given the game works just as well with no multiclassing as it does with multiclassing, almost as if it remains optional. in one D&D there is more clarification going in for multiclassing, but not in such a way that classes are being altered for it, just that it's more clear what you do and do not get from multiclassing into those classes, which is almost like wotc see it as a popular and beneficial feature which they are trying to simplify to let more people try it out.
Every class in the Playtest spells out exactly what you get when multi-classing into it.
Couple that with comments made in the YouTube vids about Multi-classing?
That is a glaring indication that it is moving back to being a core mechanic.
And given how well that worked last time it was core? One should find it concerning.
Most tables allow multiclassing in 5E and yet it has not caused issues in 5E, so I do not see any concern given how one d&d is clearly more like 5E than any other system.
I will say that multiclassing is probably one of the few ways martial characters can diversify what they can do beyond what their main class offers them.
It's also an interesting mental exercise when you actually try to think of why the multiclass is the way it is. Maybe the paladin is tired of not being able to do much attacking at range, so they make a deal with a genie or something to get two beams of ranged energy.
Every class in the PHB spells out exactly what you get when multiclassing into it, too. Because for the optional rule to work, you need to know that information. if you don't use the rule? Then you don't care and can disregard that bullet.
Again - easy. Even if the book takes the 'optional' tag off, a DM can forbid multiclassing. And on DDB they can easily see if their players have a multiclass character sheet and can even forcibly remove that class, since a DM has edit privileges over a player's sheet in their campaign. I'd strongly recommend against wholesale screwing with a player's sheet, but a DM has more ability to say no to multiclassing on this platform than on any other.
And frankly, who cares if they design the game with half an eye towards multiclassing? They design the game with an eye towards a lot of things that are irrelevant to someone's personal table. Just play the game that works for you and yours and stop trying to bully other folks into leaving the game because they don't want to play worn-out Tolkienesque tropes every single campaign.
Please do not contact or message me.
Nah, I think trying to punish a player for making a creative choice by taking away a benefit they've already been given feels super bad. 0/10 would not recommend.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I never said they were right. I'm just saying that its a perception some people have, and banning multiclasses has been known to reduce the amount of min-maxers who want to join a game during random pick up games.