Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[cbwjm]

Saying that barbarian is a Str based class is kinda like saying rain is wet. Of course it is. My issue is with the idea that barbarians are somehow the "peak of human strength". There are other Str based classes in the game. And you can certainly play a 16 Str barbarian every effectively. Heck, even a 14 Str Barbarian works.

Well it sounded from your earlier posts that you didn't think this was the case by saying they get almost no benefit from strength. They may not be peak, but with rage they can definitely gain more mileage out of their strength score than a similarly scored fighter could get. This might be where the arguement for peak is coming.

I agree that a 14 works. Any class works with a 14, less than a +2 bonus to your main stat and I think you're going to have a bad time.

 

[Maxperson]

Since when are Barbarians the "peak of human strength"? You are adding definitions here that don't actually exist in the game. Note, it's not 3e. Barbarians gain exactly ZERO bonuses to strength. Nothing. Heck, in our current D&D game, both the cleric and the paladin are stronger than the barbarian (to be fair, the cleric has Gauntlets of Ogre Power, but, still, there's nothing preventing me from becoming stronger than the Barbarian).

Heck, Barbarian as a class gets exactly zero class benefits from a high strength. All of their class benefits are derived from Dex and Con. They can't wear heavy armor, so, they don't need Str there. They have one Strength based class skill - Athletics. Sure, they get advantage on Athletics and Strength checks while raging, but, again, they get that regardless of whatever their strength actually is.

You are inserting what you think that a barbarian is without any actual references to what the class says.

Which has been my issue here all the way along. Hey, you can interpret the class whatever way floats your boat. But, please stop trying to claim that your interpretation is, in any way, actually directly supported by the text. It's not. It's your preferences and that's fine. But, as far as any objective claims go, you're very much mistaken.

Dude. Their iconic class ability, rage, is almost entirely about strength and their two highest class features are about strength. Reality floats my boat. What's floating yours?

 

[Arial Black]

Well, in an ideal world, you're right. But we are human beings of human emotions, so I will use an extreme example to show why this isn't true. Imagine you create your favorite character, as always, Legolas the Elven Ranger. Now someone else joins your table, and knowing your choice, creates, "Megolas, the Elven Ranger." Again, just like the restaurant example I used, maybe this isn't a problem. Or maybe this is! Because humans are mysterious creatures that do not work entirely by logic, but by emotion and social compact.

I invariably try to avoid treading on other players' toes this way, and encourage others to do the same, by the simple expedient of getting the players together as soon as the new campaign is announced and discuss who wants to play what type of character. That way we can ensure a well-balanced party, or even a deliberately unbalanced party (as opposed to an inadvertently unbalanced one).

If a player replaces one PC with another, that player will already take into account the party make-up so can choose a class/race/etc. accordingly.

If a new player wants to join, they aren't told what class they MUST play, they are told what the rest of the party already is.

Once I was dragged to a university RPG club night. He attended that university as a mature student, while I never attended any university. We looked for a game to join, and the only one available was a game of Basic. Now this was around the late '90s, and up to that point had played 1e and 2e AD&D for about 20 years, but never actually played Basic or the other BECMI set. After all, I started with ADVANCED D&D, why would I go and play the training wheels version?

I fancied playing an elf, which I knew was both race AND class in this game (unlike in REAL D&D!), but one player (who had been playing this campaign for a while) was already playing an elf. Not wanting to tread on her toes, I thought I'd ask her what weapon she was using so that I could deliberately choose something different. When I asked, her reply was, "I don't know, but it does 1d8 damage".

But the point is, this is not a game RULE! It is etiquette. I can understand why someone would be upset if my PC took their party status as 'best X' in the group away. But I do not understand why a player playing, say, a rogue would be upset if my PC was a fighter/mage when they would not be upset if I were playing a fighter or a mage.

Again, just because you don't understand someone else's preferences, doesn't mean they don't exist, or are less valid.

So why is my preference to play a multiclass PC less valid than theirs? Why am I not allowed to play my preference but they are allowed to play theirs? Why would it upset them?

 

[Arial Black]

We measure classes relative to other classes. That ultimately is the name of the game. In a game with only fighters, rogues and wizards the fighter is clearly the strongest and most able to endure physical pain and trials.

You mean....we did this back when there were only three classes: fighting man, magic-user and cleric? That was before I started playing. When I started it was AD&D 1e, and I can't remember any player of a fighter complaining that the players of rangers or paladins were 'taking their fun away' because they could also have 18/% strength.

Introducing the barbarian class into such a game takes away from who the fighter used to be. He is no longer the strongest or most able to endure physical pain. Adding that barbarian to the game takes away from my character conception just by virtue of being there.

The same happens with multiclassibg too.

The game has included more than three or four classes, and multiclassing, since the mid '70s. Forty years later, why would any player of 5e (especially one who's D&D experience only includes 3e and after) be upset that more than one class relies on strength?

There are many RPGs that do not have the concept of 'character class' as part of their mechanics. The phenomenon you described could only exist pre-AD&D, and even then only if there were two players to start with and a new player chose your class instead of the third class.

So, today, I join a party of five players and the barbarian's player gets upset if I play a fighter on the grounds that I might have a higher strength?

At some point we have to recognise that although some upsets are justified, some are not.

 

[Arial Black]

Yes, they bulked up. They did not bulk up to the peak of human strength like Barbarians do.

My PHB must be faulty!

Mine misses out the part where barbarians get a free 16 in Str.

Or is it that players of barbarians are compelled, RAW, to put their highest score in Str?

The last barbarian I created was for a games day-type event. Point-buy, PHB only, 5th level.

I made a Bar 5, acolyte background (based on the comic character Zealot from Wildcats). She played like a paladin, attitude-wise, according to the rest of my party after the game.

Str 14 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8

She only has 14 Str! It's not her highest score! Which rule did I break? What makes her 'Not A REAL Barbarian'? Should the event organisers have been called over and my PC disallowed because her lack of strength 'upset' one of the other players? What about choosing the acolyte background; was that too 'upsetting' to be allowed?

Are the players of rapier-wielding Dex barbs breaking the rules? Would the appearance of a Dex barb cause that PC to be thrown out of the game because other players found the concept 'upsetting'?

 

[FrogReaver]

You mean....we did this back when there were only three classes: fighting man, magic-user and cleric? That was before I started playing. When I started it was AD&D 1e, and I can't remember any player of a fighter complaining that the players of rangers or paladins were 'taking their fun away' because they could also have 18/% strength.

No. We still do it. Just because more classes have ultimately changed your conception of what defines each class doesn't mean you don't still do it.

The game has included more than three or four classes, and multiclassing, since the mid '70s. Forty years later, why would any player of 5e (especially one who's D&D experience only includes 3e and after) be upset that more than one class relies on strength?

Have you forgotten the basic rules of 5e are free and only include 4 classes? So going from a game world where fighter there is clearly the strongest and most able to endure pain (at least if you want him to be) then you already have your concept of what your fighter based on what other classes are in the game. Introducing a barbarian to such a game would destroy your class concept. Likewise if the barbarian was available when you began the game then if you were creating a character towards the strongest most able to endure pain concept then you wouldn't have picked fighter in the first place but instead picked barbarian.

Having the option available changes the realities of what a class is and represents in the game.

So if a player dislikes multiclassing for whatever reason. Then allowing multiclassing to be in the game does actively take away some from the concepts he is able to play because class concepts are relative to the other classes / multiclass combinations that are in the game and since he won't multiclass then those represented in this game by multiclassing are out for him. If such a game had remained single class based then one of the single class characters would now fit that conceptual space the best and he could play whatever concept you think got removed by not having multiclassing.

There are many RPGs that do not have the concept of 'character class' as part of their mechanics. The phenomenon you described could only exist pre-AD&D, and even then only if there were two players to start with and a new player chose your class instead of the third class.

Unless you are talking classless RPG's then class concept is derived for most people from the classes fluff and mechanics. So I think you are reaching a bit here.

Also don't try to obscure what is happening just because the best examples can be found in lower class games. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist in high number of class games, it's just that it is harder to spot.

So, today, I join a party of five players and the barbarian's player gets upset if I play a fighter on the grounds that I might have a higher strength?

If it has already been established that Fighters exist in the world and he has accepted that then he won't be mad but his concept won't necessarily rely on being the strongest etc as it may have otherwise.

At some point we have to recognise that although some upsets are justified, some are not.

Taking away someones class concept just because you want more options is never justified. Also, saying they can play it if they want but only having it available to be played through multiclassing or some other mechanic they personally dislike is just as bad.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Giving a half-orc the street urchin background is like giving someone born and raised in the middle of a desert the sailor background. Can you pick it by RAW? Sure. Does it make any sense at all? Nope. Street urchins are small and weak. It's what makes them urchins and not toughs or other street people. I suppose if you wanted to play the half-orc runt of the litter who was small and weak, then sure, I'd be okay with him being an urchin. But the typical half-orc won't be one.

There is no Charles Dickens archetype of street urchin. Street urchins were small and weak before he ever began writing. He liked to use them in his books, but he didn't create the idea that they were small and weak.

I have a certain amount of realism that I like, and I like words to have meaning. A street urchin is called what it is in 5e BECAUSE of what they are in the real world. The name evokes an image, and if you are going to use that name on an image that is nothing like what it is intended to evoke, it's jarring. Just like a desert "sailor" who has never seen a boat.

I always try to say yes, but the yes MUST be something that makes sense, like my half-orc runt street urchin.

I think that perhaps there may be a more constructive approach for the people discussing this with you.

Your objection to the character using the barbarian class mechanics and the Street Urchin background is that "Street Urchin" is a specific phrase outside of the mechanics, with real-world historical implications and baggage about what they look like etc? That you view characters using the barbarian class mechanics as being required to have a high strength? And that you see the character background as what the character still is, or at least was immediately before that game starts?

And that a fellow player wanting to try aforesaid concept (Street tough that used to be an Urchin and that uses the class mechanics of the barbarian class to represent their capabilities.) would be disruptive enough to your immersion as a player that you would ask them to not play that character?

Customising backgrounds isn't even an 'Optional Rule'. Its a base feature. Would a custom background called . . . Street Tough or something similar, with the same features as the Street Urchin background solve the conceptual issue that people have been discussing with you?

 

[FrogReaver]

My PHB must be faulty!

Mine misses out the part where barbarians get a free 16 in Str.

Or is it that players of barbarians are compelled, RAW, to put their highest score in Str?

The last barbarian I created was for a games day-type event. Point-buy, PHB only, 5th level.

I made a Bar 5, acolyte background (based on the comic character Zealot from Wildcats). She played like a paladin, attitude-wise, according to the rest of my party after the game.

Str 14 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 10 Wis 12 Cha 8

She only has 14 Str! It's not her highest score! Which rule did I break? What makes her 'Not A REAL Barbarian'? Should the event organisers have been called over and my PC disallowed because her lack of strength 'upset' one of the other players? What about choosing the acolyte background; was that too 'upsetting' to be allowed?

Are the players of rapier-wielding Dex barbs breaking the rules? Would the appearance of a Dex barb cause that PC to be thrown out of the game because other players found the concept 'upsetting'?

I don't even think this post deserves a response.

Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution. Wizards in D&D cast spells. (Well at least until a player decides to play a character against type and then you have a wizard swinging a sword casting no spells and a barbarian being dexterous instead of strong). Hey it's cool players can do such things if they want with varying degrees of mechanical effectiveness but no matter how many exceptions you try citing everyone is still going to believe barbarians are the strong and hearty class and that wizards are the magic non-sword swinging class.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Strength attacks also means that using a finesse weapon or a bow for instance doesn't benefit from rage, the class needs strength to really benefit from rage otherwise the class defining ability is pretty useless.

I'm pretty sure than you can use weapons with the Finesse property just fine as a barbarian while raging, and get the benefits of rage. Just because you have the option of using Dex for them, doesn't mean that you have to.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm pretty sure than you can use weapons with the Finesse property just fine as a barbarian while raging, and get the benefits of rage. Just because you have the option of using Dex for them, doesn't mean that you have to.

But if you only have 10 strength and 16 dex it does make you want to!!!