Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

lowkey13 · Aug 29, 2018

*Deleted by user*

MNblockhead · Aug 29, 2018

I like both. One reason I like shorter campaigns with milestone leveling is that I get to run a variety of different styles.

I've run non-multiclassing and had fun. Usually, multi-classing is allowed and that's fun too.

No magic-user campaigns are fun and all magic-user campaigns are also fun.

Of course, nothing beats an all LG Paladin game. Murder hobos have nothing on Crusaders. Paladins definitely don't make for a low-key game though.

Warpiglet · Aug 29, 2018

lowkey13 said:
Ignore what other people prescribe*. Live a little. End your sentences with prepositions.

Play a game with no feats and no multiclassing. Play a kitchen sink game. Ignore the haters and have some fun.

PS- The one really weird thing about 1e (okay, one of the really weird things) was the bizarre gatekeeping for powerful classes. It was twofold-
a. First, you had to be superpowerful in order to be EVEN MORE POWERFUL. "You can't be a Paladin unless you already have killer stats, dude!" Because that totally makes sense.

b. Second, if a class was too powerful, there would be arbitrary limits on it that would almost always end up being ignored. "No adventuring with non-good people." "No magic items." Etc.

That was seriously bad design.

*Unless the people are awesome, like me, and telling you to get rid of Paladins, which is the common-sense and moral thing to do.

There was some bad design I suppose in the sense that the first cars suck compared to any car today. I am amazed at how cool it was to play warts and all!

As to ignoring people...yeah...but it is fun to exchange ideas and rationales sometimes.

In the campaign I run currently, there is multi classing. I just started as a PC in a friend's campaign...I am level two with two classes. I don't regret either decision. As a DM, I don't always 'like' PC decisions but I ignore them unless they are too gonzo or distracting. Living on the edge...making old neckbeards angry! What could be more fulfilling?

Nevertheless, people amaze me in their choices and zealotry...

Kobold Boots · Aug 29, 2018

In my opinion:

1. Multi-classing was a response to the old way of gaming where you had a main player character who kept with him a large retinue of retainers. If you played using retainer rules then multi-classing wasn't really necessary.

2. If you use multi-classing rules then retainers become either unnecessary or less important.

So if you don't like multi-classing; just roll yourself back to 1e retainer rules and be done with the discussion. One way or another you need to allow the players to have access to skills they don't otherwise have if the group is small.

Be well
KB

The Crimson Binome · Aug 29, 2018

I buy a game book because I want to know how their world works. If you include the multi-classing rules, then that world isn't inherently better or worse for it, but it is more complicated for no obvious gain.

If you say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, then that is a useful note which helps me understand the world better. If you say that some Paladins are also Warlocks, then that gives me less of an idea about what it means to be a Paladin.

TwoSix · Aug 29, 2018

I tend to see a correlation between multiclassing preference and whether classes are viewed as simply character building tools, or as concepts that exist within the narrative of the game world.

If you see "wizard" or "ranger" as something that is an identifiable concept in the game world that is attached to PCs or NPCs, than multiclassing can muddy those concepts.

5ekyu · Aug 29, 2018

Saelorn said:
I buy a game book because I want to know how their world works. If you include the multi-classing rules, then that world isn't inherently better or worse for it, but it is more complicated for no obvious gain.

If you say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, then that is a useful note which helps me understand the world better. If you say that some Paladins are also Warlocks, then that gives me less of an idea about what it means to be a Paladin.

To me thid gets down to a core definition of what "class" means.

You are describing classes as if they are characters - from my pov.

I see classes as more just packages of things tied together - with a lot, vast wide gulf - or reflections of that in the "character".

A cleric war domain could be the warrior pruliest of savage barbarian tribes - and so a mc to barbarian makes that seem right.

A cleric war domain might also be master general templar setving a holy army - maybe mc batylemaster or maybe straight war cleric.

To me the classrs are not "what it means to be a paladin" as much as its an opportunity to use these to show "what it means to be this character."

So, if it fit my setting, there would defibitely be an order (or more) of LG only types serving this god or that - but the setting defining thing is the Order, not the class.

But thats me.

The class v character debate wont ever end, its preference.

Warpiglet · Aug 29, 2018

Saelorn said:
I buy a game book because I want to know how their world works. If you include the multi-classing rules, then that world isn't inherently better or worse for it, but it is more complicated for no obvious gain.

If you say that Paladins are always Lawful Good, then that is a useful note which helps me understand the world better. If you say that some Paladins are also Warlocks, then that gives me less of an idea about what it means to be a Paladin.

This is an important point of clarification for me. This really says where the PC is facing.

I realize now in my middle age that I like a collaboration which start with the player (whether I am player or DM). PC has an idea for something fun to play. Player present to DM. DM suggests edits or changes that fit world.

I prefer this to the world suggests: X. If my world has no multiclassed casters or clerics or whatever, I am actually inclined to figure out why and how the PC is unique and breaks assumptions. Totally a style and perspective theme and realize it does not work for everyone...

Currently I pushed for monotheism and a player had an idea for a rune loving forge tending Norse character. I found a reason for this exception in my world. He is seen as a heathen and won't hold high station anywhere, barring extraordinary circumstances. The party is currently engaging in things which might bend the campaign world toward their desires. They may help save the monotheistic hierarchy. If they do, they may be some of the first heathens to be land and office holders. We shall see.
I

Grognerd · Aug 29, 2018

My preference is no multiclassing in 5e. So while I wouldn't outright ban it necessarily, I would dissuade it. My rationales, such as they are:

1. The class supposedly represents more than a job or a bit of training. Supposedly - according to fluff text, sure - it represents and investment of years of training both skillsets and, far more critically, mindsets into a particular role. So there is that.

2. By and large, the sub-classes within 5e eliminate the most of the old school, basic multi-class needs. Eldritch Knight covers the Fighter-Magic User. Clerics with War domains cover Fighter-Clerics (Arcana domain for multi- with Magic Users, Trickery for multi- with Thieves). Arcane Trickster for Thief-Magic User. Etc.

3. IF - and yes, this is a big if - the campaign did go into the upper levels, the best features in a class are the upper level ones. Why miss out on what is likely the primary appeal of class X for a dip in class Y, when generally speaking many of the functions of class Y are already covered by either sub-classes, backgrounds (skill selection options), or (I know you won't like this) Feats.

Now, as I mentioned, those are simply my druthers. They aren't carved in stone. But I'll encourage them. The nice thing - in my opinion - about 5e is that generally speaking you don't need to have every class represented, as you often seemed to in 1e (or even in 2e). In one of my current games where I am a player, it is a two person team: a Paladin of Lathander (Devotion) and a Cleric of Lathander (Life). While we are decidedly not stealthy, we haven't had a major problem with many situations due to skill selections, careful spell-casting, complimentary tactics, and background abilities.

Of course, YMMV. That's just my thoughts.

Warpiglet · Aug 29, 2018

Grognerd said:
My preference is no multiclassing in 5e. So while I wouldn't outright ban it necessarily, I would dissuade it. My rationales, such as they are:

1. The class supposedly represents more than a job or a bit of training. Supposedly - according to fluff text, sure - it represents and investment of years of training both skillsets and, far more critically, mindsets into a particular role. So there is that.

2. By and large, the sub-classes within 5e eliminate the most of the old school, basic multi-class needs. Eldritch Knight covers the Fighter-Magic User. Clerics with War domains cover Fighter-Clerics (Arcana domain for multi- with Magic Users, Trickery for multi- with Thieves). Arcane Trickster for Thief-Magic User. Etc.

3. IF - and yes, this is a big if - the campaign did go into the upper levels, the best features in a class are the upper level ones. Why miss out on what is likely the primary appeal of class X for a dip in class Y, when generally speaking many of the functions of class Y are already covered by either sub-classes, backgrounds (skill selection options), or (I know you won't like this) Feats.

Now, as I mentioned, those are simply my druthers. They aren't carved in stone. But I'll encourage them. The nice thing - in my opinion - about 5e is that generally speaking you don't need to have every class represented, as you often seemed to in 1e (or even in 2e). In one of my current games where I am a player, it is a two person team: a Paladin of Lathander (Devotion) and a Cleric of Lathander (Life). While we are decidedly not stealthy, we haven't had a major problem with many situations due to skill selections, careful spell-casting, complimentary tactics, and background abilities.

Of course, YMMV. That's just my thoughts.

I absolutely think that discouraging choices in a campaign vs. outright banning them is the best route.

We played evil groups a few times and had a few underdark members a few of those. It gets damn tedious having to hide in the woods or split the party when you want to rest in a civilized area. The "reality" of the campaign meant fewer drow for example.

As to the point about mindsets and fluff: I don't choose to negate them, I combine them. With my recent PC, a level or two of cleric does not seem so alien for a celestial pact warlock. Many of his spells are on the list of the warlock (some are not) and his heavier armor is in no way inconsistent with his mercenary veteran background. I look at the history and combination as an interrelated whole and not mutually exclusionary.

The net effect in my friend's campaign has been that I have done more utility detect spells than a warlock as of 2nd level. However, I am able to be up front more which I enjoy. Again, I would not take my dice and go home if he said no multiclassing. I would have taken a cleric or more likely moderately armored feat with the warlock.

The story would not be hugely different.