Why I Don't Ban Multiclassing | Worldbreaking 

How do you feel about multiclassing in your games? Thanks so much to OnlyCrits for sponsoring this video! Visit www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK at checkout to save 12% off of your order! www.onlycrits.com/supergeekmike

I also think any multiclass dip can be explained narratively. It shouldn't be "you can only take this multiclass if you can justify it" it should be, "ok you're taking this multiclass, let's now come up with a fun justification"

Matt Colville put it best “A character class is just a loose approximation of the character you have in your imagination” Sometimes you have to multi class to create concepts the game doesn’t account for. I don’t multi-class all that often, but I personally don’t play with GMs who ban it. It speaks to a “rigidity” that doesn’t jibe with my priorities as a player.

Another reason I didn't want multiclassing in a game I ran: It was my first time DM-ing and several players were also new, so I just wanted to keep stuff as simple as possible.

One of the latest campaigns I joined "banned" Multicalssing because the DM had only surface -level experience playing - much less running the game. They simply did not think they could handle the additional complexity and keep all the rules interactions in mind. But after a couple of sessions they realized that they could not keep the straight-classed PC mechanics for five level 5 PCs in their head either but instead just asked the players or our "rules shepherd dog" (aka. table-friendly rules lawyer) for niche rules and interactions. So when we recently started building backup characters they decided to allow multiclassing. They now trust us players to know the RAW for our own characters and have the confidence to make a ruling when needed.

I like multiclassing, I just wish the game was better built around it. There are so many ways it can undertune or overtune characters.

Flipping the last argument on its head, I love the narrative potential of multiclassing and would encourage players to do it to tell unique stories and create unique characters. I don't even think about optimising when multiclassing. One of my oldest characters is an elf who is equal parts wizard and cleric, as an acolyte of a god of knowledge. His centures of service to the cause of knowledge made him a favoured champion of the knowledge god, allowing him to wield both divine and arcane power. Is this an optimal multiclass? Hello no! He's locked out of any higher level spells! But I love the concept.

My love of multiclassing (well, the customization that multiclassing allows) is part of why I prefer point build systems, especially ones where you're not restricted to choosing only from a list of options approved for your class but can dip into lists for other classes just at a higher point cost. So you're not "wasting" (for lack of a better term) a whole level just to pick up one or two abilities that aren't normally available to your class.

I’ve mutliclassed once in D&D. I was a rogue and was thinking of maybe taking a level in warlock, and at one point we had a perfect narrative moment for it: one of the other PC’s died in an encounter and my character decided to call out to a higher being (not specific) to save them. DM asked for a religion check. One nat 20 later and I had a reason to go into warlock.

I have a Cleric + Druid that started out as a sort of shaman character (1 Cleric, 2 Druid) but has been pulled into the service of a deity and so the remaining levels are basically all Cleric due to the source of power being from this god. The multiclass is core to the narrative of this character's situation and how this relationship with this deity is driving their progression. While a class doesn't define the character, it can be useful for expressing the theme of the character.

I ask my players if they have plans for multiclassing ro some general idea for a "build" or at least general trajectory, when they aim to multiclass so I can try to set it up. The paladin wants to dip at level 7 into hexblade for charisma attacking and eldritch blast as well as smites to use on a short rest? Yeah I get that, I'll put some cool cursed sword that'll show up around the level 7 milestone, maybe earlier and they get the hexblade level as they properly tap into it. The sorcerer wants to take a cleric dip for heavy armour? I'll tie some of their backstory related hooks to religion in and also maybe their sorcerous origin to give them setup for their character deciding to find support in the gods. Some multiclasses I don't feel a need to do this for like most martial classes are close enough in flavour that I'd just say the character is being more experimental and trying to see if they can find new ways to approach their combat style and the like.

I love multiclassing, simply because the main classes and just okay. And a combo of classes give A. A much wider variation between players B. It's more fun than just being stuck with 1 class

I enjoy taking the framework of a pop culture character and putting my own spin on it. Batman?Mastermind Rogue/Ranger Thor? Tempest Cleric/Eldrich Knight Fighter Aladdin? Thief Rogue/Genie Warlock. That's my kind of fun.

I like multiclassing because it opens up loads of option for gameplay, roleplaying or just fun

I just started a campaign, and me being an entirely newbie player to DnD multiclassed. We started at level 4, so I split between three levels of Rogue with a soulknife specialization and one level of Monk, just for the AC. Combined with the points system thr DM had I wound up with an AC of 21, sneak attack in melee or range with soul knives and a 1D6 unarmed attack due to my race choice. Glorious. Still not enough to wipe the floor because we're using Dongo Doodles Fools Gold setting and nature is more terrifying than anything else.

I love all the conversation around this and it reminds me of when I was talking with a friend who asked if I felt "cheated" by the game not letting me "max out my character" cause I'd do a 3 class multiclass and I was like "listen, between my ADHD and other mental stuff- one class limitation was boring af and made me not care about my character, I needed those two other classes to keep me feeling interested in myself. PLUS look at each class as a hyperfixation my character has- he started as a fighter, got really into reading about monk stuff and then saw that he was quite sneaky so started taking rogue skills cause we don't half ass- we either full commit or don't at all"

As a GM, I love when my players consider multiclassing. Because across both of my games, only one player has played D&D with more experience than at my table, it shows me they're learning the game more and more. I, of course, like to have a conversation about them to ensure they're going to have fun--is the idea going to work, or are they creating a sort of anti-synergy? And I'm open to retconning choices because fun matters most! Additionally, if *they* have a narrative idea in mind for the character that includes multiclassing, I want to honor and facilitate that happening. (Like my wife, who wants her halfling barbarian to become a divine champion and start smiting.)

Frankly the whole thing should be ala carte. If you've read the 3rd party sourcebooks "An Elf and an Orc Had a Little Baby", they have a great way for handling races. They have a list of races, each race has a list of traits, each with a point value assigned to it. So you can be part vampire/part tarrasque/part siren, and then you can take something like amphibious, reflective carapace, and mist form. Those give you your physical traits. Then you have upbringings, which is like your background, and again, you can pick and choose from those. There's no reason why the whole character can't be built that way. Replace race/background/class with a bunch of options: Physical traits - those are the natural physical abilities based on your genetics. Upbringing - these are skills and traits that you developed from growing up. Innate Talents - these are your abilities that are personal to you, neither inherited nor explicitly taught, but developed from your unique personal blend of personality & experience. Learned Skills - these are the skills and abilities you gained through education and practice. So, at level 1, you have a bite attack and mist form because you're part vampire, you can breathe underwater because you're part mermaid. Those are your physical traits. You grew up in the circus, so you are acrobatic, but you also learned to pickpocket from customers, so you have slight of hand. Those are upbringing. For innate talents, you're empowered by your intense emotions, so you can enter a state in combat where you are able to shrug off damage by harnessing that battle rage. And your learned skills, you studied magic from the bards that worked at the circus, so you are able to harness the power of magic through performance in order to cast spells. No more multi-class, much less need to homebrew. Everything is pick and choose. You get x points every level to buy new things with. You could limit it to just learned skills, with the idea being that the rest are fixed based on who you are as a person. Or you can say that, sometimes people are late bloomers, or need time to discover what their talents are, so you could pick from physical/innate traits as well, but maybe at a higher cost.

This is a good channel. I like Mike.

Multi-classing is fun. We had a cleric take some points in barred one time because people kept smacking them. I do believe that if you're having issues with multi-classing, you need to talk to your players and find ways to compensate during the game. We have a few DMs That will purposely make fights where one of the classes has a disadvantage. And they have to figure out other ways to help. If you have someone who's always doing the rogue fighter, make some fights where piercing/slashing damage is not going to do that much. And have other mechanics available during the fight.

Thanks for reminding me classes don't have to be connected to a core concept. I've realized it before but have forgotten recently that a character isn't their class, but rather classes are just a way to express your character and the ideas around them. I like to, for instance, take ranks in monk or barbarian for druids just for unarmored defense, often expressing their ability to develop natural armor or just their innate toughness. A really goo example I can think of is in the Eberron Rising from the Last War when they talk about warlocks that don't have magical patrons, but are wandslingers who get training and resources from a guild that takes up the roll of their "patron". I feel like stuff like that goes a long way to really open up narrative possibilities for characters, though it can also easily be an excuse for "power gaming" which depending on the group can either be a really good or bad thing. This turned into a rant. Anyway thanks for the video. I really enjoyed it!

The character I'm currently playing started out as a Warlock of Lolth. At level 6, she broke her pact,loosing her Warlock levels (well, she had to sign a contract with Levistus to get his help in doing so, but that's another story^^). Before that happens in game, my DM and I worked together on how to narratively explain a class shift. The thing we came up with was interesting, if a little out there. Turns out the God of Wine and Madness (the world's version of Dionysus) did a Zeus, meaning he disguised himself as my character's "father" to get on with her mother, thus technically making my character a half god (or in rule terms, a Divine Soul Sorcerer). Over the next few sessions after breaking her pact, my character slowly came into the realisation of her Sorcerer powers since Lolth was no longer able to keep them contained. Interestingly enough, every level since 6th she took in Bard since now she's actually free to pursue what she really wants, without a patron lording her soul and bodily well-being over her. The sorcerer levels in this case act more as a narrative device than actual attempt to gain more goodies.

One of my players is a Swashbuckler Rogue and Redemtion Paladin. I love it

I actually had a character who I never considered multiclassing with end up multiclassing due to the narrative! My Echo Knight Fighter had a confrontation with the patron deity of his home town, who basically challenged him to prove his worth, since he was trying to find out whether his best friend made it to the afterlife. (long story short he was a pit fighter back home and most of the town worshiped the god of combat.) After he won against the avatar(and the other players had equally personal moments) we leveled, and I decided that this trial had left a mark on him, and for the rest of the campaign he leveled as an Oath of Glory Paladin

Cleric for Armor and Shield + bless, healing word and then bonus from either Peace, Twilight or if you want a magic weapon opn, say your ranger, Forge...

As a player, I've only ever multiclassed once (since 1978). It was because my barbarian's story arc made it necessary for him to take up a calling as a paladin. This was partly prompted by my RP and partly by the DMs response to that RP - or maybe he was planning it all along... I don't know. (And that character went on to have a glorious death in the moment of his victory over the BBEG.) As a GM, I don't run systems that allow multiclassing, although the same effect might be possible with skill choices in some of them. Optimizing is not rewarded in my games, so it would only make sense to do that for story reasons.

I recently joined and subsequently left an online game after I realised that it was not the game for me. One of my first indications came before the session when the DM quite sternly said no multiclassing allowed because it had ruined several of their previous games which I think is rather an extreme thing to happen for such a common aspect of the game. When I thought about it, I actually remembered this series and wondered if you’d done one on multiclassing. Not yet, but here it is now!

I admit that I'm an optimizer, but I optimize for concepts rather than "Most optimal." I wanted to make a character like Sango from Inuyasha who is badass in her own right, but also has a cute familiar that could get bigger and scarier. So I rolled up a Pact of the chain warlock/Drankenwarden Ranger and reflavored it to be a cute little spirit wolf pup that would get bigger and scarrier on command. I put a lot of work into making that suboptimal combination function as well as it, and it does a pretty good job I think. Frankly though, the argument that someone multiclassing would outshe everyone else is BS. The most broken character I ever made was a pure Paladin and it was completely on accident. He was just supposed to be an unmovable wall and didnt plan on him bring the main melee combatant. He was a dragonborn and having no cantrips I wanted him to have a light source that he could use in combat. So the rare magical item I chose was a Flametonge longsword becauseit woukd double as a tourch. He was practically unhitable with a 22 AC and every attack did 1d8+4 slashing, 1d8 radient, 2d6 fire. May the gods have mercy on you if he crits. The moment Fizban's Guide came out I downgraded to a crystal longsword because all I really wanted was a lightsource and never intended to make a murder machine but that's exactly what happened.

I love multiclassing more the more experienced I get because it keeps things fresh and interesting. I also do love a good optimized build, guilty as charged, but I always think through the narrative implications and use them to fuel interesting character stories... Because why not, that's fun. I do think it's important to balance the power level between characters to ensure everyone feels important and content, but there are lots of ways to do that!

8:40 Cleric for Heavy Armor / Martial Weapons.

Sometimes focusing on narrative from a player perspective can be REALLY fun. I once played the op mene build. A Warlock/sorcerer if you don't know the mechancs of these 2 classes interact in such a way that you can basically get unlimited 1st level spells. As levels increase this can go up to 5th level... If you never take a long rest. I decided to look into what would make a fun character who never takes a long rest? I decided he is trying to never sleep. So the question became Why? I decided the answer must be his patron. One day in a fit if study trying to understand his own nagical origin and gain some control over his own Wild Magic, Paetro he accidentally opened a portal to somewhere else. It was only for a second, but a second was all it needed. The owner of this realm took notice of him, and was able to get a sliver upon him. This granted Paetro great power but at a cost. For whenever he would fall asleep his essence was transported back to that realm. The master of the realm a cruel, malevolent entity he knew only as THE NIGHTMARE, would do unto him, what a cruel toddler might do when he sees a bug. Though this would not do any physical damage to Paetro, the scars would remain. Paetro knew one thing about his life. Never fall asleep. This made a character who had strong convictions about extraplainer entities, a flavordul personal journey (find a way to rid himself or at least get a good nights sleep) and a fun slightly deteriorating mental state. Easily in the top three characters I've played.

I’ve done it narratively with a Cleric whose father was killed just before he levelled up. His anger at the murder caused him to channel underlying rage and he took a level of Barbarian. It made sense in the moment, and gave him the option of tapping into that rage in battle later on.

A player with a PC fighter contacted me one time and said for the next level up that she "should" multiclass into barbarian. When I asked her why, she said something happened in the story that made her character feel enraged and unable to help her friends. She felt like her character would use that anger as motivation in game, and I loved that idea. Her only reluctance was that by doing so, she would sacrifice a level of fighter for it. So we agreed that she could keep leveling as a fighter and I gave her a special ability that allowed her to use rage stats once a day. By finding out what a player is trying to get out of a multiclass, you can sometimes come up with creative work around.

I run a silly game for people to have fun in. If people want to multiclass to make their shenanigans work in a mechanical sense then I encourage it! I prefer to see the game in terms of "what do I need to get the character idea to work" then assemble that through whatever class picks and feats I need, than look at a class and marry that for 20 levels. I could if I ran or played 2-3 times a week, like in school, but I'm lucky to get two or three 8 hours sessions a year lately. All of us work in healthcare, so some work nights and weekends or rolling shifts and getting all of us free on the same day at the same hours is... a challenge to say the least! ☹️

When we started our first adventure with DnD, our DM said he doesn't really *ban* multiclassing, but he strongly advises against it. When asked why, he said that since we were new to the system, he'd rather let us fully embrace what our class is about and use their traits to enhance our roleplay. While I don't really agree with him, I guess I can see why he had such views.

The closest thing to a desire i have in multiclassing to optimize doesn't isn't even really a good optimization i don't think, but the sorlock that can eldritch blast at 1200ft is just really funny to me and i want to do it one day. I actually want to take the cleric-like subclasses when i do it so i focus more on control (with the invocations for moving and slowing eldritch blasts) and support (with the subclass features and such)

In one game my group has started we’re playing with the Gestalt variant rule which is like a step up from multiclassing where you’re basically leveling up in two classes at the same time and effectively making a custom combo class. I’m going with a Circle of Dreams Druid and Feylock combo that I called Dreamweaver and my patron is Tasha (or rather her alternate persona Igglov). At the moment the game is on hold because we started Star Wars 5e to get a break from fantasy but I think we’re going to alternate eventually

As a heavy multi-class enjoyer, I like the choice to look at my character, evaluate how they interact with the world, and find a multiclass that helps boost what they care about. Sometimes skills, sometimes scorching ray, sometimes archery. Staying in the same class is just one option for how they would grow that capability. Do they weave necrotic damage into scorching ray (hex) or want more attacks? Is the skill to conjure poison requiring them to learn to be sneaky to steal a sample? Does a warrior want to hit harder (rage), more opportunistically (sneak attack), or get more attacks (fighter/monk)? or a combination of those?

I enjoy multi-classing as I feel it encourages a greater variety of character-concepts that a class-based system such as d+d sometimes struggles with. When I DM I'm usually fine with multi-classing as long as the combo makes sense in-character. I'm usually a bit fussy about folks crossing into warlock or sorcerer as those imply a certain level of backstory stuff that can't be acquired in-universe as easily as some of the other stuff.

I think sometimes it is not because of optimizing. I think multiclassing can also be a means to help the roleplaying experience. Basically, it's fun. Right now, my group is 5 levels into Tyranny of Dragons. Our cleric was finding her class not very fun for her. She was often frustrated and honestly a little bored. So when she took her 5th level, she took a level in Warlock. Immediately her fun at the table improved. If Multiclassing had been banned, then we would have had a player that absolutely wasn't enjoying themselves and that's never good.

i took a rule from 2E and use it. once you multi class you can not go back to the first class. really makes the player think if he really wanna give up any more levels for what ever class

As a DM, Warlock dips are my favorite. You get Eldritch Blast? Cool, I get a powerful NPC who's now intrinsically linked to your character. It _feels_ like a Faustian bargain, the mechanics reinforce that feeling, and I love it.

I actually had one of my players change class from rogue to fighter. He was advancing in level and looked at what abilities he had left to receive and felt quite underwhelmed, so he asked if he could change class. We worked it out naratively as his pc getting hit by an aging beam, so he was suddenly 60+ years old instead of the lithe ~20 yro he was before, meaning he needed to lean more on strength and not agility. I think he went from thief to samurai for the extra proficiencies. I did let him juggle around his skills from his background to let him fit stuff back in.

I just like multiclassing because the build and theory crafting what you could possibly optimize a character for it fun to me. It's basically a puzzle to solve on how to combine features to make a character who is great at one specific thing. With this said thought I usually don't do much multiclassing with characters I actually play. From the many characters I've played only 2 were multiclassed in a campaign (hexblade divine soul, and a undead fey wanderer)

I know this is a little video game-y of me, but action surge is just so much fun. I've been thinking about a item that gives once/day surge by consuming some hit dice to give my players.

Im playing my first multiclass character, my partner is someone who loves building weird/specific builts with multiclassing and class dips and I've never been into it but I started coming around to the idea of it making even more creative character personalities and backstories so I am trying one of his builds. I am tweaking it a bit and it will be a little less optimised now but I like certain story ideas and I want them to come up sooner. I'm nervous about certain 1 class dips but Ive talked to my dm a bit and mostly I'm thinking of them as just further gifts/powers from her god as her main class is oracle, with a couple that are about her practical training as a herbalist/non magic healing. Ive always felt weird about mulitclassing/powerbuiding like if I do that I'm not focusing on roleplay but Ive specifically decided to expand my horizons. Even if I decide to go back to how I usually build after this I'm happy to have tried the other side at least once. And who knows, I may incorporate a little more complex building myself from time to time!

When it comes to optimal builds, with multiclassing, there are a bit over half a dozen in the conversation for being among the most powerful in the game (each with a few variations depending on taste and context, and then a similarly sized pool of second tier builds that are almost as good but with more diversity). Without multiclassing... It's closer to three, with very little room for variation. And the gap in power between the strongest and weakest classes is even larger due to the lack of tools to compensate for glaring weaknesses. And the sad thing is, there a a few really easy houseruling options that remove all the incentives for the standard optimal multiclassing dips (none of which are to be found in the One D&D playtests) and which open up optimal build and party diversity even more, so that players can focus more on the roleplaying side of multiclassing without fear of holding the party back. The fact that multiclassing is able to be so degenerate in 5e is a problem with 5e, not multiclassing. See 4e, PF2e, 13th Age, etc for systems that avoid these problems. Especially 13th Age, which I firmly believe is the best system for the average 5e table.

It's definitely interesting because from the 'optimal build' standpoint it kind of goes two ways, because wotc has clearly favored other classes over others. quite frankly, a lot of classes are really not balanced well compared to other classes, even ones that are at least somewhat closely related (imho, sorc for example). so folks often want to play these classes but it can be difficult to keep up with the others so they dip into others so they can (continuing to use sorc as my example, dipping into warlock). which is kind of just the like player version, imo, of basically why fighters get so many extra attacks to keep up with their wizard friends who can literally cast reality-altering spells, etc. i definitely prefer narrative reasons for multiclassing and in my game i even require it; i dont really care that multiclass happens i just want there to be a reason for it. but sometimes we (GM's) also need to recognize that sometimes even just in background, one single class really doesn't fit the narrative goal for a character. i've had this as a player myself, where what fits for the campaign + my own ideas, even just a few levels in one class can really help flesh out my character. and like mike says, talk to your players. there is a lot you can do when it comes to working with your players and work through how they want to multi-class. for example: would taking a feat achieve the same results without having to nerf those few levels in their main class? or even working through why from a narrative reason. that second one i actually ended up working w/ one of my players for the campaign im running (my first time being a gm): she always multiclasses so it was kind of inevitable. but as we worked through her backstory, i realized 'hey what you're describing sounds like the watchers subclass of paladin. and you're taking at least a few levels of bard, so they combine nicely stats wise already'. also I use sorc as my example because i started playing my first sorc and realized how weirdly built they are. for an entire class built around metamagic... you only get access to 4 at a time by level 20 which is frankly, imho, wild. bard's get more uses of bardic inspo, warlocks get more invocations, etc. so i talked to my gm and we ended up just making a house rule/homebrew rule so my sorc could keep up. this actually prevented me from properly multiclassing and instead i just did magic initiate to beef up my spell list. --- it's small things like this that can really help folks feel like they dont *need* to multiclass just to keep up with the rest of the party. (also also for anyone wondering the home rule that i now keep for all my games is that sorc's get a metamagic option at the same rate as warlocks get invocations)

Re: optimization & Builds/Planning - I always had a problem with these justification, because fairly often multi-classing is LESS efficient to create an optimal character. In 3e+, you have level based capstone abilities... which m/c characters just have difficulty qualifying for (& are straight out excluded under RAW from the level 20 abilities). Heck they get shafted in general on overall ability quality (because all they have is lower level stuff)... plus lackluster saves & attack bonuses. In 2e it's even worse, because in that edition you're just screwed to level up. Yes - there are some killer combinations possible by carefully combining abilities from multiple classes... but those are actually rather few & far between. Generally speaking, if you want to be a munchkin, you're better off going single class. And having to dance around the capstone qualifications actually incentivizes m/c players to plan their builds in advance... because they have to in order to have a FUNCTIONAL character. Not an optimal one... a functional one.

I joined a game where the dm said they don’t outright ban multiclassing but that it needs to make narrative sense. I agreed to this because my original intent was to fully play out a samurai fighter. However, after some games and some thought I discussed with my dm on taking a dip into tempest cleric. We have a full cleric so it really isn’t for that reason. No, it’s because I realized that, narratively, this suited my fighter a lot. See, when I wrote up the character the dm and I created this implication that the god of storms (also a god of warriors) had taken an interest in my character, marking them by striking them with lightning and leaving the distinctive scars of that running up their arms. Also they had a a sword of lightning that refused to be wielded by anyone else. So, with that, dm and I discussed roughly around which levels I was interested in taking that cleric dip. I’m very glad he allowed me that (would have been also fine with a no) and agreed that it would make for a very fitting part of my character’s overall story and intended character arc. I’m planning to add it just after level 7 for fighter (as I want courtier first) and only taking 2 levels of cleric. This is so I get the spells and the channel divinity which also add to my build in a nice way (thinking shield of faith, the reaction stuff from tempest cleric, and the channel divinity thing that allows max lightning damage). Over all I think it would also help the part to have an emergency cure wounds on tap too. Plus, my character can turn some of these spells into spell scrolls later which is invaluable since that is their current role outside frontlining in combat (yes, I do use the aid of a spellcaster for these spell scrolls but it’s my character with all the arcana and tool proficiencies that make it a thing I can craft). So, I do get it when people ban multiclassing and also people who limit it. Having freedom with it can be great, but it’s really down to what type of game are you looking to play and if, by banning it, you are possibly nerfing a class and party that could benefit from it (because some compositions of parties will suffer from that decision). Either way, I have little actual opinion about it. I do like some of the adaptability of it and have used it myself a good number of times, but it really has only been based around the game I’m playing. Heck, one time I did take a cleric dip because of an event in the story that was unprecedented, and this was for a character that I had expected to stay fully in that class and not diverge. It’s still only a dip but I did take grave cleric to represent the pact my character made with the god of Death. And for those asking why not warlock, the bard did take warlock, but I took cleric due to multiclassing rules. Charisma was my dump stat so it was too low to allow me to take warlock. Which was perfectly fine since cleric is a good fit too, and this pact was with a god. Anyway, enough from me. Loved the video!

One thing to consider: multiclassing is one of only two choices a player can make while mechanically constructing their character, the other being subclass. Some players (my group in particular) really lament the lack of meaningful choice after 3rd level otherwise (in before jUst PLaY pAtHFinDer crowd rolls in--for the record we play both).

Sort of off topic, but your point about how 'class should not be treated as an in universe thing where each class MUST fit into a specific narrative archetype' is so... YES! Thank you! Some of my favorite PCs I've played or played with have been characters like the rowdy half orc bard who smashes people with her lute (barbarian class with a great club) or the delusional cultist who is convinced hes the high cleric of a god his con artist cult leader party member made up (sorcerer praying and using holy symbols to 'channel' spells) even just a swashbuckling bard who was later, for mechanical reasons (the player was really bad at playing the class and was getting frustrated with how 'under powered' she was), turned into a pact of the blade warlock/cleric, but kept all the same flavoring, just tweaking it to be that all the warlock powers where coming from the goddess she'd recently begun to worship and the blade pact stuff was just her old swashbuckling skills with a little bit of divine juice to boost them. Classes are what your characters CAN do, but they shouldn't dictate what your characters are in the world. IMO.

I'm actually requiring it in a game I run. My PCs (all single-class) are about to gain a level while in the Feywild, and will have to express a fuller version of themselves by taking that level in something besides their base class. They're "flowering".

There's plenty of cross over between classes narratively. A arch fey warlock, a nature claric and a druid all are primarily casters that have nature themes. A fighter can be getting angrier and angrier at the injustice they see and take some barbarian levels to show that. Or a barbarian can seek redemption after losing control of themselves to the primary savagery and did something they regret and take paladin levels to show that or fighter levels to show that yes they still use the rage but now it's focused. For me I typically don't multi class as I don't get anything from it unless the story says otherwise and I've made some of the most powerful members of the party's without trying and multi classing a level 13 lore bard becomes the tank of a party that had fighters, monks multi class.

In the days of 2E, it was very easy to have a "broken" (uber optimized) character via multiclassing; frequently, this would result in a PC that grossly off-balanced any sort of encounters for the party. In other words, to make things challenging enough for the uber PC, things could be deadly or near impossible for the rest. Alternatively, the multiclassed PC might role creep other PCs in the party. One of the things I did to offset this was allowing single class PCs certain benefits, due to their focus of learning. With 5E, if someone has their advancement route plotted out, there's a very real chance the player may be impatient to reach a certain overall character level to reach certain features they are keen on. Generally speaking, though, I don't "ban" multiclassing.

Making my way through CR Campaign 1 and it was hilarious to me that both Vex and Vax multiclassed but in different ways for different reasons Vax multiclassed with Paladin for narrative reasons with his characters development and ties to the Raven Queen Vex multiclassed with Rogue because Laura really likes to play as rogues and wants to be able to sneak around to appease her FOMO

Call me Leeloo Dallas because I love multiclass. I, as a DM, love multi-classing. But in large part I think it's because I, as a player, also love multi-classing. I see my job as a dm when a player wants to multi-class to help them pick the optimal time and levels in order to have it be as fun and seamless as possible and help avoid gotcha moments like a barbarian that takes 5 levels in fighter thinking extra attack stacks. I personally like narrative reasons of why a barbarian suddenly develops psychic powers to dip into a Psi Warrior fighter. Or a bard that takes on an Archfey patron. Which is why i work with my players as early as I can to seed narrative reasons in the campaign to get them where they wanna go as fast as possible and not hold them up for levels.

Last Campaign i started but mandating everyone having half their levels in Barbarian for story reasons - Try that one for size mandatory Multiclass

I've run 2 different campaigns. 1st one someone multiclasses hexblade warlock, shadow sorceror and battlemaster fighter. I found it confusing tracking different spell slots and the character ended up being really underpowered for what the player wanted. One player took a dip in Storm Sorceror for their Tempest cleric and used their channel divinity on a crit 4th level chromatic orb and did 102 damage and it was awesome. It kinda bugged mr from a story perspective that after 3 levels of studying in a church they realised they had innate abilities, but we just kinda hand waived it. 2nd campaign I said no as we just wanted a simple linear beer and pretzels dragon hunting campaign. 2 years later it is more conplicated from a story perspective, but now the players are level 12 and seeing some cool stuff the classes have to offer. Next campaign I think I will open it up again, but I think we would need to work out a story reason for it.

As a player I've multiclassed when it made sense narratively - my rogue had a religious experience and then MCed into cleric in response to that. I ask the same of my players: if you want to MC then make it make sense narratively. An excellent example is Vax from CR.

I think at the end of they day it revolves around your group. Me and my group enjoy multiclassing but do so chiefly for narrative purpose, and a player who looks at it too much like a mechanical thing would be out of place at our table just like wed be out of place at a table that prioritises character optimisation.

I love multi-classing to find cool combos. Though I do try to have a plan in mind, if something happens in game and it makes story sense I have no problem changing it. I multi classed my blood hunter with fighter and that was gonna be it. But when something happened that truly enraged him, I took a level in barbarian cause it just made sense to me.

Currently I run no level based games and I don't think I will return to any such systems any time soon. But when I did in the past I never had banned it or restricted it. It was simply a non-issue at my table.

Not every level is narratively explained in downtime at my table, but big things can be. I like to do short (or not so short, if they get into them) 1:1s with my players for some levels for some classes to get them really thinking about how these features are manifesting in their character. How does your druid (not so) suddenly have access to 3rd level spells? Generally any big change to a character a player wants to make I will encourage them to consider the how. For some multi-classes this means there's no real big change. Typically (but not always) it's when the martial/caster border is crossed. A battlemaster fighter takes a level into sorcerer? Well where is that new power manifesting from? I generally don't ask these things because I blanket expect narrative explanations at the table, but rather so they are prepared if/when their fellow players lock into those changes and start asking questions. And if they want to actually have a moment in the spotlight to explain something proactively? Happy to facilitate.

I have always be a player who takes the stance of, I will take the worse option if it fits with where the character is. But then again I seem to play at RP heavier tables. As an example, I am thinking of changing my warlock to a druid, when his dump stat is Wisdom. Now I am finding a nature themed sorcerer, but I don't know at this point.

I'm not against multiclassing per se, but I've never done it myself. I've thought about it, considered options, but even if it *might have* given me some fun mechanical advantages, I initially wanted to play my character's base class so badly that I just ended up going to level 20 (in the case of my first character I was lucky enough to play him for an entire 1-20 campaign) purely so I can have the whole full class experience; I wanted to squeeze as much monk gameplay out of one character's story in the world as I could. I still may multiclass with future characters, but for me it would be first for the reason that it would fit the character's story, not because the math yields better damage results for example.

I think some classes are perfect for multiclassing into later. Like, thematically a Warlock would be perfect to multiclass into later in the game. It's a narrative thing that happens, that's the core of the class of the Warlock. A choice you made to obtain more power. However, it makes less than zero sense for someone to become a Sorcerer later in life, the narrative of the class is that you're literally born as one, you do not become one. If your game is structured more like a video game, then sure, go for it. Otherwise? I think it's best to focus all multiclassing efforts narratively.

I've been running campaigns for 40 years and in all of that time, there have been four multi-classed characters. In that number is a Fighter who took a Prestige Class in 3e. That same player tried a Druid/Sorcerer in 5e and later said he felt one or the other would've been better. Even though the players are uninterested in multi-classing, I still allow it with the proviso that they can't take "one level dips". The former Druid/Sorcerer has expressed surprise that the optional rule is allowed at all. In my view, some of the combinations make little sense and are too focussed on mechanics. The AD&D rules seemed to punish players for wanting their Gish with its minimal hitpoints.

I've recently been putting a lot of thought into the role classes play in pushing certain character concepts and limiting world building into the specific shape we think of as 'D&D' (applies to lots of other TTRPG games too). I was playing Sea of Stars recently and felt compelled by how descriptive the characters' class titles were, and how none of it fit within the framework of D&D or Pathfinder. Like 'Warrior Cook' with defensive and utility combat and some support 'spells' related to inspiring and keeping the rest of the group well fed, how do you build that in D&D? It's a cool concept and completely divorced from the RAW without multiclassing and/or homebrew; and this is pretty common in RPG video games that put character fantasy over classes. At least early on, like in early second edition, multiclassing was just as much about trying to chase a particular character fantasy as it was about chasing a set of mechanics; and many of the classes we know of today started as multiclass combinations. I'd like to try, when next I am asked to DM a game of D&D or Pathfinder, to just throw out classes all together, and negotiate with the players to form a set of proficiencies, hit die progression, and cool abilities to learn, around a free form character concept; and see how it goes.

Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. I think multiclassing can help build more unique character concepts. Banning multiclassing can really impeded player autonomy.

I've not really used it personally, but the players in my group that do usually have a good time with it.

I played at one table where multiclassing was banned. I empathized with the DM and with the players who wanted to multiclass. Ultimately, DMs and players should talk more about the meta stuff to make sure the game is heading in a direction that keeps people happy and engaged.

I have never banned, well, anything in any of my TRPG games I've ever run i think, but when starting with new players who have never played the game before (especially if we're doing PF 1) I do suggest my players limit their field of scope to not be overwhelmed. If I'm starting with fresh players who have never done a TRPG before I try to tell my players to 'keep to the CRB/PHB, find the thing that sounds the most fun to you and just stick with that at first and then try to just have fun with that until you get more comfortable with the base systems.' I've had so many players get like, this anxiety that they'll be playing the game wrong or poorly if they don't research an optimized build and follow these random online guides they found because it'll lead to a stronger character. I think it might come from the unfamiliarity of roleplay with those players to be like 'I don't know how to roleplay, so I'll find the guides to make me the strongest I can be so I don't hold people back' but then they end up with a character that's quite complex in what it can do, or as they get into the roleplay they realize the class mix from the build they were following doesn't match up to their expectations for the game. So, I'd say I've never banned it but have encouraged new players to avoid that mental overhead until they feel better with the system. I'll also admit to being the type of DM who at least, likes when the players can narratively express the multi-classing instead of it just being 'the most optimal choice in a solved game'. I never say no, but I know i'm going to like a multiclass better if the players can narratively work it into the story for my own little neurodivergent brain. I do disagree with you about characters in the world understanding that there are classes in the game though, which is interesting. I have an old book I penwrote when I was a kid of basically NPC 'classes' that I use when building basically any sentient NPC for any encounter, this is a great guide space but also gives me a reason in my brain why every holy person isn't a cleric or X, and why every warrior isn't a fighter or barbarian etc... It also lets the players realize that them becoming that class is something that sets them apart from other people in the field. They can do things they can't, how and why gets to become a fun part of what makes them special. And when they run into npc's and enemies that very clearly can do what they can do, or better, it helps build tension because they realize this character is someone who's tapping into that sort of power. And it also lets me like, build NPC's anyway i want without making them quite so fragile? It doesn't make sense to me that every commoner would just have 1 hp and move on. But with my system i can give them HD and even feats, and skills and etc that really match the character's life and personality. Now I'm not saying characters go around in universe going 'Oh no, he's not a fighter, he's a barbarian, clearly.' but I mean, there is a cognitive difference between -how- characters function that i like characters in game to be able to pick up on, especially if they're trained in a similar field. Also makes it so if the party picks up a NPC they won't be -as- useless as possible should stuff go sideways and the NPC gets involved with stuff. It's still 'protect the package' but the package isn't going to crumble because one monster got lucky one time. Honestly it doesn't come up narratively often, but I do like the idea of people in universe being aware of differences between classes because it just makes it all feel more engaging to me. But hey, we all do what is most fun for our groups right? Thanks for another fun video. Keep your stick on the ice.

I think another common reason for multiclassing, rather than seeking to be super powerful, is an attempt to mitigate significant weaknesses. e.g yan armor dip for a wizard. By the same token you can ask yourself if your character really wants to wear armor everywhere and be overheated and burdened that way... maybe not... maybe you dip artificer just to make a bag of holding, maybe you became a wizard because mage armor is enough to let you not wear uncomfortable armor...

When I started running my current campaign, I made it clear that if you are thinking of multiclassing, try and give me enough advanced notice so we can discuss it (because some of the players are newer to the game) and I would prefer to organically fit it into the game. And now I have a rogue about to take a level of warlock and a ranger about to dip into druid. Can't wait for the next big battle! It'll be an epic hero moment for the two of them.

It has never crossed my mind to ban multi tasking that’s wild to me. I’m my game I only have one player who is multi classing. That player was going from a cleric dipping in to paladin. At the time the players were taking a two week R&R to train themselves up before going back out to fight the war they are involved in. I have a simple system for allowing characters to improve their stats. I think I might make a house rule, allowing multi classing, but player should seek training in that class during their downtime, they don’t have the details worked out right now, but at least to me, it makes sense that the cleric should be able to transition into pin training easier than say barbarian, or a warlock. I don’t have any intent, either either way long as me and my table can come up with a house rule to justify it, narratively so fits mechanically.

Regarding amnesiacs , they would still be better if they have backstory. Even if the character doesn't know it, the player and DM should. The player can introduce quirks and habits based on the backstory. The player and DM can insert clues that might lead the party to discover the mystery of the back story. Regarding 'banning' I'd say you can only ban something that is optional. If you are 'banning' an integral part of the game, then you are homebrewing and not really banning.

I completely agree with your assertion that the inhabitants of the world do not "know" classes!

I didn't allow multiclassing unless "it made sense in the narrative" when I was a new DM. These days, I love players who have an "idea", which requires multiple classes, but also feel confident enough with the game that I can deal with any multiclass combo (other than basic rogue, hand crossbow, crossbow expert bullshit which is fully legit and broken as all hell)

11:23 I like to learn new things - if I were a D&D character I'd be a level 1 (closer to level zero) fighter/monk/artificer/druid/bard/rogue/cleric (if 1st aid and a long defunct religiosity count). It would make perfect narrative sense to say "my character wants to learn how to do 'blank.'"

I have concept of tiefling who tried to achieve immortality through necromancy. So he learn it as wizard, but he also made pact with dullahan, so he is also warlock. Naratively he should be more warlock, but mechanicaly he should be more necromancy wizard (because wizard have more necromancy options). But it must be warlock to have Form of Dread. I don't know if it would be OP or not. It's just interesting concept.

The only times I really care about like the narrative for multiclassing tends to revolve around the Warlock it's the only one I feel like really has like this outside force that kind of need some sort of narration but luckily for me the group that I've always played with that have those kinds of characters tend to be very good role players so they already come up with such things a little bit of the wizard also I guess kind of has some of that needed narration at least past level one cuz you're like at level one it's just like a single level you've learned a few little cantrips or something but once you start pursuing like further magic knowledge team to prefer if they take sorcerer because I feel like it just narratively makes more sense

Seems like, much like a lot of other problems that arise in TTRPGs, it boils down to communication and setting expectations before starting to play. One of my favorite characters of all time was a barbarian/druid multiclass. He started out as a trope-filled dumb brute barbarian, but as his story unfolded he learned to harness his anger (and the wild magic surges that it produced) and began to be able to control it. It made so much sense thematically to start taking levels in Druid. My DM and I sat down and discussed it and he was totally on board. RIP to that character, who heroically sacrificed himself to get his friends, who at the start of the journey he didn’t like very much, out of a very dire situation. It was a super satisfying arc, and the multiclass made it much more so.

There are certainly many reasons for and against it, but one chief argument against is because for at least casters, it will considerably slow down your capabilities. Martial classes stand to gain generally more, as it's a whole new set of complimentary features or an additional resource altogether - but being even one level behind for spells can feel rough and make one double-guess if the dip was worth it. Multiclassing can hinder the mechanical fun of a character, whereas single classes generally will pan out just fine. Conversely, multiclassing can also feel absolutely busted and make it harder to balance encounters - though this can be mitigated through some out of game talk: in my games for instance, I banned Hexblade but gave the Charisma for weapon attacks to all warlocks who have the pact of the blade with their chosen weapon.

I personally don't care for multi-classing for myself, but I don't care if other people do it. My thoughts for myself is that I like to get the full experience of a class, which you don't get when you multi-class. One issue that I do have is when multi-classing is spread too thinly. I tend to look at it from the teacher/instructor point of view. A rogue decides to train with a military outfit as a fighter and after six months to a year (gets 1 or 2 levels) quits. Then he decides he wants to pursue the life of a monk and joins a monastery, but again, quits after six months to a year. The character joins a temple and learns clerical skills, but the same cycle happens. Finally, he applies to a Wizard school hoping to study the arcane arts. The Wizard School would have every right to reject him if his previous history of not sticking with something has preceded him.

I don't prohibit multiclassing, but I strongly discourage doing it unless the it makes sense due to a direction the character has taken in story. My campaigns are definitely not for tactical "builds" of characters - and I like to give out powerful rewards that the players can't anticipate and plan around. Some multiclasses I discourage more than others, like Warlock, since IMO becoming a warlock should usually be a one-way street. Once you've made the pact, most typical patrons aren't going to want their tools to get distracted by other pursuits (or believe that their own power could be supplemented by some other source). But if a character wanted to take the plunge and just commit to a warlock pact henceforth, I'd be totally up for that

People are too rigid on “if ur this class then you have to be that thing”. If you are a wizard, and take a level of warlock, you can just flavor that as other magical abilities you have learned. But there are a bunch of losers out there that think “no, if you take a level of warlock, you have to be a warlock“

For me, part of the fanatsy of dnd is being strong, otherwise your character would die. This isn't the case in modern dnd but I tend to semi-optimize. I don't want to be stuck with a mediocre/bad build because that is not my fantasy. My problem with this is that there aren't a lot of different char options if you want this.

And no picking a fighter/Rogue isn't the only optimal build. It depends in your play style. The thing is most people just does Hack and slash. There are players that is more tactful and stealthy. There is Rogue/Mage Rogue/Artificer Rogue/Ranger. Could you imagine being an assassin type rogue that has both Sneak attack and favored enemy. Could you imagine that favored enemy was humanoid! Lol I could because i made my character like that and no I'm not a forever DM i do play too.

I love multiclassing, but I feel like some level of in-game justification is needed to explain why the fighter is suddenly casting spells. Maybe they had latent powers that awakened alongside repressed memories of their past. Maybe they accessed a deity/demon/spirit and made a deal. Maybe they were simply amazed by the stuff the party's wizard can do, and begged to be taught some of that knowledge. Stuff like that, makes it make sense to me, and it might even trigger a side quest or introduce a recurring NPC...

I personally allow multiclassing, so long as it's backed by the narrative, and we talk about it. My alternative suggestion is the class feats in Tasha's and some homebrew feats I've made or found.

I don't ban multiclassing, but I *do* work hard to protect character niches in both theme and ability. Multiclassing is one of the ways that can be threatened, so while I have never had to say no to my own players, I do always consider whether what they are taking will eat a slice of another player's pie. Fortunately, I find players instinctively avoid trying to make their characters too similar, so the niches remain protected.

Ive ben in groups that have multiclassed before. I myself have done it once. In our group, there is no rule against it. In my experience, I have seen it done for story purpose and I have seen it done for powergaming. Im not the biggest fan of the powergaming option. People sitting down studying for a long time to see how many levels of each class they can take in order to become the strongest, even if it makes no sense in the story. I muticlassed once when I had no plans to. The story took a turn and led to my charachter delving into a new way of life which mafe sense to add that multiclass. It wasnt planned but ended up being a lot of fun in the game it was in. Overeall, Id say I dont care what people do as long its fun for everyone involved.

Regarding the example that a warlock takes a level in paladin to "channel their patron's magic in another way" is really cool and works with all spellcasting classes except maybe wizard and artificer, but mostly because those two are just too heavily tied to spellbooks and magic items respectively (including in their casting mechanics), to work universally. Except that wizard-warlock multiclassing is actually very flavorful thanks to having access to the Book of Shadows... But generally I also follow the approach of level-ups being found in the narrative.. I'm just far less "strict" about it. A fighter who wants to learn a bit of "ugly" fighting tricks is fine enough for me to justify a level in rogue, and with that aforementioned approach to spellcasting multiclasses even that becomes easy enough to justify. Now if only there were GOOD reasons to multiclass into monk... xD

I don't ban multiclassing and actually help facilitate it by moving ASI at levels 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th to character level instead of class level. I have given up to 3 levels of a class on loan to characters for making difficult narrative choices. The loaned levels would not receive hit point increases and do not add to character level. The character's next level ups would have to go toward those loaned levels though.

Mike. Mike. Mike. Please. I cannot afford more dice. Stop forcing me to buy dice 😭

People may call multiclassing broken, yet one of the most powerful characters in my game is 100% artificer, and several of the multiclassed pcs are just as strong. If there’s a power level problem, it probably isn’t the multiclassing. And on level dipping, CyberpunkRED does something I think is cool, where a player can’t pick up a new role if they have less than 4 ranks in their existing roles, which limits the issue of having lots of unique abilities to trivialize encounters. Granted, the roles in CPR are much closer to carrier paths compared to dnd’s classes being one’s collection of skills and magic.

My only rule for multiclassing is the player just needs to give me a heads up that it’s coming, and if it’s a generally major change in their skill set, I ask for some minor character justification(ie a full martial gets spellcasting). Even then, I try and put the pieces down for them to have a narratively satisfying multiclass

I'd never ban something like multiclassing, but on the note of players who like to play optimised characters - it can provide a really difficult situation where one player is playing Superman and everyone else is playing Monty Python characters, because as DM I want to challenge the optimised character and not overwhelm the newbies, but I don't want to target the OP one because it'll look like victimising. If a player wants to multiclass for obviously mechanical reasons ("this is the best choice for this class at this level!") then I ask for narrative justification for where/why THIS skillset so the more narrative-oriented members of the group don't suffer for those decisions.

Honestly it’s never occurred to me to ban multiclassing, but then again I’ve never had a group that wasn’t roleplay-first,* so any multiclasses I’ve come up against have been more about flavour and development than optimisation. *I’ve only DMed for three groups so it’s not a large pool.