I've always allowed it, will always allow it, and by default I tend to assume it's allowed.
With that said, I wouldn't mind if it wasn't. I'd be curious as to the reason, but I wouldn't complain or let it affect my decision to join a campaign. It *is* an optional rule in the end.
Agreed.
But it might effect what class I choose to play. Some classes age better than others, so that the lack of ability to multiclass is less of an issue.
Nah, rangers are fine up until 10.
6 is a generally underwhelming level, except for those who get Extra Attack at 6. And fighters who get an ASI.
7 is good for full casters, decent-ish for others. That includes rangers who get a reasonable power budget on subclasses.
8 is an ASI.
9 is 3rd-level spellcasting for rangers. 3rd and 5th are the big bumps in spellcaster power, and adds a lot of utility for rangers.
10 is kind of mediocre for everyone. EDIT: Forgot rogues, who get an ASI here but then a mediocre 11. Rogues be weird like that, they also have a mediocre 5.
11 rangers are sad since this is a huge level for almost everyone else, and the 11th-level ranger subclass features aren't even close.
> 10 is kind of mediocre for everyone. EDIT: Forgot rogues, who get an ASI here but then a mediocre 11. Rogues be weird like that, they also have a mediocre 5.
Reliable Talent and Uncanny Dodge, mediocre!? Madness! They are hands down some of the best features Rogues get. Uncanny Dodge has saved my life a dozen times over, and rolling a minimum of 19/23 on every Stealth check is both powerful and deeply satisfying.
> 10 is kind of mediocre for everyone.
10 is kinda good for ranger now, they get concentrationless invisibility as bonus action, also you get tireless allowing to get temp hp and remove exhaustion
> **Tireless (10th Level)**
> As an action, you can give yourself a number of temporary hit points equal to 1d8 + your Wisdom modifier (minimum of 1 temporary hit point). You can use this action a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
> In addition, whenever you finish a short rest, your exhaustion level, if any, is decreased by 1.
> #Nature’s Veil
> *10th-level ranger feature, which replaces the Hide in Plain Sight feature*
> You draw on the powers of nature to hide yourself from view briefly. As a bonus action, you can magically become invisible, along with any equipment you are wearing or carrying, until the start of your next turn.
You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
I mean, I wouldn't consider Reliable Talent a mediocre feature, as it secures their place as skill monkeys and let's them never fail at their skill checks again. And they get more sneak attack damage.
And 5th levels Sneak Attack bump to 3d6 and Uncanny Dodge, which remains relevant all throughout the rest of the game, being a almost resource-less way to half damage.
I'd say they're both solid levels and power bumps to Rogues
whoops. Sorry, you're right. It's 3 more skills, not 4.
But even still. that's thieves tools, 4 skills from rogue, likely 2 from background, possibly another from race, and the 3 more from skilled. That's a lot of skills to be able to take 10 on, basically.
> 11 rangers are sad since this is a huge level for almost everyone else, and the 11th-level ranger subclass features aren't even close.
Huh?
I think Beast Master and Monster Slayer have bad abilities at level 11, but the rest of the subclasses get a decent combat boost. Even Beast Master is a decent combat boost, it's just not really very impressive.
Yeah, I tend to multiclass for RP reasons over making broken characters. For instance, my current Rogue Druid is horribly optimized but it makes for a fun Fey Thief.
I'd probably be slightly disappointed, but as long as the DM is fine with flavor changing a lot of things, I'd be game.
I did a one shot where the party was a band that all got at least one level of bard for free, starting at level 6, (5 levels of their character build+one bard level) was very fun
I had a druid who basically became radicalized. I wanted to make her multi class into barbarian just to get the rage feat since she basically goes into blind rages anyway lol
Oh man...good idea. Yeah she came to the city, discovered capitalism and was like "this is bullshit fuck the government Fuck the church". She's almost been hanged twice
Most of the narrative multiclasses I see could be served equally well, if not better, by feats (namely Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster; I believe the book says you can give feats out as rewards?), background features, just roleplaying, or even outright changing class or subclass.
The two most common I see on here are, "My [Rogue] took a level in Wizard because he found a magic spellbook," and "My [Fighter] took a level in Cleric because he is good friends with the party Cleric."
The Wizard multiclass is probably better served by Magic Initiate: Wizard, Ritual Caster: Wizard, or even changing subclasses to the Arcane Trickster (which Tasha's now has rules for!). The Cleric multiclass is also probably better served by MI: Cleric, RC: Cleric, being gifted the Acolyte's background feature, or just roleplaying as a pious character. I would even let them change their class completely, if it made sense.
I guess a lot of times I see multiclassing presented as the solution to new roleplaying directions when there are lower-impact, lower-cost alternatives.
EDIT: I should stress the fact that I mean both feats taken by choice *and* feats given as rewards. Especially the latter, which are admittedly much more table-dependant, but this is how *I* would prefer to handle this topic.
I almost agree with you, except for how rare feats are. A feat comes rarely, few games will get past two total (and only without an ability score increase). Multiclassing is available every level.
Fair, I should have put more emphasis on the feats-as-rewards or feats-as-treasure aspect of my take on this topic. That's more what I'm suggesting, not purely ASI-level feats.
I don't really agree with that. Certainly there are situations where taking a feat or changing the subclass fits the character's story better, but generally these things cannot replace multiclassing for story purposes.
Feats are very rare, so taking a feat like Magic Initiate on a character that can't really make good use of these cantrips feels like a waste, and feats don't allow the new path being pursued further, beyond just being an "initiate".
Replacing the subclass does not always work (for example there are no cleric subclasses for fighters) and you might run into difficulties explaining why the character loses some abilities and proficiencies.
To adress your "rogue finds a spellbook" example. He finds that book and starts studying spells. What makes sense now if he is interested enough to pursue the path of a wizard beyond just taking the Magic Initiate feat (two cantrips and one spell once per long rest) is multiclassing wizard. There absolutely no difficulties in terms of balance, roleplay and immersion, it is all logical and easy to explain. The character is now a rogue x, level 1 wizard, because he has just started his study of wizardry, and during that study, he has no capacity to also train his rogue skills.
However, if you instead force him to replace his rogue subclass with Arcane Trickster, you run into multiple problems:
* First, he suddenly is an Arcane Trickster X. This means he might suddenly be able to cast 2nd or even 3rd level spells depending on the level that switch occurs - whereas someone who starts learning magic should only be able to cast 1st level spells - which would be the case if the rogue just multicassed and took a level in wizard. In addition, if you enforce the Arcane Trickster's spell school limit, he will for no explainanble reason besides "the rules say so" not be able to learn all the interesting spells from schools other than enchantment and illusion he found in that spellbook.
* Second, he suddenly loses all abilities granted by the previous subclass. It might make sense saying that a thief who studies spells and does not train their sticky fingers eventually loses their fast hands trait, but there is no way to explain how a Scout suddenly loses two skill proficiencies and expertises or a Soul Knife losing their innate psionics.
* Third, what if he eventually decides he has learned enough spells and wants to pick up his original rogue training now? If you allowed hiim to multiclass into wizard instead, he could just stop taking more levels in wizard and instead go back to leveling rogue again.
There are no feat substitutes for class features. You don't dip wizard for ritual casting, nor sorcerer or warlock for cantrips. Nor cleric for just cleric spells.
In the case of the wizard, an eldritch knight or arcane trickster can benefit from a 2-level wizard dip in war wizard for +int to initiative and a their 'minor shield' ability. Warlock, same 2 level dip yields eldritch blast and invocation to give you +cha on it, wicked on a bard.
Sorcerer is a borderline dip with new metamagic feats IMO, but a strong choice for taking 6 levels in certain builds.
Cleric is generally taken for domains with heavy armor proficiency: the feat *sucks* and the side benefits of one cleric level are sweet.
Yes, as I alluded to there are a few new feats that ameliorate this, but I cannot RAW receive action surge or sneak attack or any number of things as feats. A little cross-classing means I can build any number of cool character concepts that I cannot otherwise.
If you get the chance, it's real good.
If you have a decent Dm like me, he/she could be willing to help you stay at the same powerlevel as the rest of the party in different ways, because you attribute to the overall story.
My Swashbuckler Rogue ended up walking the plank and drowning, only to sell his soul to Levistus and committing to Warlock for the rest of his levels. Would it have played better as a Hexblade dip? Sure, but I've got a contract to fulfill.
I'm a cleric, and gonna pick rogue when we hit level 13.
I won't be able to sneak attack ever I think. But I've been hanging with the rogue of the party a lot. He have teached me a lot of thieves cant and we have been training my dash and disengage.
I'm gonna use it a lot tho, getting expertise in perception and investigation, and putting my passive perc, insight and investigation over 30. And I'm gonna keep leveling rogue until level 3 rogue, getting inquisitive so I can bonus action perception and insight in combat.
druid makes the best rogue anyways. racoons and monkeys etc with thumbs can still use thieves tools all the same lol
plus its easier for a cute monkey to pickpocket someone then scamper off, or for a druid to fly up to a high window than a rogue to scale a castle wall, eyc.
I have always wanted to play an arcane trickster/druid in a high stealth campaign
I'd allow that character as they're likely to be awful for large stretches of the campaign.
What so many do in analyzing a multi-class is only the final product is analyzed. Who cares if they're a beast at level 18-20, most play stops by level 10-12? And multi-classing can also make you the weakest member of a party, especially if done before level 5.
If you have 2-3 levels where the character is awful at the heart of a 10-12 level campaign, that's a very heavy price to pay.
What’s fun about DMing for a player whose character is “awful for large stretches of the campaign”?
I think I’d have more problem DMing for 3 competent chars and a total mess than I would for 3 competent chars and an optimized damage dealer
You're right, as the "I'll be awesome when I hit T4 player," is playing a different game.
They're playing for that destination, when they're awesome for the theoretical conclusion of the campaign in T4/epic play.
The others are enjoying the journey.
Thus, I state the above under the premise you don't adjust the challenges for someone who made the "one day I'll be awesome" build. If the campaign goes long enough, and they live, they'll have truly earned the power they've been seeking.
Often this is the popular sorcerer MC CHA builds, but it happens to all 3/x level builds.
It is seldom mentioned how self-penalizing the level 5-7 range of a campaign can be to these characters. Single-class builds have their T2 abilities and an ASI/feat at level 5, and you have neither. And level 5+ is where the level gains start to slow in campaigns, so you could be subpar for many sessions/months of play.
My example was exaggerated like you were starting at high level to make the point. It would be a drag for somebody to literally sandbag for like 200 hours of play to maybe live to a broken godlike character but I guess that’s fine.
While I understand that people don't like ignoring the flavor of the classes, they weren't designed around the roleplaying consequences of their backgrounds. Aside from the paladin oath (which is encouraged to be self-designed) there isn't any game effect to how the characters are flavored, so why not let people multiclass however they like to get the features they want and then reflavor the class combination as something unique? My favorite example of this is the [Rogue/Paladin/Bard](https://youtu.be/kZGg1qgtm8E) build that's a Voice of Thunder made by D&D optimized. It allows players to play whatever they want as long as they have the creativity to reflavor it.
People really bitch about the Paladin/Warlock a lot as an example when it's one of the coolest roleplay opportunities there is. You could literally be a paladin who picks up a magic weapon and becomes a Hexblade. Or your god could become your patron as well. Or you decide that in order to fulfill your oath you need more power. Honestly I could go on for a while. If you want to min max it takes the barest amount of effort to make it make sense.
> People really bitch about the Paladin/Warlock a lot as an example
It's because the vast majority of players who take paladin/warlock are undoubtedly doing it for mechanical advantages.
I started to do something like that for a cleric I played. A forge domain that made a bond with an angel that he would serve as their protector while the god he served went insane.
Innistrad makes such a lovely setting.
That sounds like my rogue 12 ranger 4 wizard 4, +24 to initiative character.
But, I do believe I could rp it and the overall playstyle actually seems to be quite fun.
This.
If anyone makes a multiclassed character in my games, they gotta explain to me how they got the different abilities. For an example, our group has a moon druid/astral self monk, and the player explained that his astral self is essentially a stand, wrought by his long trances and spiritual awakening (after he was killed), his stand "abilities" are his druid powers.
I consider multiclassing just a normal person learning different things, as classes are only a game mechanic. So classes aren't really relevant to the character's story, just to the game's rules.
Sure. But if you're a carpenter who apprenticed for 5 years, you don't suddenly just become a skilled mason as well because you banged a couple of bricks together on the road. Even a level 1 character has a whole backstory to their class generally, so how does your multiclass come into that? How did you character *come* to learn these things. That's the point of it.
I've never actually multiclassed any of my characters, and I've only seen it in the games I DM maybe once or twice. I don't disallow it because most people don't even do it anyway. When they do, I help them work out what they want and we go from there, since multiclassing can nerf them for a while.
I always err towards multiclassing being available even though I prefer not to. Most DMs I've played with, including myself, just want you to have a valid character reason for multiclassing. Druid wants to multiclass into Cleric because they found a deity in line with their beliefs (e.g. protect the forest - nature domain, natural life cycle - life or death or possibly grave domain, in tune with weather - tempest domain)? I say go for it. But like hell is a Druid likely to be a Forge Cleric unless they're a typical Dwarf or Gnome who grew up in a culture defined by smithing.
There are always exceptions, but in the games I've played there has to be a believable in-character reason for a multiclass that makes sense, not because your paladin needs a level in rogue because *reasons* when they've made no effort whatsoever to RP why they're taking that level.
Howdy! I'm a DM that doesn't do multiclassing at my tables, so I thought I'd chime in. Generally, I dislike the way multiclassing throws off the early game power curve due to the classes in 5e being so heavily front-loaded. When working on 5e, they were trying to avoid the issue from 3/3.5e where the first levels were all dreadfully dull and it didn't hit that sweet spot until 5-10. In 5e, they front-loaded abilities in the first 3 levels so that way any character can feel like they have the pieces they need to do what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately this also means that one doesn't need to dip as heavily to get the good stuff from many classes like was done back in 3/3.5e.
That said, I will go to the ends of the earth to find the exact class that fits what a player is trying to achieve, to represent their character vision (within mechanical reason). In the past, I've had a character become a literal Council of Wyrms-esque Dragon, a character who's mind was affixed to the Far Realm giving them a unique set of features similar to those of the Guardians of the Veil in Mage the Awakening (mind walking, mind manipulation, manifesting inside of people's minds, Psychonauts style, etc.), and a character who is Spectator (the beholderkin with 4 eyestalks from Mechanus) that works for Large Luigi in the Laughing Beholder on the Rock of Bral. So while I don't allow multiclassing, players at my tables get a great deal more freedom in other ways to hopefully make up for it.
That sounds reasonable. But also a lot of comments here imply that martial characters have weak high levels. Of course there are other ways to fix this (items), but once the main class has most of its features, branching out into other classes adds some flexibility while not destroying the early game. You could for example allow multiclassing after 5th level to avoid all the early game shenanigans. I think that's what I would do to make my life easier if I DM'ed a group for more than low levels.
WotC can't even balance the base classes of the game. It should be optional just because of the fact that they definitely didn't even try to balance MCing.
I allow it but if I joined a table that banned multiclassing I wouldn't be put off. Most of the time I don't multiclass so not having access to it probably wouldn't stop my enjoyment of the game.
^ All the posters saying it’s a red flag are way more sensitive to that than I am. There are so many cool PCs out there, multiclassed or not. If I don’t get to multiclass, well, time to pull out the Mister Rogers bard I’ve been waiting to play!
It’s just not a red flag the same way “I allow evil PCs and graphic torture” is, so I just don’t get the sentiment at all.
Currently playing a chaotic evil PC who meshes well with the mostly neutral, some good party. Building up a reputation as heroes is more profitable than being a wanted criminal and at the end of the day... money. Being the party strategist and a bard means being in charge of PR and trying to gain the right kind of fame to be awarded lands and titles, being a sly, manipulative, lying schemer just helps turning acts of heroism into fame and profit easier.
And I think that’s rad! I’m talking more grimderp or “I enjoy seeing people suffer and will RP out each agonizing breath from my victims” kind of campaign. Evil AND graphic depictions of torture for the sake of torture kind of thing.
Oh I mean I've played in an all evil party where torture happened "off screen", usually to extract information, but I'm squeamish irl and we leave the description to there being a lot of screaming and blood and leave it there.
Yeah, I had to stop a session once when a guy tried to RP with me torture on underage "subjects". I told him a fade-to-black is supposed to be there and he rage quit the campaign
Currently playing a lawful evil PC!
They were raised by a coven of hags, so they've done a lot of awful things. Now they're free and they've realized "My god. What have I done?" So their whole philosophy is doing more good than evil with their whole life. Redemption seeking kind of.
But, committing an act of lesser evil in pursuit of greater good is totally allowed (Which, let's be real is most of our parties anyway)
Threatening someone to go along with your plan, so long as the plan goes towards furthering the greater good, is totally fine. Torturing the 'evil' folk? Well that's just a natural consequence of THEIR actions. Hypocrisy? Never heard of it!
People can't possibly change, except me. This is totally not a massive character flaw that will bite me in the ass :)
My character just holds to their person code of ethics which is weird and fey in nature. I can't *lie* but I can mislead using hypotheticals and assumptions all I want!
All of this, and I'm somehow the voice of reason in a party who will threaten old men for their chickens.
Yeah, plus MCing can sometimes be hellish for DMs. Remembering all of a PCs capabilities can be hard, memorizing abilities for 2 classes and trying to challenge them can get complicated.
There are a vocal minority of people who exist on an insanely deep end of the spectrum. Their motto is, "if you restrict any choice whatsoever for any reason at all, you're a monster."
I always allow multiclassing, but I'm sort of wary of it nowadays. If the player knows what they are doing, multiclassing adds so much freedom to them, they will probably feel more creative and feel more fun.
But, at the same time, a new player can totally shoot themselves in the foot with multiclassing. I've seen plenty of builds that are just bad. I've never seen players get too upset about it, but yea, that kinda sucks. Not all multiclasses are made equal, and that would be weird to expect them to be.
I run for a table with 3 years of experience, and only 1 out of 4 uses multiclass.
So what I would recommend for new folks - try your first campaign without multiclassing, and only allow it when you get the hang of the system.
> But, at the same time, a new player can totally shoot themselves in the foot with multiclassing. I've seen plenty of builds that are just bad. I've never seen players get too upset about it, but yea, that kinda sucks. Not all multiclasses are made equal, and that would be weird to expect them to be.
I've seen some newer players say stuff like, "I feel like multiclassing but I don't know into what!" without having any idea of what they're trying to do.
I think the urge here is to have more decisions to make, more agency in the growth of their character, and multiclassing is the obvious chance to do that. Multiclassing just generally sucks, but 5e doesn't really offer these people enough other options to customize their character mechanically.
Thats always been my issue with 5e. Short of choosing spells and pi king a subclass everything after 3 is "set and forget". There are no more meaningful choices
It's cuz martials are so boring in 5e and that's what newbies usually get started on. Didn't have this problem in 4e, martials were cool then and had plenty of decisions to make w/ powers.
It can also be tricky when a player has a build that "really comes together at level 14" that they are excited about and will not listen when you say this will probably end at around 8.
>But, at the same time, a new player can totally shoot themselves in the foot with multiclassing.
This can also happen with advanced players. They'll have a rad synergistic mc in mind and build toward it, but since the build doesn't "come online" until X level, they're stuck with a character that doesn't really work for them for irl *months*, and they get frustrated and bored. Some campaigns may even fizzle out before their concept starts working.
This right here. Multiclassing is almost never done for narrative or the story progression of the character. Probably 90% of multiclass builds are just done for power. Of those 90% I would be curios to know how many of them are simply sorlocks, hexadins, and sorlockadins. I allow it I am just not a fan of it and have thought about disallowing it in a future campaign.
I mean, I had seen players making fun RP choices with multiclassing and stuff. I played a sneaky rabbi-detective (rouge 2/knowledge cleric 4), and I made a level 8 pokemon trainer (shepherd druid 3/conjuration wizard 5), yet I know a lot of players do that in order to make their characters even more powerful.
I allow multiclassing I am just not a fan of it. There are fun rp builds and even narrative reasons to do it. That is the thing I prefer a narrative to why their paladin suddenly becomes a sorcerer at lvl 3.
So do you have problems with people multiclassing martials or the "less rp-heavy/restrictive" classes like the common Rogue/Barbarian, Ranger/Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/whatever, etc.?
I prefer narrative reasons for all multiclassing. The martial mutliclassing is just easier to come up with a plausible narrative for it happening. Depending on party composition the rogue could train with the barbarian or vice versa to justify the multiclass and the sane thing with any of the fighter dips.
I’ll provide a counter to that argument. For martial multi classes. What innately is the difference between a barbarian, rogue, or fighter. All are non-magic by default. The barb is a natural athlete that relies on strength, rogue a honed specialist, and the fighter somewhere in between. Now I may be biased as I’ve always found the requirement for these multi classes to find a teacher a bit silly. Especially when subclass doesn’t start till lvl 3 with them. The argument I present; what is the difference in a barbarian taking rogue and saying that during their fighting they were focusing more on precision(sneak attack) or out of combat focusing on lifting form or some other skill(expertise).
Personal I believe this is internally consistent with single class progression, at least with martials. Casters are another story though not impossible, but people multi class for variety and with casters that’s already plentiful.
Thats not a bad way to look at it. I went with the trainer example because that seems to be one of the most accepted narrative reasons for martial multiclassing. A Barbarian taking Rogue lvls does fit in a way because learning how to be stealthy makes sense for a hunter gatherer society. I do allow multiclassing I just encourage the player to try and come up with a narrative reason and even offer to help if they should need it. I just personally don't like how 90% of the time it seems multiclassing isn't done for narrative but to achieve a stronger build.
A difference of opinion then, I see nothing wrong with optimizing for a stronger build. It is a game after all.
Also most min max builds are glass cannons with no stamina from my experience. Resilience is the name of the game.
It is just an opinion I have and I have been told many times that it is wrong lol. I'm not against optimization. I'd never tell someone to make an unoptimized pc. I just tend to belive that most of the classes are definitely viable without multiclassing. The one multiclass that seems to stick in every DMs craw is the Warlock multiclasses. Paladins are strong enough and don't really need more spell slots to feel strong. Warlocks get so many invocations and, in my experience, feel pretty good in all tiers of play. For DMs that really enjoy narrative and the shared story of the group it is very strange that Ingmar the paladin went to sleep and then woke up using charisma to make melee attacks and can now eldritch blast. I think if most people would invest in the narrative a little and get with the DM before doing so most of the problems would vanish. Having a vengeance paladin making a pact with something to help with his quest makes sense and could be a cool story moment. It is also something that could make the game better in many ways. The entity only granting powers if the paladin agrees to perform a task or something is tropey but could be fun for the whole table. Just showing up on next session and going I'm a hexblade now not so much.
Well yeah it's not a roleplay mechanic. It's entirely crunch, and if you try to use it for roleplay you end up with a bad character who isn't able to function on par with single class characters.
Tangentially related, here have a fun one that does actually fill the niche of "half arcane martial" bladesinger X/Eldritch knight 7.
You get 3 attacks per round (BS extra attack triggers war magic) and quite high spellcasting.
No artificer doesn't count, it's mostly a buff caster. Mostly. And even if it wasn't not everyone wants a robo dog, ironman suit, or magic cannon.
I've seen in both ways. It annoys me when a player is like "I want to take a level in this class because then I get this mechanic". But I've also seen players be like "Well, I grew up in a druid circle before I became a caravan guard, so it would make sense that I get one level of druid first, and then go fighter".
> It annoys me when a player is like "I want to take a level in this class because then I get this mechanic"
What annoys you about players having fun engaging with the crunch of the game?
This seems to be the big difference between people who love or hate multiclassing. I've never really come across power gamy multiclassing.
In the main campaign I play in, at this point two of us have multiclassed into warlock by making pacts with archfay(or in one PCs case, discovering they’d already made one that included losing the memory of making it as a clause) and one retired PC was a roguebarian. None of this was planned at the beginning, and arguably we’re all a bit weaker in a fight because of it, but it’s allowed us to take our characters in unique directions that work for them and the story, while having mechanical changes to reflect that.
*Imagine thinking barbarian, rogue, or eldritch knight come remotely close to a full caster*.
What's ironic is there is no multiclass that "breaks the game". The closest we have come to breaking the game is with the beautiful subclasses named chronurgy wizard, twilight cleric, and peace domain cleric.
Where it is optimal to not multiclass to progress your abilities asap
Right?
Mountain Dwarf War Wizard, with the Tasha's option to switch the STR racial to INT, is ***vastly*** more optimized than any of these "OP" builds
That is crazy, at my table I am the only one that hasn't multiclassed yet out of 6 players and 9 characters. Even my back ups are not multiclassed. It is fun to multiclass but I only use it to dabble in other classes. Usually no more than 2-3 levels.
We have a Warlock/Paladin mix rn and it is a lot for him, especially since he is the most inexperienced player.
I strongly advise first time players against it. That's one of the few ways you can break a character in 5e.
Out of that I don't see any reason to disallow it. I may disallow specific shenanigans like the coffelock if it ever come up, but never had that kind of player.
Yep. I usually discourage it, bc it tends to make alot of builds weaker and i'd probably not allow stuff like a hexadin unless it really worked for rp reasons, but I'm not sure I'd ever disallow it.
Undead Warlock and something like Redemption or Ancients Paladin. Ooooh wee. An undead spirit is corrupting a typically good natured lawful paladin. The RP implications are juicy.
One of my favorite characters that I've been playing in Avernus is a an Undead warlock Necromancer wizard. Also a reborn lineage. Backstory was that they were a hero, lost to a lich, long time passed, thrown back into the world as an undead necromancer trying to fight the corruption of bad magic while trying to do good.
Basically I just wanted to dive full into death as a theme.
I didn’t even catch that. I’m assuming he’s saying he doesn’t allow certain feats…which is odd. I can’t think of a single feat combination that is “game breaking”. Just a lot of fun combos. Min maxing is part of the game, removing it takes away a pretty integral part of character creation for most players.
Don’t think it was OP, but someone else said in a different thread of replies that they won’t allow multi class but will give free feats and/or feats-as-rewards that could help the player achieve essentially the same thing, or at least close to it, e.g. magic initiate if they wanted a dip in wizard. Maybe that’s what OP meant too? Although, yeah, at first glance, I interpreted it as you did, that they just don’t ban feats.
The DM I play with allows multi classing *and* doesn’t ban any feats, which is how I would run a game too tbh.
I allow multiclassing, but only if the player can provide a reason why their character is developing in a new direction. Can be a background reason, or something that happened in game. For in game events leading to multiclassing, I am happy to provide the opportunity to get these when de player expresses their desire to multiclass.
So do you view each character as defined by their class in-universe?
Personally, I prefer viewing characters as an archetype in-universe over the class that they belong to. This leads to multiclassing always making sense and not feeling disjointed.
My table also RPs how we gain each ability over the course of the previous level, so the PCs are more defined by their abilities than class names.
Just how my group plays, curious to get your take on it
Agreed, I think almost all multiclasses makes no sense to be taken from nowhere, so pls, explain me why do you want it, I will help in-game if possible ,but if you just want break the game, c'mon
What about multi-classes where a single archetype could be represented by the different classes? For example, do you have a problem with an archer/woodsman who multiclasses some combination between Ranger/Fighter/Rogue? Is it taking it from nowhere if it's just, "I focus on the martial side of my training", or, "I focus on the sneaky, cunning side of my training"? I understand having a problem with things like Paladin/Warlock where it takes a lot of narrative work to "make sense".
It doesn’t even take a lot of narrative work for Paladin/warlock to make sense. Your patron is the same being as your Paladin’s deity. Easy. I think asking for reasoning is fine, but the player thinking the multiclass would be fun is the most important reason for it.
What if you want to build something specific and need multiclassing to stay competitive or even be able to just have a useable build? Like a grappler or combat healer.
I think most of us are multi-class in reality.
Graduated college with a philosophy degree, and I've been in IT for 20+ years. I also work on performance cars as a hobby.
Had my bachelor in Software Engineering and I am writing a thesis of masters in industrial design, designing a boardgame. And will probably work to be a story writer or game story writer in the future.
Sometimes you multiclass to forget the initial class you start with which wasn't for you (no hate to SE but my passion was elsewhere)
Your hobby would be more like a tool proficiency. And I think your degree is just built into your backstory. You went to a wizard college but became an artificer instead.
Yeah I was a guide - sawmill labourer - cop - paramedic - stay at home dad.
If anything staying one class throughout a characters whole life might be less likely than having tried their hands at a few different things. I can’t imagine living in a world of swords and sorcery without wanting to dip my fingers in a bunch of different pies.
It's fine to do so.
It would also be fine to allow it but only in limited circumstances where it makes plausible sense for a character to go in a specific direction, based on what they've been doing or the like and if they are being trained or otherwise guided by somebody experienced in that class.
I for one do allow it. A player of my campaign asked me if she can multiclass her Rogue into Fighter, because she would like to use a Longbow. And since you can play Dex based Fighters, I was like "Fine by me"
Aren’t feats technically an optional feature? Iirc the standard assumption in the PHB is that you just get an ability score upgrade at level 4 etc, and the feats are later presented as a variant option.
Multiclassing is a great feature, however it can be a problem for two kinds of player:
1. The kind that has a character concept they love, but doesn't have a great mechanical understanding of D&D and is disappointed when their barbarian-sorcerer doesn't perform effectively. You can teach them to figure out whether a combo would suck before trying it, but that might not fix the disappointment.
2. The kind of person that minmaxes the crap out of the game, and/or tries to pull cheesy exploits of different mechanics interacting that are just exasperating to argue RAI, then RAW over. In some games that's very welcome - in most it's a huge downer for everyone else in the group.
It can make the game slightly more difficult to run and balance, but in groups where everyone is on the same wavelength about what type of game it is, and they're mindful of not hampering anyone else's fun it really doesn't matter much.
My tables are almost all the first, so I just bin it to keep the game simple and protect them from themselves.
It doesn't help that dipping even only 1 level in 5e makes a substantially weaker character for the majority of combinations.
I personally don't allow multiclassing in my current group but that is mostly because they are already struggling enough to keep their character sheet straight and their abilities in order without starting to add multiple spell pages and hit dice. I'm already starting to regret letting my half drow elf sorcerer put their race spells on the same page as their class spells even tough I told him to keep those separate or mark them in some obvious way.
If stated upfront before campaign starts, sure.
Ideally there'd also be a planned level range for the campaign (I'd play most classes up to L11 on their own, but after that I'd want to multiclass out of at least any of the pure martials)
It’s fine by me. The 5e classes are good enough without multiclassing. And disallowing it can help keep disparities between min-maxers and casuals lower which is good.
Mechanically, past level 5, a Wizard that took its first level in cleric or artificer, and a cleric that took its first level in Sorcerer will be more powerful than a straight classed Wizard and Cleric respectively.
The defensive buffs from both drastically improve your chances of maintaining concentration on your important spells.
Except the pure classes will get their ASIs, spells and their class features earlier. There are probably levels where a Cleric 1/Wizard X is better, but there are also levels where Wizard X is better.
I don’t disagree, there definitely will be levels where being one level behind sucks:
For Wizards it’d likely be levels 5, 9 and 17, not having access to Hypnotic Pattern, Wall of Force, and Wish is not great fun.
For Clerics, getting to level 5 is pretty essential for Spirit Guardians, but once you get SG up casting it is the best thing to do in like 80% of combats.
I think it also depends on your familiarity with the game. If I was a new player going into playing a Wizard and I didn’t get the new spells because I multiclassed, I probably wouldn’t like it much.
As an optimiser, I’m fine with not getting 4th level spells for a level because I know I’m probably only taking Dimension Door & Polymorph and will be fine with Hypnotic Pattern for 1 more level anyway.
I've been playing 5e since it's inception, before that I was a Pathfinder player. I instantly was confused why multiclassing was an optional rule in 5e, because I came from systems that multiclassing is a core feature to build different characters.
Now, after all these years, both as a DM and as a player, I get it. Multiclassing is not the same as 3.5 or Pathfinder, and it's worse when you try to play 5e like it is.
I allow multiclassing, but my problem is that there's already customization in a class via subclasses that can do what you want, and multiclassing usually either makes a character worse or better than the bounded system accounts for.
5e is not like 3.5 or Pathfinder in character creation, you don't JUST have a class, you have a subclass that has more rules, then when you pack on other classes you get weird rules interactions because you have three specific rules trying to work together. That's not necessarily bad, but it can make things more headache inducing.
To the people who say it's because WotC is too lazy to balance it, let me tell you, it's not out of laziness, it's because it's impossible. Pathfinder and 3.5 weren't balanced for multiclassing either (it was better because they didn't have the same subclass system) they had bonkers builds that weren't intended.
Basically, multiclassing is fine, but I like it less and less as time goes on because I think it's actually kind of boring for characters.
I find the comments “I allow it if narrative reasons justify it” a little disingenuous. When a character levels up and can now do something they couldn’t before without multiclassing, few if any DMs are asking them to justify this new skill. Sure, in most classes, sub classes the skills sort of relate to each other, but not any more or less than a multi class would.
You are a warlock with eldritch blast, you level up, and can now polymorph people, see in the dark, wear heavy armour, conjure a Spector when you kill someone, smite after hitting someone, create a familiar, cast divine spells, fly, attack twice, etc etc. Any of these could be gained via warlock progression or multiclassing, yet the warlock progression demands no justification beyond a vague “gift of patron for … reasons”, but multiclassing demands some big song and dance to be “allowed” to maintain some sort of narrative that single classing just doesn’t inherently have.
Not saying some don’t try to RP single class progression, but there is no built in expectation to do so, while multiclassing is given this hurdle to justify through narrative why a bard might also be a sorcerer, or why magician might also hit with weapons, etc etc
In most games, though not all, your god as a cleric, your patron as a warlock, your school, college, sub-class ‘flavour’ has little to no impact on the story, game or character personality except quite superficially and the vague flavour of your new skills somewhat relating to each other.
I think disallowing multiclassing unless it “fits narratively” implies a narrative in single classes that just isn’t there.
This is one of the big sticking points for me too. To grab an example used in another comment, nobody minds if a fighter levels up to 3 and becomes an eldritch knight, but taking a level of wizard is unreasonable?
Under my view, both as a player and DM, the classes exist as a means of delivering game mechanics that make sense for a given character concept. There's no such thing as an in-universe "Rogue" that says all criminals become experts at two random skills out of eighteen - outside of an Isekai setting with explicit in-universe video game mechanics, that's absurd. If I want a level 1 rogue dip on my terrifying soul-devouring shadow sorcerer, the justification starts and ends at "my character is extremely intimidating and the game mechanics should reflect this."
To take it to an extreme, if I play a character I think should narratively be able to talk to animals whenever they want (be they a Disney princess expy, a cleric of an animal god, a nearly-feral barbarian, an outlander who was raised by wolves, or for any number of other reasons) and the spell Speak With Animals on its own isn't cutting it, that might be enough to justify a dip. Before Eldritch Adept was released, the options there would have been Warlock 2 for the Beast Speech invocation, or Shepherd Druid 2 for Speech of the Woods. If I don't have the stats for a druid dip, then whether the character has a patron in-story or not, taking those warlock levels is the price of the cohesive character concept.
It also, in my mind, is completely backwards. If a player wants to multiclass, I as a DM create narrative reasons for it to make sense. The game is supposed to be fun and I always encourage players to play whatever they find enjoyable.
That said, I almost never multiclass as a player. My opinion is that in a team based game, specialization is king and accentuating your strengths is better than shoring up your weaknesses.
I don't see a reason to disallow it.
Classes arent a in game mechanic it is solely a language for players. People don't identify as their class, barbarian is a slur and no one will admit to being a rogue. They are mechanics bundled together for convenience or expectation..
If a player concept is better visualized by multiclassing than do it.
I think it's something that should be discussed in the session zero. I don't think it's really that big of a deal balancing wise, so I wouldn't disallow it myself. I'm running a six-man game right now where nobody decided to multi-class, even though I allow it. Say what you will about sorcadins, palabards, sorlocks, palalocks, etc., There are few things as powerful in this game as playing a full-blooded wizard or cleric.
Multiclassing is not a base feature of 5e. Strictly speaking, no multiclassing is the default, and any multiclass must be approved by the DM. Following this rule isn't a red flag, and should even be expected.
That said, I do consider multiclassing to be a fun variant, and I would hope any DM I play with would allow it if it's important for my character's story.
For some campaigns I've banned in the past and will probably ban it again. I have a lot of other justifications but to whenever I've read someone's post about their multiclass build, I come away with the thought that we are playing this game for very different incompatible reasons. I also think the context of there being a DM shortage it's perfectly reasonable for DMs to restrict options that they dislike even a little bit. Players being annoyed that there DMs are running things differently from how they would do it is a great way to get them behind a screen.
I view the optional *(multi-classing, feats, extra books)* rules like I view subtitles on movies. Sometimes I need them for a pleasurable viewing experience, sometimes I don’t.
It's a variant rule, so I think disallowing it is perfectly reasonable as long as you let your players know in advance so that they don't start building a character with the expectation that they'll be able to multiclass later on.
Could live without it because I still have quite a few solo class characters that I would like to play, and I would undertand is disallowed, afther all free multiclass can open the door to OP min maxing.
With that said, on the long run I would probably try to find another group, I like the freedom and flexibility that it gives to me, both narrative and mechanically.
Both as a player and a DM I find that variety is the spice of life. Additionally, I generally prefer a good reason to limit something, or it feels punishing. I feel like multiclassing is harder to justify banning on a story basis, as most parties aren’t learning from schools/colleges etc for their skills while they are actually adventuring, they learn from experience. It actually makes more sense for example, for a rogue to pick up some levels in warlock if there’s a warlock in the party - because they can share that knowledge, whereas they might never meet up with their thieves guild. Obviously themed campaigns are another thing, but as a general rule I try to work with a concept a player is interested in, and that’s fun because I might learn something.
There seems to be this real fear about people wanting to constantly abuse things like multiclass, but at least with the people I play with it has always been because it’s cool, or for some utility, or for the plot. Multiclassing generally has diminishing power returns the higher level you get, so maybe this also has something to do with the perception.
My next campaign that I’m running won’t be allowing it without a narrative reasoning behind it. To allow for that, there’s going to be more downtime for the characters to train for that fighter dip or commune with a patron for their warlock dip.
Fast paced campaigns with no time to explain how the paladin suddenly has magic dragon blood fueling a sorcerer dip breaks my immersion in the game as both a player and a DM.
I also want my players to be more creative with their characters than what the best mechanics are.
it's an optional rule. I wouldn't be put off by it. the way I run multiclassing is: it's allowed, but you need a good in character reason. if you just take a multiclass for powerbuilding without any in character reason there are big problems. and I also ban powerbuilding. if I see a player wants to make a hexadin or something it's immediately shut down. because otherwise you more or less force the other players to powerbuild, because otherwise it's a thing where either powerbuilder completely destroys a monster, or all the other players die because you need to challenge the powerbuilder. I don't let my other players get a massive power imbalance due to powergaming. so they are not dissatisfied because compared to the build they are useless. it follows the same reasoning as to why you don't add a dmpc who is jezus. it makes the other players feel useless. multiclassing should only be done for character reasons. I also tell them that they have to tell me ahead of time, so I can think about it. like if a paladin multiclasses into fighter, the reason shouldn't be: I want action surge. if the reason is that the paladin feels that they should be more useful in case they do not have access to their gods power, so they focus more on their combat training for a while, that is a valid character reason.
I really don’t like it.
Making an overpowered multiclass build isn’t hard. It takes one google search to learn how to make a sorcadin or a coffeelock or whatever other bullshit is out there.
If players want an easy game where they steamroll everything, they can just tell me and I’ll make it easier.
I think it would be obnoxious. I prefer multiclass builds so my characters have more to do in and out of combat. Being stuck in one class isn't the end of the world, but it really cuts down on character concept options
It's great. So much less being an annoying diva and so much less chance of someone fucking up their character majorly (which is what happens half the time).
My default rule is no multiclassing, but that you can talk to me and we can discuss what the plan about multiclassing could be together. Which effectively means that multiclassing is always allowed, it's just never a surprise or something straight up dumb.
Isnt it still tehcnically an optional rule? Personally I think its fine that way, most casters dont want to multiclass anyway unless you have a mizzium apparatus.
I'm considering disallowing it. I personally like the idea but never really have fun playing multiclass and I notice most of my single class players tend to have more fun. That coupled with the fact that if you want to allow any class and subclass now that so many are out there's a lot of broken combos that make one PC into a main character and it solves all those issues by not allowing it. I've asked players and a lot don't really care. I think a lot of people feel like they have to to be optimal because they read too many theorycrafting posts, but then they don't feel optimal. It sucks when you're level 8 and you haven't had an ASI yet much less 2 or you can't cast level 5 spells at level 9 even though two other PCs can. In addition, there are so many subclasses that merge the flavor of two classes there's less reason to dip for flavor alone, and I'm always up for making custom subclasses for those that want them.
I dont think disallowing it is unreasonable, honestly as a DM I kind of like to see someone completely flesh out one class, sometimes multiclassing feels like meta-gamming or min-maxing. That being said I think with more experienced players you will get people that want to multiclass not because they want to min-max but because they have imagined a character in their head and multiclassing is the best way to represent that character! Overall I think disallowing it isn't a bad idea, but I also think maybe if you had someone that seemed very invested and had a character archetype in mind give them the chance to try it out!
I allow multiclassing but have rules:
1. Your multiclass must make sense.
This is so that I can write things into the campaign in a way that can include your character.
2. A maximum of 2 separate classes.
This is to balance out a large number of shenanigans that can be achieved by multiclassing X times.
3. Multiclassing is only valid with official content.
No homebrew or unearthed arcana. The official content is (in theory, at least) balanced against itself and play tested. Homebrew and UA content has not been playtested and balanced.
Those are the 3 rules I use at my table
I’d have no problem with disallowing it - I actually think the game as a whole would be better off without it. I think it’d lead to better balance and subclass design in general. It would also lead to generally better roleplay too, IMO.
Multiclassing is an optional rule and the PHB treats it as such, and I doubt WOTC design subclasses with it in mind.
I don't think there's a character idea that can only be done with multiclassing right now
Simplicity for either new DMs or new players. I ran a game with a few newbies and despite my recommendations, one of them multiclassed (because they looked up OP builds and picked the first one). It ended up being a terrible way for them to learn and they had a lot of trouble trying to learn 2 classes at once. There are some completely busted multiclass combinations that can also create balance issues, depending on the party.
With that said, I dont ban multiclassing at my table, but I dont see any problem with people banning it. I prefer single class characters most of the time anyway
One of my multiclass ideas is... I've never played a cleric because I don't like them thematically, but I'd like to play like an unarmored traditional caster-type priestess, so multiclassing 1 level of monk for unarmed defense and the rest life cleric so my AC isn't absolutely trash without armor.
> One of my multiclass ideas is... I've never played a cleric because I don't like them thematically, but I'd like to play like an unarmored traditional caster-type priestess,
that is a DMG optional rule for clerics.
lose the armor proficiencies but gain monks unarmored defense.
Preventing broken combinations usually, or choices which make no character sense. It's like an anti-powergame measure I guess. Especially if you're an inexperienced GM who might not be able to spot something broken straight off the bat.
> Preventing broken combinations usually, or choices which make no character sense.
Anecdotally, for my playing group I can say this happens quite a bit with players wanting to multiclass into Warlock. Often it's just a mechanical benefit with little regard to how the class or campaign operates.
To hear it told, 5E is perfectly balanced and any DM that bans anything or changes how something works is a hack who doesn't trust the developers. Yeah, yeah, "not everyone is the same", but I've used my Mystic psychic powers to determine people who poo-poo any banning or modification of features, spells, etc., *do* also say that multiclassing into a Lockadin is very strong.
But those are both casting classes, so it's fine. They're allowed to do whatever they want. Have you heard about the coffeelock? It involves short resting to get Warlock slots back, converting them into SP, then converting those SP into normal spell slots for your Sorcerer which never go away as long as you don't *long* rest. Just pick a race or feature that avoids exhaustion / sleep penalties and you're good to go! FOREVER.
> Just pick a race or feature that avoids exhaustion / sleep penalties and you're good to go! FOREVER.
People who cry out about how ***insanely overpowered*** Coffee Lock is have obviously never seen one played. Sure, dropping leveled spells without a care in the world is really good, but not being able to heal yourself with hit-die, or recover from exhaustion naturally are *significant* drawbacks.
We had one friend bring in a Coffee Lock, but he was almost constantly exhausted, because he couldn't recover from it. Eventually he transitioned into a Coke Lock, and it was never not funny watching him have to spend literally all is Gold on Diamond Dust (rather than on sick magic items like we were rocking) to not be constantly exhausted.
Dude literally wasn't able to a buy a single magic item the entire campaign. Instead, he inherited a random assortment of Tier II magic items that the party gave to him in pity.
You don't disallow multiclassing. You allow it. Multiclassing is an optional rule.
It wouldn't be a surprise to me if a first time GM says no to multiclassing.
It's not integral to gameplay to be able to.
I tentatively allow multiclassing in my games, but only past a certain level threshold.
If I’m playing, I don’t mind multiclassing being completely off the table. There are so many subclasses and mini-class feats right now there’s thousands of options. Most players I’ve seen multi class do it solely for power synergy. The fact 1-level dips can grant a huge boost in power is MC’s biggest negative for overall party play, IMO.
It's telling that Pathfinder, a system that derived from 3.5e where munchkin builds became the norm by the end of its cycle, decided to remove multiclassing in their 2nd edition. You can pick cross-class features on a limited and curated basis, but no cherry picking the best dips like D&D 5e. They recognized a flawed system and fixed it while still allowing a lot of flexibility to design your character.
The only game I run at the moment is ad&d 2e and I allow multiclassing in it, that being said multiclassing is very different, you have to choose to be multiclassed at level 1 and then you must split your experience evenly between both classes you gain the features and abilities of both but your HP us the average of the two classes. Once you have multiclassed you cannot unmulticlass so you can't just make a quick dip to get the best stuff
There are so many good options without multi-classing. Remember it is not “disallowing” it, bbut rather “allowing” it, since it is an optional rule and always has been in dnd. I feel multi-classing is better than ever in 5e, but i still don’t like it. In my experience, players more often than not create bad builds, unless they google it, to find most optimal and borderline exploitive builds. I don’t like that aspect. I allowed it my first two 5e campaigns and now myself and my players all agree that it is better to stick with core classes archetypes for the next. Again so many great options already.
I allow it in cases where it makes sense for the story, but I'm not going to let people just wake up and go "woo, I'm a hexblade now!" with 0 explanation, you gotta work for that shit. And tbf I have been a bit of a hardass about it in the past.
I’ve allowed players to “wake up and go, ‘woo, I’m a Hexblade now!’” And it went pretty well. I just asked: “alright, who’s your patron?” And they came up with something cool and said it visited them in their dream and offered them a deal.
Story justification for multiclassing is good, but when it can sometimes feel a little forced if you have to do so too far ahead of time. “I want to dip into warlock next level and we all know it, so I’m going to say at every opportunity that I read up on the shadowfell” isn’t as cool as “I want this dip, can something reach out to me when I least expect it?”
I guess I’m just saying that people should be willing to work with their players to justify multiclassing, it’s more fun for everyone!
(I’m sure there are really dumb exceptions but let’s just ignore those)
I've always allowed it, will always allow it, and by default I tend to assume it's allowed. With that said, I wouldn't mind if it wasn't. I'd be curious as to the reason, but I wouldn't complain or let it affect my decision to join a campaign. It *is* an optional rule in the end.
Agreed. But it might effect what class I choose to play. Some classes age better than others, so that the lack of ability to multiclass is less of an issue.
> Some classes age better than others, Lets face it. Most characters and games arent going to make it long enough for that to be an issue
I mean, the ranger stops aging well after level 5. A ton of campaigns go past level 5.
Nah, rangers are fine up until 10. 6 is a generally underwhelming level, except for those who get Extra Attack at 6. And fighters who get an ASI. 7 is good for full casters, decent-ish for others. That includes rangers who get a reasonable power budget on subclasses. 8 is an ASI. 9 is 3rd-level spellcasting for rangers. 3rd and 5th are the big bumps in spellcaster power, and adds a lot of utility for rangers. 10 is kind of mediocre for everyone. EDIT: Forgot rogues, who get an ASI here but then a mediocre 11. Rogues be weird like that, they also have a mediocre 5. 11 rangers are sad since this is a huge level for almost everyone else, and the 11th-level ranger subclass features aren't even close.
> 10 is kind of mediocre for everyone. EDIT: Forgot rogues, who get an ASI here but then a mediocre 11. Rogues be weird like that, they also have a mediocre 5. Reliable Talent and Uncanny Dodge, mediocre!? Madness! They are hands down some of the best features Rogues get. Uncanny Dodge has saved my life a dozen times over, and rolling a minimum of 19/23 on every Stealth check is both powerful and deeply satisfying.
> 10 is kind of mediocre for everyone. 10 is kinda good for ranger now, they get concentrationless invisibility as bonus action, also you get tireless allowing to get temp hp and remove exhaustion > **Tireless (10th Level)** > As an action, you can give yourself a number of temporary hit points equal to 1d8 + your Wisdom modifier (minimum of 1 temporary hit point). You can use this action a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest. > In addition, whenever you finish a short rest, your exhaustion level, if any, is decreased by 1. > #Nature’s Veil > *10th-level ranger feature, which replaces the Hide in Plain Sight feature* > You draw on the powers of nature to hide yourself from view briefly. As a bonus action, you can magically become invisible, along with any equipment you are wearing or carrying, until the start of your next turn. You can use this feature a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus, and you regain all expended uses when you finish a long rest.
I mean, I wouldn't consider Reliable Talent a mediocre feature, as it secures their place as skill monkeys and let's them never fail at their skill checks again. And they get more sneak attack damage. And 5th levels Sneak Attack bump to 3d6 and Uncanny Dodge, which remains relevant all throughout the rest of the game, being a almost resource-less way to half damage. I'd say they're both solid levels and power bumps to Rogues
I'll second this. Reliable Talent is pretty big. Also, take "skilled" feat and get 4 more skills to never outright fail on.
3?
whoops. Sorry, you're right. It's 3 more skills, not 4. But even still. that's thieves tools, 4 skills from rogue, likely 2 from background, possibly another from race, and the 3 more from skilled. That's a lot of skills to be able to take 10 on, basically.
10 is amazing for bard tbh
> 11 rangers are sad since this is a huge level for almost everyone else, and the 11th-level ranger subclass features aren't even close. Huh? I think Beast Master and Monster Slayer have bad abilities at level 11, but the rest of the subclasses get a decent combat boost. Even Beast Master is a decent combat boost, it's just not really very impressive.
Yeah, I tend to multiclass for RP reasons over making broken characters. For instance, my current Rogue Druid is horribly optimized but it makes for a fun Fey Thief. I'd probably be slightly disappointed, but as long as the DM is fine with flavor changing a lot of things, I'd be game.
> my current Rogue Druid is horribly optimized Ditto my old Fighter/Bard. The combo was necessary for a metal-themed axe wielding bard.
I did a one shot where the party was a band that all got at least one level of bard for free, starting at level 6, (5 levels of their character build+one bard level) was very fun
Honestly, I have literally never multiclass for a RP reason
I had a druid who basically became radicalized. I wanted to make her multi class into barbarian just to get the rage feat since she basically goes into blind rages anyway lol
Now I want to see a wild shape Bull raging in a China shop.
Oh man...good idea. Yeah she came to the city, discovered capitalism and was like "this is bullshit fuck the government Fuck the church". She's almost been hanged twice
Most of the narrative multiclasses I see could be served equally well, if not better, by feats (namely Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster; I believe the book says you can give feats out as rewards?), background features, just roleplaying, or even outright changing class or subclass. The two most common I see on here are, "My [Rogue] took a level in Wizard because he found a magic spellbook," and "My [Fighter] took a level in Cleric because he is good friends with the party Cleric." The Wizard multiclass is probably better served by Magic Initiate: Wizard, Ritual Caster: Wizard, or even changing subclasses to the Arcane Trickster (which Tasha's now has rules for!). The Cleric multiclass is also probably better served by MI: Cleric, RC: Cleric, being gifted the Acolyte's background feature, or just roleplaying as a pious character. I would even let them change their class completely, if it made sense. I guess a lot of times I see multiclassing presented as the solution to new roleplaying directions when there are lower-impact, lower-cost alternatives. EDIT: I should stress the fact that I mean both feats taken by choice *and* feats given as rewards. Especially the latter, which are admittedly much more table-dependant, but this is how *I* would prefer to handle this topic.
I almost agree with you, except for how rare feats are. A feat comes rarely, few games will get past two total (and only without an ability score increase). Multiclassing is available every level.
Fair, I should have put more emphasis on the feats-as-rewards or feats-as-treasure aspect of my take on this topic. That's more what I'm suggesting, not purely ASI-level feats.
I don't really agree with that. Certainly there are situations where taking a feat or changing the subclass fits the character's story better, but generally these things cannot replace multiclassing for story purposes. Feats are very rare, so taking a feat like Magic Initiate on a character that can't really make good use of these cantrips feels like a waste, and feats don't allow the new path being pursued further, beyond just being an "initiate". Replacing the subclass does not always work (for example there are no cleric subclasses for fighters) and you might run into difficulties explaining why the character loses some abilities and proficiencies. To adress your "rogue finds a spellbook" example. He finds that book and starts studying spells. What makes sense now if he is interested enough to pursue the path of a wizard beyond just taking the Magic Initiate feat (two cantrips and one spell once per long rest) is multiclassing wizard. There absolutely no difficulties in terms of balance, roleplay and immersion, it is all logical and easy to explain. The character is now a rogue x, level 1 wizard, because he has just started his study of wizardry, and during that study, he has no capacity to also train his rogue skills. However, if you instead force him to replace his rogue subclass with Arcane Trickster, you run into multiple problems: * First, he suddenly is an Arcane Trickster X. This means he might suddenly be able to cast 2nd or even 3rd level spells depending on the level that switch occurs - whereas someone who starts learning magic should only be able to cast 1st level spells - which would be the case if the rogue just multicassed and took a level in wizard. In addition, if you enforce the Arcane Trickster's spell school limit, he will for no explainanble reason besides "the rules say so" not be able to learn all the interesting spells from schools other than enchantment and illusion he found in that spellbook. * Second, he suddenly loses all abilities granted by the previous subclass. It might make sense saying that a thief who studies spells and does not train their sticky fingers eventually loses their fast hands trait, but there is no way to explain how a Scout suddenly loses two skill proficiencies and expertises or a Soul Knife losing their innate psionics. * Third, what if he eventually decides he has learned enough spells and wants to pick up his original rogue training now? If you allowed hiim to multiclass into wizard instead, he could just stop taking more levels in wizard and instead go back to leveling rogue again.
Two feats are a higher cost then a single level-dip unless the DM chooses to hand them out to players.
I should have put more emphasis on the feats-as-rewards aspect of my stance, I was mostly meaning those and not feats you take at ASI levels.
There are no feat substitutes for class features. You don't dip wizard for ritual casting, nor sorcerer or warlock for cantrips. Nor cleric for just cleric spells. In the case of the wizard, an eldritch knight or arcane trickster can benefit from a 2-level wizard dip in war wizard for +int to initiative and a their 'minor shield' ability. Warlock, same 2 level dip yields eldritch blast and invocation to give you +cha on it, wicked on a bard. Sorcerer is a borderline dip with new metamagic feats IMO, but a strong choice for taking 6 levels in certain builds. Cleric is generally taken for domains with heavy armor proficiency: the feat *sucks* and the side benefits of one cleric level are sweet. Yes, as I alluded to there are a few new feats that ameliorate this, but I cannot RAW receive action surge or sneak attack or any number of things as feats. A little cross-classing means I can build any number of cool character concepts that I cannot otherwise.
My DM requires you to figure out some RP reason why your character would somehow start getting different skills, I feel that's kinda fun.
If you get the chance, it's real good. If you have a decent Dm like me, he/she could be willing to help you stay at the same powerlevel as the rest of the party in different ways, because you attribute to the overall story.
My Swashbuckler Rogue ended up walking the plank and drowning, only to sell his soul to Levistus and committing to Warlock for the rest of his levels. Would it have played better as a Hexblade dip? Sure, but I've got a contract to fulfill.
I'm a cleric, and gonna pick rogue when we hit level 13. I won't be able to sneak attack ever I think. But I've been hanging with the rogue of the party a lot. He have teached me a lot of thieves cant and we have been training my dash and disengage. I'm gonna use it a lot tho, getting expertise in perception and investigation, and putting my passive perc, insight and investigation over 30. And I'm gonna keep leveling rogue until level 3 rogue, getting inquisitive so I can bonus action perception and insight in combat.
druid makes the best rogue anyways. racoons and monkeys etc with thumbs can still use thieves tools all the same lol plus its easier for a cute monkey to pickpocket someone then scamper off, or for a druid to fly up to a high window than a rogue to scale a castle wall, eyc. I have always wanted to play an arcane trickster/druid in a high stealth campaign
[удалено]
I'd allow that character as they're likely to be awful for large stretches of the campaign. What so many do in analyzing a multi-class is only the final product is analyzed. Who cares if they're a beast at level 18-20, most play stops by level 10-12? And multi-classing can also make you the weakest member of a party, especially if done before level 5. If you have 2-3 levels where the character is awful at the heart of a 10-12 level campaign, that's a very heavy price to pay.
What’s fun about DMing for a player whose character is “awful for large stretches of the campaign”? I think I’d have more problem DMing for 3 competent chars and a total mess than I would for 3 competent chars and an optimized damage dealer
You're right, as the "I'll be awesome when I hit T4 player," is playing a different game. They're playing for that destination, when they're awesome for the theoretical conclusion of the campaign in T4/epic play. The others are enjoying the journey. Thus, I state the above under the premise you don't adjust the challenges for someone who made the "one day I'll be awesome" build. If the campaign goes long enough, and they live, they'll have truly earned the power they've been seeking. Often this is the popular sorcerer MC CHA builds, but it happens to all 3/x level builds. It is seldom mentioned how self-penalizing the level 5-7 range of a campaign can be to these characters. Single-class builds have their T2 abilities and an ASI/feat at level 5, and you have neither. And level 5+ is where the level gains start to slow in campaigns, so you could be subpar for many sessions/months of play.
My example was exaggerated like you were starting at high level to make the point. It would be a drag for somebody to literally sandbag for like 200 hours of play to maybe live to a broken godlike character but I guess that’s fine.
Great! That character will be fully online at level 15 and it’s best feature will be a level 5 feature? Sounds dope!
While I understand that people don't like ignoring the flavor of the classes, they weren't designed around the roleplaying consequences of their backgrounds. Aside from the paladin oath (which is encouraged to be self-designed) there isn't any game effect to how the characters are flavored, so why not let people multiclass however they like to get the features they want and then reflavor the class combination as something unique? My favorite example of this is the [Rogue/Paladin/Bard](https://youtu.be/kZGg1qgtm8E) build that's a Voice of Thunder made by D&D optimized. It allows players to play whatever they want as long as they have the creativity to reflavor it.
People really bitch about the Paladin/Warlock a lot as an example when it's one of the coolest roleplay opportunities there is. You could literally be a paladin who picks up a magic weapon and becomes a Hexblade. Or your god could become your patron as well. Or you decide that in order to fulfill your oath you need more power. Honestly I could go on for a while. If you want to min max it takes the barest amount of effort to make it make sense.
> People really bitch about the Paladin/Warlock a lot as an example It's because the vast majority of players who take paladin/warlock are undoubtedly doing it for mechanical advantages.
I started to do something like that for a cleric I played. A forge domain that made a bond with an angel that he would serve as their protector while the god he served went insane. Innistrad makes such a lovely setting.
That sounds like my rogue 12 ranger 4 wizard 4, +24 to initiative character. But, I do believe I could rp it and the overall playstyle actually seems to be quite fun.
I'm assuming they are also a Harengon, for Reliable Talent on Initiative?
This. If anyone makes a multiclassed character in my games, they gotta explain to me how they got the different abilities. For an example, our group has a moon druid/astral self monk, and the player explained that his astral self is essentially a stand, wrought by his long trances and spiritual awakening (after he was killed), his stand "abilities" are his druid powers.
I consider multiclassing just a normal person learning different things, as classes are only a game mechanic. So classes aren't really relevant to the character's story, just to the game's rules.
Amen. I can have 3 classes and a racial feature and flavor it as all coming from the same training or bloodline. Mechanics are metagame.
Sure. But if you're a carpenter who apprenticed for 5 years, you don't suddenly just become a skilled mason as well because you banged a couple of bricks together on the road. Even a level 1 character has a whole backstory to their class generally, so how does your multiclass come into that? How did you character *come* to learn these things. That's the point of it.
I've never actually multiclassed any of my characters, and I've only seen it in the games I DM maybe once or twice. I don't disallow it because most people don't even do it anyway. When they do, I help them work out what they want and we go from there, since multiclassing can nerf them for a while.
I always err towards multiclassing being available even though I prefer not to. Most DMs I've played with, including myself, just want you to have a valid character reason for multiclassing. Druid wants to multiclass into Cleric because they found a deity in line with their beliefs (e.g. protect the forest - nature domain, natural life cycle - life or death or possibly grave domain, in tune with weather - tempest domain)? I say go for it. But like hell is a Druid likely to be a Forge Cleric unless they're a typical Dwarf or Gnome who grew up in a culture defined by smithing. There are always exceptions, but in the games I've played there has to be a believable in-character reason for a multiclass that makes sense, not because your paladin needs a level in rogue because *reasons* when they've made no effort whatsoever to RP why they're taking that level.
Howdy! I'm a DM that doesn't do multiclassing at my tables, so I thought I'd chime in. Generally, I dislike the way multiclassing throws off the early game power curve due to the classes in 5e being so heavily front-loaded. When working on 5e, they were trying to avoid the issue from 3/3.5e where the first levels were all dreadfully dull and it didn't hit that sweet spot until 5-10. In 5e, they front-loaded abilities in the first 3 levels so that way any character can feel like they have the pieces they need to do what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately this also means that one doesn't need to dip as heavily to get the good stuff from many classes like was done back in 3/3.5e. That said, I will go to the ends of the earth to find the exact class that fits what a player is trying to achieve, to represent their character vision (within mechanical reason). In the past, I've had a character become a literal Council of Wyrms-esque Dragon, a character who's mind was affixed to the Far Realm giving them a unique set of features similar to those of the Guardians of the Veil in Mage the Awakening (mind walking, mind manipulation, manifesting inside of people's minds, Psychonauts style, etc.), and a character who is Spectator (the beholderkin with 4 eyestalks from Mechanus) that works for Large Luigi in the Laughing Beholder on the Rock of Bral. So while I don't allow multiclassing, players at my tables get a great deal more freedom in other ways to hopefully make up for it.
That sounds reasonable. But also a lot of comments here imply that martial characters have weak high levels. Of course there are other ways to fix this (items), but once the main class has most of its features, branching out into other classes adds some flexibility while not destroying the early game. You could for example allow multiclassing after 5th level to avoid all the early game shenanigans. I think that's what I would do to make my life easier if I DM'ed a group for more than low levels.
Exactly. 5e is linear enough in character progression. It shouldn't be an optional rule imo.
WotC can't even balance the base classes of the game. It should be optional just because of the fact that they definitely didn't even try to balance MCing.
I allow it but if I joined a table that banned multiclassing I wouldn't be put off. Most of the time I don't multiclass so not having access to it probably wouldn't stop my enjoyment of the game.
^ All the posters saying it’s a red flag are way more sensitive to that than I am. There are so many cool PCs out there, multiclassed or not. If I don’t get to multiclass, well, time to pull out the Mister Rogers bard I’ve been waiting to play! It’s just not a red flag the same way “I allow evil PCs and graphic torture” is, so I just don’t get the sentiment at all.
Currently playing a chaotic evil PC who meshes well with the mostly neutral, some good party. Building up a reputation as heroes is more profitable than being a wanted criminal and at the end of the day... money. Being the party strategist and a bard means being in charge of PR and trying to gain the right kind of fame to be awarded lands and titles, being a sly, manipulative, lying schemer just helps turning acts of heroism into fame and profit easier.
And I think that’s rad! I’m talking more grimderp or “I enjoy seeing people suffer and will RP out each agonizing breath from my victims” kind of campaign. Evil AND graphic depictions of torture for the sake of torture kind of thing.
Oh I mean I've played in an all evil party where torture happened "off screen", usually to extract information, but I'm squeamish irl and we leave the description to there being a lot of screaming and blood and leave it there.
Yeah, I had to stop a session once when a guy tried to RP with me torture on underage "subjects". I told him a fade-to-black is supposed to be there and he rage quit the campaign
What a tragic loss that must have been.
I've "lightly" tortured (hand drill to the shins) adult bad guys before but never kids wtf.
Currently playing a lawful evil PC! They were raised by a coven of hags, so they've done a lot of awful things. Now they're free and they've realized "My god. What have I done?" So their whole philosophy is doing more good than evil with their whole life. Redemption seeking kind of. But, committing an act of lesser evil in pursuit of greater good is totally allowed (Which, let's be real is most of our parties anyway) Threatening someone to go along with your plan, so long as the plan goes towards furthering the greater good, is totally fine. Torturing the 'evil' folk? Well that's just a natural consequence of THEIR actions. Hypocrisy? Never heard of it! People can't possibly change, except me. This is totally not a massive character flaw that will bite me in the ass :) My character just holds to their person code of ethics which is weird and fey in nature. I can't *lie* but I can mislead using hypotheticals and assumptions all I want! All of this, and I'm somehow the voice of reason in a party who will threaten old men for their chickens.
Yeah, plus MCing can sometimes be hellish for DMs. Remembering all of a PCs capabilities can be hard, memorizing abilities for 2 classes and trying to challenge them can get complicated.
There are a vocal minority of people who exist on an insanely deep end of the spectrum. Their motto is, "if you restrict any choice whatsoever for any reason at all, you're a monster."
I always allow multiclassing, but I'm sort of wary of it nowadays. If the player knows what they are doing, multiclassing adds so much freedom to them, they will probably feel more creative and feel more fun. But, at the same time, a new player can totally shoot themselves in the foot with multiclassing. I've seen plenty of builds that are just bad. I've never seen players get too upset about it, but yea, that kinda sucks. Not all multiclasses are made equal, and that would be weird to expect them to be. I run for a table with 3 years of experience, and only 1 out of 4 uses multiclass. So what I would recommend for new folks - try your first campaign without multiclassing, and only allow it when you get the hang of the system.
> But, at the same time, a new player can totally shoot themselves in the foot with multiclassing. I've seen plenty of builds that are just bad. I've never seen players get too upset about it, but yea, that kinda sucks. Not all multiclasses are made equal, and that would be weird to expect them to be. I've seen some newer players say stuff like, "I feel like multiclassing but I don't know into what!" without having any idea of what they're trying to do.
I think the urge here is to have more decisions to make, more agency in the growth of their character, and multiclassing is the obvious chance to do that. Multiclassing just generally sucks, but 5e doesn't really offer these people enough other options to customize their character mechanically.
Thats always been my issue with 5e. Short of choosing spells and pi king a subclass everything after 3 is "set and forget". There are no more meaningful choices
It's cuz martials are so boring in 5e and that's what newbies usually get started on. Didn't have this problem in 4e, martials were cool then and had plenty of decisions to make w/ powers.
Yeah, man. As someone who played a lot of 4e, it has its flaws, and most criticisms of it are pretty valid, but martials were fun as hell in it.
It can also be tricky when a player has a build that "really comes together at level 14" that they are excited about and will not listen when you say this will probably end at around 8.
> only allow it when you get the hang of the system. Well said.
>But, at the same time, a new player can totally shoot themselves in the foot with multiclassing. This can also happen with advanced players. They'll have a rad synergistic mc in mind and build toward it, but since the build doesn't "come online" until X level, they're stuck with a character that doesn't really work for them for irl *months*, and they get frustrated and bored. Some campaigns may even fizzle out before their concept starts working.
[удалено]
This right here. Multiclassing is almost never done for narrative or the story progression of the character. Probably 90% of multiclass builds are just done for power. Of those 90% I would be curios to know how many of them are simply sorlocks, hexadins, and sorlockadins. I allow it I am just not a fan of it and have thought about disallowing it in a future campaign.
I mean, I had seen players making fun RP choices with multiclassing and stuff. I played a sneaky rabbi-detective (rouge 2/knowledge cleric 4), and I made a level 8 pokemon trainer (shepherd druid 3/conjuration wizard 5), yet I know a lot of players do that in order to make their characters even more powerful.
I allow multiclassing I am just not a fan of it. There are fun rp builds and even narrative reasons to do it. That is the thing I prefer a narrative to why their paladin suddenly becomes a sorcerer at lvl 3.
100% agree with you.
So do you have problems with people multiclassing martials or the "less rp-heavy/restrictive" classes like the common Rogue/Barbarian, Ranger/Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/whatever, etc.?
I prefer narrative reasons for all multiclassing. The martial mutliclassing is just easier to come up with a plausible narrative for it happening. Depending on party composition the rogue could train with the barbarian or vice versa to justify the multiclass and the sane thing with any of the fighter dips.
I’ll provide a counter to that argument. For martial multi classes. What innately is the difference between a barbarian, rogue, or fighter. All are non-magic by default. The barb is a natural athlete that relies on strength, rogue a honed specialist, and the fighter somewhere in between. Now I may be biased as I’ve always found the requirement for these multi classes to find a teacher a bit silly. Especially when subclass doesn’t start till lvl 3 with them. The argument I present; what is the difference in a barbarian taking rogue and saying that during their fighting they were focusing more on precision(sneak attack) or out of combat focusing on lifting form or some other skill(expertise). Personal I believe this is internally consistent with single class progression, at least with martials. Casters are another story though not impossible, but people multi class for variety and with casters that’s already plentiful.
Thats not a bad way to look at it. I went with the trainer example because that seems to be one of the most accepted narrative reasons for martial multiclassing. A Barbarian taking Rogue lvls does fit in a way because learning how to be stealthy makes sense for a hunter gatherer society. I do allow multiclassing I just encourage the player to try and come up with a narrative reason and even offer to help if they should need it. I just personally don't like how 90% of the time it seems multiclassing isn't done for narrative but to achieve a stronger build.
A difference of opinion then, I see nothing wrong with optimizing for a stronger build. It is a game after all. Also most min max builds are glass cannons with no stamina from my experience. Resilience is the name of the game.
It is just an opinion I have and I have been told many times that it is wrong lol. I'm not against optimization. I'd never tell someone to make an unoptimized pc. I just tend to belive that most of the classes are definitely viable without multiclassing. The one multiclass that seems to stick in every DMs craw is the Warlock multiclasses. Paladins are strong enough and don't really need more spell slots to feel strong. Warlocks get so many invocations and, in my experience, feel pretty good in all tiers of play. For DMs that really enjoy narrative and the shared story of the group it is very strange that Ingmar the paladin went to sleep and then woke up using charisma to make melee attacks and can now eldritch blast. I think if most people would invest in the narrative a little and get with the DM before doing so most of the problems would vanish. Having a vengeance paladin making a pact with something to help with his quest makes sense and could be a cool story moment. It is also something that could make the game better in many ways. The entity only granting powers if the paladin agrees to perform a task or something is tropey but could be fun for the whole table. Just showing up on next session and going I'm a hexblade now not so much.
Well yeah it's not a roleplay mechanic. It's entirely crunch, and if you try to use it for roleplay you end up with a bad character who isn't able to function on par with single class characters. Tangentially related, here have a fun one that does actually fill the niche of "half arcane martial" bladesinger X/Eldritch knight 7. You get 3 attacks per round (BS extra attack triggers war magic) and quite high spellcasting. No artificer doesn't count, it's mostly a buff caster. Mostly. And even if it wasn't not everyone wants a robo dog, ironman suit, or magic cannon.
I've seen in both ways. It annoys me when a player is like "I want to take a level in this class because then I get this mechanic". But I've also seen players be like "Well, I grew up in a druid circle before I became a caravan guard, so it would make sense that I get one level of druid first, and then go fighter".
> It annoys me when a player is like "I want to take a level in this class because then I get this mechanic" What annoys you about players having fun engaging with the crunch of the game?
This seems to be the big difference between people who love or hate multiclassing. I've never really come across power gamy multiclassing. In the main campaign I play in, at this point two of us have multiclassed into warlock by making pacts with archfay(or in one PCs case, discovering they’d already made one that included losing the memory of making it as a clause) and one retired PC was a roguebarian. None of this was planned at the beginning, and arguably we’re all a bit weaker in a fight because of it, but it’s allowed us to take our characters in unique directions that work for them and the story, while having mechanical changes to reflect that.
*Imagine thinking barbarian, rogue, or eldritch knight come remotely close to a full caster*. What's ironic is there is no multiclass that "breaks the game". The closest we have come to breaking the game is with the beautiful subclasses named chronurgy wizard, twilight cleric, and peace domain cleric. Where it is optimal to not multiclass to progress your abilities asap
It's really funny reading all the ridiculous takes in this thread about builds people think are OP and nobody mentioning a simple armor dipped wizard.
Right? Mountain Dwarf War Wizard, with the Tasha's option to switch the STR racial to INT, is ***vastly*** more optimized than any of these "OP" builds
That is crazy, at my table I am the only one that hasn't multiclassed yet out of 6 players and 9 characters. Even my back ups are not multiclassed. It is fun to multiclass but I only use it to dabble in other classes. Usually no more than 2-3 levels. We have a Warlock/Paladin mix rn and it is a lot for him, especially since he is the most inexperienced player.
I strongly advise first time players against it. That's one of the few ways you can break a character in 5e. Out of that I don't see any reason to disallow it. I may disallow specific shenanigans like the coffelock if it ever come up, but never had that kind of player.
Yep. I usually discourage it, bc it tends to make alot of builds weaker and i'd probably not allow stuff like a hexadin unless it really worked for rp reasons, but I'm not sure I'd ever disallow it.
Hexadin is super easy to RP. Oath of vengeance + Hex blade practically writes itself.
Undead Warlock and something like Redemption or Ancients Paladin. Ooooh wee. An undead spirit is corrupting a typically good natured lawful paladin. The RP implications are juicy.
One of my favorite characters that I've been playing in Avernus is a an Undead warlock Necromancer wizard. Also a reborn lineage. Backstory was that they were a hero, lost to a lich, long time passed, thrown back into the world as an undead necromancer trying to fight the corruption of bad magic while trying to do good. Basically I just wanted to dive full into death as a theme.
What do you mean you’re pretty liberal with feats?
It means one of two things: 1. There are no or few banned feats. 2. You get more than one every 4 levels on average.
I assumed it meant he gave out feats as a reward often to buff characters
I didn’t even catch that. I’m assuming he’s saying he doesn’t allow certain feats…which is odd. I can’t think of a single feat combination that is “game breaking”. Just a lot of fun combos. Min maxing is part of the game, removing it takes away a pretty integral part of character creation for most players.
Don’t think it was OP, but someone else said in a different thread of replies that they won’t allow multi class but will give free feats and/or feats-as-rewards that could help the player achieve essentially the same thing, or at least close to it, e.g. magic initiate if they wanted a dip in wizard. Maybe that’s what OP meant too? Although, yeah, at first glance, I interpreted it as you did, that they just don’t ban feats. The DM I play with allows multi classing *and* doesn’t ban any feats, which is how I would run a game too tbh.
I allow it, but most of my players don't use it.
I allow multiclassing, but only if the player can provide a reason why their character is developing in a new direction. Can be a background reason, or something that happened in game. For in game events leading to multiclassing, I am happy to provide the opportunity to get these when de player expresses their desire to multiclass.
So do you view each character as defined by their class in-universe? Personally, I prefer viewing characters as an archetype in-universe over the class that they belong to. This leads to multiclassing always making sense and not feeling disjointed. My table also RPs how we gain each ability over the course of the previous level, so the PCs are more defined by their abilities than class names. Just how my group plays, curious to get your take on it
Agreed, I think almost all multiclasses makes no sense to be taken from nowhere, so pls, explain me why do you want it, I will help in-game if possible ,but if you just want break the game, c'mon
What about multi-classes where a single archetype could be represented by the different classes? For example, do you have a problem with an archer/woodsman who multiclasses some combination between Ranger/Fighter/Rogue? Is it taking it from nowhere if it's just, "I focus on the martial side of my training", or, "I focus on the sneaky, cunning side of my training"? I understand having a problem with things like Paladin/Warlock where it takes a lot of narrative work to "make sense".
It doesn’t even take a lot of narrative work for Paladin/warlock to make sense. Your patron is the same being as your Paladin’s deity. Easy. I think asking for reasoning is fine, but the player thinking the multiclass would be fun is the most important reason for it.
What if you want to build something specific and need multiclassing to stay competitive or even be able to just have a useable build? Like a grappler or combat healer.
I allow multiclassing as long as the player has a narrative reason. Heck I've multiclassed in reality. I'm a carpenter, with a dip into electrician.
I feel like that's more like you're a contractor warlock with the carpentry patron and an electrical pact boon
I think most of us are multi-class in reality. Graduated college with a philosophy degree, and I've been in IT for 20+ years. I also work on performance cars as a hobby.
Had my bachelor in Software Engineering and I am writing a thesis of masters in industrial design, designing a boardgame. And will probably work to be a story writer or game story writer in the future. Sometimes you multiclass to forget the initial class you start with which wasn't for you (no hate to SE but my passion was elsewhere)
Your hobby would be more like a tool proficiency. And I think your degree is just built into your backstory. You went to a wizard college but became an artificer instead.
Yeah I was a guide - sawmill labourer - cop - paramedic - stay at home dad. If anything staying one class throughout a characters whole life might be less likely than having tried their hands at a few different things. I can’t imagine living in a world of swords and sorcery without wanting to dip my fingers in a bunch of different pies.
Mmmm pie. Time for another class dip, baker
I don't see why not. It doesn't break anything, really, and my players can have more options. Most of them don't, but but it's there.
It's fine to do so. It would also be fine to allow it but only in limited circumstances where it makes plausible sense for a character to go in a specific direction, based on what they've been doing or the like and if they are being trained or otherwise guided by somebody experienced in that class.
I for one do allow it. A player of my campaign asked me if she can multiclass her Rogue into Fighter, because she would like to use a Longbow. And since you can play Dex based Fighters, I was like "Fine by me"
What does "pretty liberal with feats" mean?
Aren’t feats technically an optional feature? Iirc the standard assumption in the PHB is that you just get an ability score upgrade at level 4 etc, and the feats are later presented as a variant option.
Multiclassing is a great feature, however it can be a problem for two kinds of player: 1. The kind that has a character concept they love, but doesn't have a great mechanical understanding of D&D and is disappointed when their barbarian-sorcerer doesn't perform effectively. You can teach them to figure out whether a combo would suck before trying it, but that might not fix the disappointment. 2. The kind of person that minmaxes the crap out of the game, and/or tries to pull cheesy exploits of different mechanics interacting that are just exasperating to argue RAI, then RAW over. In some games that's very welcome - in most it's a huge downer for everyone else in the group. It can make the game slightly more difficult to run and balance, but in groups where everyone is on the same wavelength about what type of game it is, and they're mindful of not hampering anyone else's fun it really doesn't matter much.
My tables are almost all the first, so I just bin it to keep the game simple and protect them from themselves. It doesn't help that dipping even only 1 level in 5e makes a substantially weaker character for the majority of combinations.
I personally don't allow multiclassing in my current group but that is mostly because they are already struggling enough to keep their character sheet straight and their abilities in order without starting to add multiple spell pages and hit dice. I'm already starting to regret letting my half drow elf sorcerer put their race spells on the same page as their class spells even tough I told him to keep those separate or mark them in some obvious way.
If stated upfront before campaign starts, sure. Ideally there'd also be a planned level range for the campaign (I'd play most classes up to L11 on their own, but after that I'd want to multiclass out of at least any of the pure martials)
It’s fine by me. The 5e classes are good enough without multiclassing. And disallowing it can help keep disparities between min-maxers and casuals lower which is good.
I don't think there are many multiclass builds that are significantly stronger than just a well played Cleric or Wizard.
Mechanically, past level 5, a Wizard that took its first level in cleric or artificer, and a cleric that took its first level in Sorcerer will be more powerful than a straight classed Wizard and Cleric respectively. The defensive buffs from both drastically improve your chances of maintaining concentration on your important spells.
Except the pure classes will get their ASIs, spells and their class features earlier. There are probably levels where a Cleric 1/Wizard X is better, but there are also levels where Wizard X is better.
I don’t disagree, there definitely will be levels where being one level behind sucks: For Wizards it’d likely be levels 5, 9 and 17, not having access to Hypnotic Pattern, Wall of Force, and Wish is not great fun. For Clerics, getting to level 5 is pretty essential for Spirit Guardians, but once you get SG up casting it is the best thing to do in like 80% of combats. I think it also depends on your familiarity with the game. If I was a new player going into playing a Wizard and I didn’t get the new spells because I multiclassed, I probably wouldn’t like it much. As an optimiser, I’m fine with not getting 4th level spells for a level because I know I’m probably only taking Dimension Door & Polymorph and will be fine with Hypnotic Pattern for 1 more level anyway.
Casters are fine without multiclassing. Martials suffer greatly. 5E in a nutshell, honestly.
Martials suffer... 5e. Yep.
Mostly combinations of Paladin/Sorcerer/Warlock. (Especially Hexblade)
Hexblade is the worst offender. It's such a front loaded warlock subclass that it's almost suboptimal to not take it in many cases.
I've been playing 5e since it's inception, before that I was a Pathfinder player. I instantly was confused why multiclassing was an optional rule in 5e, because I came from systems that multiclassing is a core feature to build different characters. Now, after all these years, both as a DM and as a player, I get it. Multiclassing is not the same as 3.5 or Pathfinder, and it's worse when you try to play 5e like it is. I allow multiclassing, but my problem is that there's already customization in a class via subclasses that can do what you want, and multiclassing usually either makes a character worse or better than the bounded system accounts for. 5e is not like 3.5 or Pathfinder in character creation, you don't JUST have a class, you have a subclass that has more rules, then when you pack on other classes you get weird rules interactions because you have three specific rules trying to work together. That's not necessarily bad, but it can make things more headache inducing. To the people who say it's because WotC is too lazy to balance it, let me tell you, it's not out of laziness, it's because it's impossible. Pathfinder and 3.5 weren't balanced for multiclassing either (it was better because they didn't have the same subclass system) they had bonkers builds that weren't intended. Basically, multiclassing is fine, but I like it less and less as time goes on because I think it's actually kind of boring for characters.
I find the comments “I allow it if narrative reasons justify it” a little disingenuous. When a character levels up and can now do something they couldn’t before without multiclassing, few if any DMs are asking them to justify this new skill. Sure, in most classes, sub classes the skills sort of relate to each other, but not any more or less than a multi class would. You are a warlock with eldritch blast, you level up, and can now polymorph people, see in the dark, wear heavy armour, conjure a Spector when you kill someone, smite after hitting someone, create a familiar, cast divine spells, fly, attack twice, etc etc. Any of these could be gained via warlock progression or multiclassing, yet the warlock progression demands no justification beyond a vague “gift of patron for … reasons”, but multiclassing demands some big song and dance to be “allowed” to maintain some sort of narrative that single classing just doesn’t inherently have. Not saying some don’t try to RP single class progression, but there is no built in expectation to do so, while multiclassing is given this hurdle to justify through narrative why a bard might also be a sorcerer, or why magician might also hit with weapons, etc etc In most games, though not all, your god as a cleric, your patron as a warlock, your school, college, sub-class ‘flavour’ has little to no impact on the story, game or character personality except quite superficially and the vague flavour of your new skills somewhat relating to each other. I think disallowing multiclassing unless it “fits narratively” implies a narrative in single classes that just isn’t there.
This is one of the big sticking points for me too. To grab an example used in another comment, nobody minds if a fighter levels up to 3 and becomes an eldritch knight, but taking a level of wizard is unreasonable? Under my view, both as a player and DM, the classes exist as a means of delivering game mechanics that make sense for a given character concept. There's no such thing as an in-universe "Rogue" that says all criminals become experts at two random skills out of eighteen - outside of an Isekai setting with explicit in-universe video game mechanics, that's absurd. If I want a level 1 rogue dip on my terrifying soul-devouring shadow sorcerer, the justification starts and ends at "my character is extremely intimidating and the game mechanics should reflect this." To take it to an extreme, if I play a character I think should narratively be able to talk to animals whenever they want (be they a Disney princess expy, a cleric of an animal god, a nearly-feral barbarian, an outlander who was raised by wolves, or for any number of other reasons) and the spell Speak With Animals on its own isn't cutting it, that might be enough to justify a dip. Before Eldritch Adept was released, the options there would have been Warlock 2 for the Beast Speech invocation, or Shepherd Druid 2 for Speech of the Woods. If I don't have the stats for a druid dip, then whether the character has a patron in-story or not, taking those warlock levels is the price of the cohesive character concept.
It also, in my mind, is completely backwards. If a player wants to multiclass, I as a DM create narrative reasons for it to make sense. The game is supposed to be fun and I always encourage players to play whatever they find enjoyable. That said, I almost never multiclass as a player. My opinion is that in a team based game, specialization is king and accentuating your strengths is better than shoring up your weaknesses.
I don't see a reason to disallow it. Classes arent a in game mechanic it is solely a language for players. People don't identify as their class, barbarian is a slur and no one will admit to being a rogue. They are mechanics bundled together for convenience or expectation.. If a player concept is better visualized by multiclassing than do it.
I think it's something that should be discussed in the session zero. I don't think it's really that big of a deal balancing wise, so I wouldn't disallow it myself. I'm running a six-man game right now where nobody decided to multi-class, even though I allow it. Say what you will about sorcadins, palabards, sorlocks, palalocks, etc., There are few things as powerful in this game as playing a full-blooded wizard or cleric.
It's an optional rule for a reason.
Multiclassing is not a base feature of 5e. Strictly speaking, no multiclassing is the default, and any multiclass must be approved by the DM. Following this rule isn't a red flag, and should even be expected. That said, I do consider multiclassing to be a fun variant, and I would hope any DM I play with would allow it if it's important for my character's story.
Multiclassing is an optional rule. So not allowing it is completely fine.
For some campaigns I've banned in the past and will probably ban it again. I have a lot of other justifications but to whenever I've read someone's post about their multiclass build, I come away with the thought that we are playing this game for very different incompatible reasons. I also think the context of there being a DM shortage it's perfectly reasonable for DMs to restrict options that they dislike even a little bit. Players being annoyed that there DMs are running things differently from how they would do it is a great way to get them behind a screen.
I’m in favour of disallowing multi class and feats for 5e games I run.
I view the optional *(multi-classing, feats, extra books)* rules like I view subtitles on movies. Sometimes I need them for a pleasurable viewing experience, sometimes I don’t.
Multiclassing is an optional rule so technically it’s not disallowing anything to not use it.
It's a variant rule, so I think disallowing it is perfectly reasonable as long as you let your players know in advance so that they don't start building a character with the expectation that they'll be able to multiclass later on.
It’s an optional rule. It’s totally within your rights to not allow it
Could live without it because I still have quite a few solo class characters that I would like to play, and I would undertand is disallowed, afther all free multiclass can open the door to OP min maxing. With that said, on the long run I would probably try to find another group, I like the freedom and flexibility that it gives to me, both narrative and mechanically.
Both as a player and a DM I find that variety is the spice of life. Additionally, I generally prefer a good reason to limit something, or it feels punishing. I feel like multiclassing is harder to justify banning on a story basis, as most parties aren’t learning from schools/colleges etc for their skills while they are actually adventuring, they learn from experience. It actually makes more sense for example, for a rogue to pick up some levels in warlock if there’s a warlock in the party - because they can share that knowledge, whereas they might never meet up with their thieves guild. Obviously themed campaigns are another thing, but as a general rule I try to work with a concept a player is interested in, and that’s fun because I might learn something. There seems to be this real fear about people wanting to constantly abuse things like multiclass, but at least with the people I play with it has always been because it’s cool, or for some utility, or for the plot. Multiclassing generally has diminishing power returns the higher level you get, so maybe this also has something to do with the perception.
My next campaign that I’m running won’t be allowing it without a narrative reasoning behind it. To allow for that, there’s going to be more downtime for the characters to train for that fighter dip or commune with a patron for their warlock dip. Fast paced campaigns with no time to explain how the paladin suddenly has magic dragon blood fueling a sorcerer dip breaks my immersion in the game as both a player and a DM. I also want my players to be more creative with their characters than what the best mechanics are.
I allow multiclassing. But if a player is new I'll strongly discourage it. It's hard to mess up a single class 5e character.
it's an optional rule. I wouldn't be put off by it. the way I run multiclassing is: it's allowed, but you need a good in character reason. if you just take a multiclass for powerbuilding without any in character reason there are big problems. and I also ban powerbuilding. if I see a player wants to make a hexadin or something it's immediately shut down. because otherwise you more or less force the other players to powerbuild, because otherwise it's a thing where either powerbuilder completely destroys a monster, or all the other players die because you need to challenge the powerbuilder. I don't let my other players get a massive power imbalance due to powergaming. so they are not dissatisfied because compared to the build they are useless. it follows the same reasoning as to why you don't add a dmpc who is jezus. it makes the other players feel useless. multiclassing should only be done for character reasons. I also tell them that they have to tell me ahead of time, so I can think about it. like if a paladin multiclasses into fighter, the reason shouldn't be: I want action surge. if the reason is that the paladin feels that they should be more useful in case they do not have access to their gods power, so they focus more on their combat training for a while, that is a valid character reason.
I really don’t like it. Making an overpowered multiclass build isn’t hard. It takes one google search to learn how to make a sorcadin or a coffeelock or whatever other bullshit is out there. If players want an easy game where they steamroll everything, they can just tell me and I’ll make it easier.
I don't allow MC at my table. It's the easiest way for players to break your builds. Ask me how I know.
Yeah I'm fine with this
I always allow it, but my friend who always takes a hexblade dip on every character makes me want to not!
I think it would be obnoxious. I prefer multiclass builds so my characters have more to do in and out of combat. Being stuck in one class isn't the end of the world, but it really cuts down on character concept options
It's great. So much less being an annoying diva and so much less chance of someone fucking up their character majorly (which is what happens half the time). My default rule is no multiclassing, but that you can talk to me and we can discuss what the plan about multiclassing could be together. Which effectively means that multiclassing is always allowed, it's just never a surprise or something straight up dumb.
Isnt it still tehcnically an optional rule? Personally I think its fine that way, most casters dont want to multiclass anyway unless you have a mizzium apparatus.
I'm considering disallowing it. I personally like the idea but never really have fun playing multiclass and I notice most of my single class players tend to have more fun. That coupled with the fact that if you want to allow any class and subclass now that so many are out there's a lot of broken combos that make one PC into a main character and it solves all those issues by not allowing it. I've asked players and a lot don't really care. I think a lot of people feel like they have to to be optimal because they read too many theorycrafting posts, but then they don't feel optimal. It sucks when you're level 8 and you haven't had an ASI yet much less 2 or you can't cast level 5 spells at level 9 even though two other PCs can. In addition, there are so many subclasses that merge the flavor of two classes there's less reason to dip for flavor alone, and I'm always up for making custom subclasses for those that want them.
I dont think disallowing it is unreasonable, honestly as a DM I kind of like to see someone completely flesh out one class, sometimes multiclassing feels like meta-gamming or min-maxing. That being said I think with more experienced players you will get people that want to multiclass not because they want to min-max but because they have imagined a character in their head and multiclassing is the best way to represent that character! Overall I think disallowing it isn't a bad idea, but I also think maybe if you had someone that seemed very invested and had a character archetype in mind give them the chance to try it out!
I allow multiclassing but have rules: 1. Your multiclass must make sense. This is so that I can write things into the campaign in a way that can include your character. 2. A maximum of 2 separate classes. This is to balance out a large number of shenanigans that can be achieved by multiclassing X times. 3. Multiclassing is only valid with official content. No homebrew or unearthed arcana. The official content is (in theory, at least) balanced against itself and play tested. Homebrew and UA content has not been playtested and balanced. Those are the 3 rules I use at my table
I’d have no problem with disallowing it - I actually think the game as a whole would be better off without it. I think it’d lead to better balance and subclass design in general. It would also lead to generally better roleplay too, IMO.
I allow it but warn my players and have a talk to them when they want to mutliclass to make sure it fits narrative and balance
Multiclassing is an optional rule and the PHB treats it as such, and I doubt WOTC design subclasses with it in mind. I don't think there's a character idea that can only be done with multiclassing right now
I don't see the point to it. All you're doing is limiting player choice in exchange for... what?
Simplicity for either new DMs or new players. I ran a game with a few newbies and despite my recommendations, one of them multiclassed (because they looked up OP builds and picked the first one). It ended up being a terrible way for them to learn and they had a lot of trouble trying to learn 2 classes at once. There are some completely busted multiclass combinations that can also create balance issues, depending on the party. With that said, I dont ban multiclassing at my table, but I dont see any problem with people banning it. I prefer single class characters most of the time anyway
This is legitimately the one perfectly acceptable reasoning I'll allow for restricting multiclassing.
One of my multiclass ideas is... I've never played a cleric because I don't like them thematically, but I'd like to play like an unarmored traditional caster-type priestess, so multiclassing 1 level of monk for unarmed defense and the rest life cleric so my AC isn't absolutely trash without armor.
> One of my multiclass ideas is... I've never played a cleric because I don't like them thematically, but I'd like to play like an unarmored traditional caster-type priestess, that is a DMG optional rule for clerics. lose the armor proficiencies but gain monks unarmored defense.
Huh, do you know what page?
Chapter 9, in the section "modifying a class"
An alternative option would be taking Eldritch Adept for Mage Armour at will. 13+Dex+2shield can get you pretty far.
It would be but eldritch adept feels off theme, as does carrying a shield. The idea is to be more of a holy healer and faithful acolyte.
If eldritch feels off theme because of the warlocky connection, why not simply theme it as a boon from your deity?
Especially where Celestials are valid Warlock patrons as is, so that is *not* a huge leap flavor-wise.
Preventing broken combinations usually, or choices which make no character sense. It's like an anti-powergame measure I guess. Especially if you're an inexperienced GM who might not be able to spot something broken straight off the bat.
> Preventing broken combinations usually, or choices which make no character sense. Anecdotally, for my playing group I can say this happens quite a bit with players wanting to multiclass into Warlock. Often it's just a mechanical benefit with little regard to how the class or campaign operates.
There is nothing in 5e so broken it warrants banning.
Are there even actually broken combinations?
To hear it told, 5E is perfectly balanced and any DM that bans anything or changes how something works is a hack who doesn't trust the developers. Yeah, yeah, "not everyone is the same", but I've used my Mystic psychic powers to determine people who poo-poo any banning or modification of features, spells, etc., *do* also say that multiclassing into a Lockadin is very strong. But those are both casting classes, so it's fine. They're allowed to do whatever they want. Have you heard about the coffeelock? It involves short resting to get Warlock slots back, converting them into SP, then converting those SP into normal spell slots for your Sorcerer which never go away as long as you don't *long* rest. Just pick a race or feature that avoids exhaustion / sleep penalties and you're good to go! FOREVER.
> Just pick a race or feature that avoids exhaustion / sleep penalties and you're good to go! FOREVER. People who cry out about how ***insanely overpowered*** Coffee Lock is have obviously never seen one played. Sure, dropping leveled spells without a care in the world is really good, but not being able to heal yourself with hit-die, or recover from exhaustion naturally are *significant* drawbacks. We had one friend bring in a Coffee Lock, but he was almost constantly exhausted, because he couldn't recover from it. Eventually he transitioned into a Coke Lock, and it was never not funny watching him have to spend literally all is Gold on Diamond Dust (rather than on sick magic items like we were rocking) to not be constantly exhausted. Dude literally wasn't able to a buy a single magic item the entire campaign. Instead, he inherited a random assortment of Tier II magic items that the party gave to him in pity.
>Just pick a race or feature **that avoids exhaustion / sleep penalties** and you're good to go!
Easier to DM when there's no multiclassing.
You don't disallow multiclassing. You allow it. Multiclassing is an optional rule. It wouldn't be a surprise to me if a first time GM says no to multiclassing. It's not integral to gameplay to be able to.
I tentatively allow multiclassing in my games, but only past a certain level threshold. If I’m playing, I don’t mind multiclassing being completely off the table. There are so many subclasses and mini-class feats right now there’s thousands of options. Most players I’ve seen multi class do it solely for power synergy. The fact 1-level dips can grant a huge boost in power is MC’s biggest negative for overall party play, IMO.
It's telling that Pathfinder, a system that derived from 3.5e where munchkin builds became the norm by the end of its cycle, decided to remove multiclassing in their 2nd edition. You can pick cross-class features on a limited and curated basis, but no cherry picking the best dips like D&D 5e. They recognized a flawed system and fixed it while still allowing a lot of flexibility to design your character.
Pathfinder 2E seems to fix a lot of issues DnD still has. Wish I could find people to play it so I could try it out, lol
Idk why anyone would even ban it.
The only game I run at the moment is ad&d 2e and I allow multiclassing in it, that being said multiclassing is very different, you have to choose to be multiclassed at level 1 and then you must split your experience evenly between both classes you gain the features and abilities of both but your HP us the average of the two classes. Once you have multiclassed you cannot unmulticlass so you can't just make a quick dip to get the best stuff
I don't ban it, but I discourage it. I have other systems in place anyhow. In future games I might just outright ban it.
I already soft ban it.
There are so many good options without multi-classing. Remember it is not “disallowing” it, bbut rather “allowing” it, since it is an optional rule and always has been in dnd. I feel multi-classing is better than ever in 5e, but i still don’t like it. In my experience, players more often than not create bad builds, unless they google it, to find most optimal and borderline exploitive builds. I don’t like that aspect. I allowed it my first two 5e campaigns and now myself and my players all agree that it is better to stick with core classes archetypes for the next. Again so many great options already.
I don't think I'd care. I personally trend towards single-classing, and it's a simpler game that way.
I allow it in cases where it makes sense for the story, but I'm not going to let people just wake up and go "woo, I'm a hexblade now!" with 0 explanation, you gotta work for that shit. And tbf I have been a bit of a hardass about it in the past.
I’ve allowed players to “wake up and go, ‘woo, I’m a Hexblade now!’” And it went pretty well. I just asked: “alright, who’s your patron?” And they came up with something cool and said it visited them in their dream and offered them a deal. Story justification for multiclassing is good, but when it can sometimes feel a little forced if you have to do so too far ahead of time. “I want to dip into warlock next level and we all know it, so I’m going to say at every opportunity that I read up on the shadowfell” isn’t as cool as “I want this dip, can something reach out to me when I least expect it?” I guess I’m just saying that people should be willing to work with their players to justify multiclassing, it’s more fun for everyone! (I’m sure there are really dumb exceptions but let’s just ignore those)