Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Tony Vargas]

Is D&D a classless system?

No, there are many options that are exclusive by class or race, for instance, or come at a different cost to different classes, etc...

D&D has long moved towards classlessness, just never very far or fast. 5e is, as in so many ways, between the other WotC eds and the TSR eds, that way.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it.

You could solve that by requiring training for levelling, the way OD&D required.

GM: You have the XP for level 7? Excellent, now you need the 7 weeks of training. What are you training in? Warlock? Cool, that will cost you X gold.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

No, there are many options that are exclusive by class or race, for instance, or come at a different cost to different classes, etc...

And is there any part of this statement that is rendered any less true if a character can possess multiple classes?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

You could solve that by requiring training for levelling, the way OD&D required.

GM: You have the XP for level 7? Excellent, now you need the 7 weeks of training. What are you training in? Warlock? Cool, that will cost you X gold.

You picked one of the things I never really liked in 1e/HM4...lol! We never used it because it felt too much like the PC's were going to "school". And, being around 12 years old or so when I started with AD&D back in '82...it rubbed us the wrong way.

I did, however, work out a method for HM4 (that's Hackmaster 4th, not the "new" hackmaster) where the PC would have a tally of time and money that they had to spend before they got to next level. Sort of like "pre-spending" the time/money. I also had it be more or less self-trained and the expenses was based on the PC's race, class and social rank (e.g. a MMC human fighter would be spending money on eating better, changing up his daily workout, buying weapons and practicing with them, etc; a MUC human fighter would spend it on some of the same, but a lot would go towards a personal tutor from an actual knight that owes his family a favour or whatnot).

The character wouldn't actually gain his new level until he had spent the required time and money. This had a great in-game effect...the players would actively do stuff "class/race/social status oriented" during the game sessions. Like when they get back to town and one PC isn't really hurt bad so the PC would spend the next day or two buying scrolls, hitting the library, praying with new religious texts, getting tips from the local thieves' guild, etc. It was the "down time" as it's called in 5e I guess. But more detailed and more specific to the Race/Class and Social Status of the character. Pretty cool now that I'm remembering it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Warpiglet]

Respectfully, I am not sure where the distaste for multiclassing started!

In 1e demihumans were able to do so. It was assumed that they had more than one sort of knowledge/ability baked into their 'concept' and no one I knew ever balked at it.

Now, some express concerns about multiclassing being too artificial. Perhaps that is because you can "suddenly" take on a class which seems to have no relationship to your history or character. I guess I can see where there is an issue for some campaigns here.

In my groups, both the ones I play in and DM, there is no issue. We talk about what the character is supposed to be--have an idea and then foreshadow it.

For my part, I like arcane casters who can also fight in melee. Even if I were to say start as fighter, I make sure I am taking arcana or magic initiate or the sage background...something. At second level, it is no shock that the character has interest in magic.

What does blow me away is the absolute hatred for multiclassing as artificial or contrived. The whole concept of classes and levels is artificial and contrived but we are conditioned to accept them. I feel NO SHAME about wanting to play a fighter magic user or whatever. Those abilities in combination seem fun to me, fit with the game and make sense as anything else. I do not think that Eldritch Knight, even with feats, provides quite enough magic for my taste and therefore either blade pact warlock or multiclassing.

Look back at 1e and the discussion of multiclassing. They talk about the strengths of the combinations. Fighter clerics can use better edged weapons! Cleric magic users have better defensive options! It did not appear that anyone was having heart burn about this. It was assumed that people wanted a certain style of play and the RP would follow.

I am no apologist for some late game addition of a class to get an extra +1 here or there if it is foreign to the concept. But my approach i am learning is this: I want to adventure and overcome challenges in game. There are different styles of meeting those challenges. Sometimes I want one and sometimes another. Multiclassing seems to offer more styles. You are no more forced to roleplay a champion fighter than a wizard rogue and so many of the RP arguments, fluff as I termed it don't move me. Unless of course there is little concept to start with...or there is a cheese factory being made or something.

I guess I have concluded for myself that many choices are about the style and mechanic one might prefer but that is OK...where I start to feel some trepidation is when it is less about a style and an approach to the challenges of the game and more about incremental efficacy (stacking stuff a la prestige classes or pathinder). The latter approach leaves me cold but I think is a far cry from multiclassing in the general sense.

If you do not think it fits the lore, I might ask in which case and in which what world. Because hopefully you are not telling me you cannot fathom a fighter/rogue...

 

[Tony Vargas]

And is there any part of this statement that is rendered any less true if a character can possess multiple classes?

It's assuming characters can do that. But, such is only optional in 5e, so when that option is exercised, the statement is "more true" in the sense that exclusivity is more pronounced and applies to more featuers.

Respectfully, I am not sure where the distaste for multiclassing started!

In 1e demihumans were able to do so. It was assumed that they had more than one sort of knowledge/ability baked into their 'concept' and no one I knew ever balked at it.

A lot of people balked at 1e MCing. Not that demi-humans could do it, but that they could do it with only certain class combos, and had level limits, and/or that humans couldn't MC.

In one of the basic sets (not the one I played c1979), there wasn't demi-human MCing, instead 'Elf' was essentially a Fighter/Magic-user class in itself - kinda like a 5e EK or Bladesinger. IDK when MCing made it into 0e.

Now, some express concerns about multiclassing being too artificial. Perhaps that is because you can "suddenly" take on a class which seems to have no relationship to your history or character. I guess I can see where there is an issue for some campaigns here.

And not an issue for 1e non-/demi- human MCing, which was MC'd from 1st level on. It's long been an objection to 3e-style 'modular' MCing.

What does blow me away is the absolute hatred for multiclassing as artificial or contrived. The whole concept of classes and levels is artificial and contrived but we are conditioned to accept them.

I thought we'd long since been conditioned to accept multi-classing, too.

If you do not think it fits the lore, I might ask in which case and in which what world. Because hopefully you are not telling me you cannot fathom a fighter/rogue...

Classes are innately limiting, and being able to mix them opens up the possibilty of modeling more concepts without adding too many more classes... In an old Dragon mag, there was a " 'Bandit' (Unofficial NPC) Class," that was essentially a Fighter/Thief, so a human could mix the skills of both (I played one through 8th level back in the day, fairly awesome, in large part because of magic items, and a little broken, because whoever designed Bandit kinda 'averaged' the two classes, so it advanced /faster/ than a fighter). That's an example of what more open MCing gains you (helps you avoid).

Taken to the logical extreme, a 'pure' class-based system would need one class for each and every character concept out there.

 

[ad_hoc]

Respectfully, I am not sure where the distaste for multiclassing started!

In 1e demihumans were able to do so. It was assumed that they had more than one sort of knowledge/ability baked into their 'concept' and no one I knew ever balked at it.

I think the better question is why we don't count Subclasses as Multiclassing.

They're an elegant and thematic way of handling it. It leaves design space open, avoids chassis conflicts (for example, why is Class X/Class Y different than Class Y/Class X? In many cases drastically so), avoids messy complications which bog the game down, and has themes built into them (with the exception of the Fighter which was a mistake in general).

If you want a combination that is not covered the easy way is to make a new feat. Slightly more work is to make a new subclass. In either case it will be better than the mess and ugliness that is multiclassing.

 

[Warpiglet]

I think the better question is why we don't count Subclasses as Multiclassing.

They're an elegant and thematic way of handling it. It leaves design space open, avoids chassis conflicts (for example, why is Class X/Class Y different than Class Y/Class X? In many cases drastically so), avoids messy complications which bog the game down, and has themes built into them (with the exception of the Fighter which was a mistake in general).

If you want a combination that is not covered the easy way is to make a new feat. Slightly more work is to make a new subclass. In either case it will be better than the mess and ugliness that is multiclassing.

I guess those things don't bother me any more than why one subclass is different than another. They are just game abstractions to me. I like feats and subclasses but do not see why me playing a fighter sorcerer or whatever is problematic. If I am able to keep track of spells and hit points and feats, it should work fine. And story wise, I cannot see how, particularly if your backstory telegraphs it, taking a level in another class at second level is an issue.

I respect other people's preferences and could play in a game with no optional rules but as the discussion has moved on, I realize I am OK with people multiclassing if it is done well and with intention.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think the better question is why we don't count Subclasses as Multiclassing.

They're an elegant and thematic way of handling it. It leaves design space open, avoids chassis conflicts (for example, why is Class X/Class Y different than Class Y/Class X? In many cases drastically so), avoids messy complications which bog the game down, and has themes built into them (with the exception of the Fighter which was a mistake in general).

If you want a combination that is not covered the easy way is to make a new feat. Slightly more work is to make a new subclass. In either case it will be better than the mess and ugliness that is multiclassing.

I disagree completely. Subclasses (and hybrid classes) are an inelegant way to handle multiclassing because each combination of classes requires a different rules entity, inflating the necessary amount of rules multiplicatively. You said it yourself: to get an uncovered combination, you have to homebrew. It eats up page count or creative time and energy to create each new combination. That is the opposite of leaving design space open. That is a system which makes you reinvent the wheel 12 x 11 times. (More, once you start adding new classes to the game.) A single set of rules which lets you immediately create any class combination is vastly more elegant. If one of my players wants to be a bard/monk, I don't have to do a thing.

Subclasses may be thematic for cases when the character truly combines multiple disciplines into a single distinct career path, but they are not thematic at all for cases when a character changes careers. Conan began as a barbarian but spent years living as a thief. The Grey Mouser began as a wizard's apprentice but abandoned it to become a swashbuckler. Neither of character developments would be well modeled by combining the classes with a subclass and thus advancing simultaneously in both.

Furthermore, using the subclass to multiclass crowds out the ability to take another subclass. I already hinted at this: Conan is a thief. The Mouser is a swashbuckler. Far from being thematic, subclassing would eliminate these themes from the character. Further still, subclasses are a one-and-done deal, preventing a character from changing careers again, which of course Conan did (and the Mouser likely picked up some fighter levels too).

Chassis conflicts, too, are exacerbated by the subclass system. A fighter 1/wizard 1 may be somewhat different than a wizard 1/fighter 1, but the differences pale in comparison to those between an eldritch knight and a bladesinger.

So those are my clear and specific reasons for disagreeing with almost everything you said. But I'm sure if you just keep repeating empty phrases like "messy complications" and "ugliness", I'll come around to your point of view eventually.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I disagree completely. Subclasses (and hybrid classes) are an inelegant way to handle multiclassing because each combination of classes requires a different rules entity, inflating the necessary amount of rules multiplicatively. You said it yourself: to get an uncovered combination, you have to homebrew. It eats up page count or creative time and energy to create each new combination. That is the opposite of leaving design space open. That is a system which makes you reinvent the wheel 12 x 11 times.

Darn it, now I have to go and agree with you. And we were having such a nice argument.

Sub-classes are in essence a way of hiding class proliferation. Instead of admitting you have 40 classes, some of them really kinda redundant, you bundle them under a few classes and call them sub-classes. They can, and in 5e do, stand in for specific MC combos, presumably, the most popular ones - like Fighter/Magic-user, which gets /both/ a fighter archetype and a wizard tradition! But, they carry almost all the same problems as just having tons more classes, /and/, when you do give up and opt-into multiclassing, they actually work less well with it, since you can't multi-sub-class within one class...

Furthermore, using the subclass to multiclass crowds out the ability to take another subclass. I already hinted at this: Conan is a thief. The Mouser is a swashbuckler. Far from being thematic, subclassing would eliminate these themes from the character. Further still, subclasses are a one-and-done deal, preventing a character from changing careers again, which of course Conan did (and the Mouser likely picked up some fighter levels too).

That is an issue with the way sub-classes are done in 5e, yes. Concievably, they could be done in different ways, but it would have to be a fundamental differece, nothing that could help 5e at this late date.