Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

Satyrn said:

Although I could see a compromise, where something like pming's suggested text is a sidebar suggesting that some DMs might want to use it as an optional rule when deciding to use multiclassing.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't suggest a hard rule. I do think the PHB could stand to remind players and DMs a little more to put some effort into making the multiclass plausible. "It's best to talk to your DM before multiclassing, and cooperate with them to work it into the story" is better than "You must inform your DM of your intention to multiclass by deadline X".

TheCosmicKid said:

If you need the "1st-Level Spellcasting" ability to get the "2nd-Level Spellcasting" ability, and the "2nd-Level Spellcasting" ability to get the "3rd-Level Spellcasting" ability, and so on, then that ordered list of abilities is a class

Click to expand...

Not if it's just one of many things a character can acquire.

. It's basically all the wizard class was in D&D until 5E.

Click to expand...

It was also HD, attack & save matrices, and learning another crappy weapon every 5th level, back in the day. Kits (backgrounds) & schools since 2e, skills & feats since 3e, class features since 4e...

I dunno about "exclusive", but other than that I think we're saying the same thing.

Click to expand...

Exclusive, yes, until you get into multiclassing to circumvent it.

pming said:

I beg to differ. Having something like this would do the trick, I think...

"In Game Considerations
Multiclassing can not just be taken on a whim. If you are planing on having your PC learn a level in another class, you must inform the DM at least one full level before you take on a new Class (e.g., a 4th level character could not add a new class at 5th level, but could at 6th). This gives both you and the DM time to work in just how the character learns the arts of Wizardry, or suddenly finds himself having visions from a particular deity, etc. This only applies to adding a new class, not another level to a class you already have. Remember, the Multiclassing rules are here for those who want to create a character who's abilities and skills don't quite fit into the Class system as presented here. With Muliclassing you and your DM can create unusual secret orders who's members are trained in the arts of Fighting as well as have innate magical abilities as Sorcerers, or perhaps there is a clan of Barbarians who have special individuals who are trained to use gurrila tactics of hit and run, communing with animals, watching the stars for portents, and speak in the sacred language of the Druids."

There. Now there's a rule. It fixed a "RP'ing problem".

Click to expand...

And in doing so? Quashed spontaneity & creative, unforeseen plot/character developments. Things vital to this game.

Tony Vargas said:

Exclusive, yes, until you get into multiclassing to circumvent it.

Click to expand...

Why is multiclassing "circumventing" anything? As far as I'm concerned, multiclassing is how classes are supposed to work.

TheCosmicKid said:

That can happen the the very next level, even if he doesn't multiclass: arcane trickster.

This is a houserule that you're welcome to implement, but it should not be in the PHB. It makes lots of assumptions about the pace of the campaign (is it days between leveling or years?), the narrative style (do they roleplay down time or handwave it?), and the nature of the classes (do they really need that much time to break through as a sorcerer or sign a deal with a devil?) that may be true at your table, but not others. Furthermore, it actively encourages preplanning character "builds", which a lot of roleplayers don't like. The open-ended approach WotC took is the correct one: present the basic rules, and leave it to the DM and player to work out the best explanation for the specific circumstances rather than impose one-size-fits-all limitations. Turning all the numbers into a compelling story is, as ever, your job.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

The core rules are silent on the issue because those are very group and style considerations, subjective setting, etc - not core rule mandates.

As I have been saying, if a player and gm are seeing one type of "leveling abstraction" as a problem, dont choose that one and choose another. It's what I did with my halfling, sow the seeds of considered multiclass at first level background and play them thru.No rule was broken by me doing that and so no rule requires it to be

pming said:

Hiya!

Phew! Lots to get to before I head of to bed...



A Rogue learning "Cunning Action" is a Rogue thing. A Rogue NOT learning "Cunning Action", but in stead knowing how magic works and being able to cast Cantrips and 1st level Wizard spells...when 8 hours ago he was finishing his dinner and beer down in the common room. HUGE difference, imnsho.



I beg to differ. Having something like this would do the trick, I think...

"In Game Considerations
Multiclassing can not just be taken on a whim. If you are planing on having your PC learn a level in another class, you must inform the DM at least one full level before you take on a new Class (e.g., a 4th level character could not add a new class at 5th level, but could at 6th). This gives both you and the DM time to work in just how the character learns the arts of Wizardry, or suddenly finds himself having visions from a particular deity, etc. This only applies to adding a new class, not another level to a class you already have. Remember, the Multiclassing rules are here for those who want to create a character who's abilities and skills don't quite fit into the Class system as presented here. With Muliclassing you and your DM can create unusual secret orders who's members are trained in the arts of Fighting as well as have innate magical abilities as Sorcerers, or perhaps there is a clan of Barbarians who have special individuals who are trained to use gurrila tactics of hit and run, communing with animals, watching the stars for portents, and speak in the sacred language of the Druids."

There. Now there's a rule. It fixed a "RP'ing problem".



It's not a matter of "it doesn't usually happen like that"...it's that there is nothing in the rules that prevent or even really deter it. As I listed in my example above, they designers could have come up with something to make MC'ing this way a little more...sensical. At least to my old eyes anyway.

Just like Feats, I'm glad others use them and have fun. I'm also glad that MC and Feats are both listed as OPTIONAL. But for me (and my group), they just don't. Our games run fine without Feats and Multiclassing, so...yeah.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Click to expand...

Ok so to you there is a line between spontaneous abilities which pop up without previous in game events foreshadowing them that are ok and some that aren't and you want that line to be codified in rules to match your subjective sub-sets. Great.

I prefer them having a core rules to that is a little more flexible than that.

As for your new rule, doing exactly what you describe in an AL official game would afaik break no rule. It does not break any phb rule to tell your gm ahead of time and to work your future multiclass options into the game.

So, that rule is not needed to enable the gameplay style and choices you want. It's totally fine within the RAW to do that.

So, what you seem to be after is a rule stopping others who have different preferences from playing by those within RAW.

I prefer core roles allowing more flexibility to those playstyles to choose how those elements play out in game.

Edit and Aside
In my current game... in addition to my character whose background and in-play performance sell both the potential multi-class choices I foresee the other expected MC is a rogue going fighter who also sold that idea to the GM at charger - so have them heads up. No rule was needed for this to be done and no rule was broken when it happened. So, not seeing a need to add a rule to enable it in your 5e games.

Now, technically, my sorc has other mc options open such as rogue and fighter. With 3 other rogues in party plus certain background elements a rogue twist could easily be possible caused on developing story but it's not one I actively sought to include. Fighter I cannot see happening but it certainly could develop out of story with a shift to having sorc spells focus in on supporting a stealth fighter role.

TheCosmicKid said:

Why is multiclassing "circumventing" anything?

Click to expand...

To model a wider range of characters without creating a class for each. Multiclassing options move a game from the class based extreme towards a build system. 3e is an example of a hybrid of the two, though still clearly on the class side since it preserves exclusivity with distinctions like class level, favored classes and exp penalties.
5e, as always it seems when compared to 3e, is muddled, it eliminates exp penalties/favored classes, makes class level a less prominent restriction, but adds preqs for MCing, defends against 'dipping' and of course, makes MCing explicitly optional.

Tony Vargas said:

To model a wider range of characters without creating a class for each. Multiclassing options move a game from the class based extreme towards a build system. 3e is an example of a hybrid of the two, though still clearly on the class side since it preserves exclusivity with distinctions like class level, favored classes and exp penalties.

Click to expand...

You missed my point. You keep writing stuff with the implicit assumption that exclusivity is an essential feature of a class system and multiclassing rules in some way reduce a system's "classiness". I am challenging that assumption. It's like claiming that a bicycle with a gearshift is less of a bicycle.

TheCosmicKid said:

You missed my point. You keep writing stuff with the implicit assumption that exclusivity is an essential feature of a class system .

Click to expand...

Exclusivity is a key feature of class systems, yes. If any character can take any feature, at the same 'cost,' you have a classless system.

Tony Vargas said:

Exclusivity is a key feature of class systems, yes. If any character can take any feature, at the same 'cost,' you have a classless system.

Click to expand...

Is D&D a classless system?