Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[cbwjm]

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.

You're right, I wrote that wrong, I should have said you don't gain the rage bonuses when using finesse weapons with dexterity.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

The 5e rules have already destroyed this class concept (such as it is!).

So, the game adding more options = the game taking away options?

The DM gathers the players for the start of a new campaign, and says to make a 1st level PC using the PHB, point-buy only. One of the players had previously downloaded the free rules, and come up with a concept of 'strongest starting human', which is Str 16. Are none of the other players allowed to use the PHB classes except what that player knows? Are they not allowed to have a PC with 16 or 17 strength, in case it 'upsets' that one player?

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.

So player 1 dislikes multiclassing because they (irrationally, BTW!) feels that someone else multiclassing takes away their choice to play their concept.

But surely player 2 would have their concept actually taken away by player 1's objection.

Why does player 1's irrational preference trump player 2's rational choice to play what they want?

 

[Arial Black]

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

I believe yours does.

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.

Let's take this little non-sequitur: "Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution. Wizards in D&D cast spells."

First, the wizard equivalent to "Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution" is "wizards in D&D have a lot of intelligence".

The Str/Con scores of barbarians (or wizards) are purely based on where the player assigns their points/rolls.

Second, the barbarian equivalent to "Wizards in D&D cast spells" is "Barbarians in D&D use weapons".

They are not tied to ability scores.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe yours does.



Let's take this little non-sequitur: "Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution. Wizards in D&D cast spells."

First, the wizard equivalent to "Barbarians in D&D are strong and have a lot of constitution" is "wizards in D&D have a lot of intelligence".

The Str/Con scores of barbarians (or wizards) are purely based on where the player assigns their points/rolls.

Second, the barbarian equivalent to "Wizards in D&D cast spells" is "Barbarians in D&D use weapons".

They are not tied to ability scores.

Both intelligence and spellcasting are equivalents in this analogy. ie. "Things that define a class"

Wizard's don't have to use spells. Barbarians don't have to be strong.

Wizard's also don't have to be intelligent. Barbarians also don't have to use weapons.

 

[FrogReaver]

The 5e rules have already destroyed this class concept (such as it is!).

Not at all. There is no rule in 5e that says what character creation options are available for a given campaign.

So, the game adding more options = the game taking away options?

That's not the best way to word it. Mechanics and concepts map to one another. Adding mechanical options usually just changes some of the mappings (but not always).

So you can keep the concept of strongest and hardest to physically kill. It's just that concept maps to a barbarian now.
Likewise you have eliminated the concept of strongest and hardest to physically kill from the fighter class due to it's mechanics no longer respresenting that in the game world.

As such you have created new and interesting mechanics with the barbarian class with the result of lowering the number of concepts the fighter class mapped to.

The DM gathers the players for the start of a new campaign, and says to make a 1st level PC using the PHB, point-buy only. One of the players had previously downloaded the free rules, and come up with a concept of 'strongest starting human', which is Str 16. Are none of the other players allowed to use the PHB classes except what that player knows? Are they not allowed to have a PC with 16 or 17 strength, in case it 'upsets' that one player?

If the group has agreed to use the PHB point buy only then that player upon explanation would realize his error and instead keep his character and modify his class concept or keep his class concept and change to the barbarian class. Either would be acceptable. In the situation you describe the game rules were already set out and there was a misunderstanding. Since he was the one in error he needs to be the one to adapt and make the game work.

So player 1 dislikes multiclassing because they (irrationally, BTW!) feels that someone else multiclassing takes away their choice to play their concept.

I've already elaborated why it's a perfectly rational position. Calling it irrational now serves no purpose other than to inflame.

But surely player 2 would have their concept actually taken away by player 1's objection.

Actually... player two can most likely keep their concept they would just have to map it appropriately in a game without whatever class they were originally going to take. What they couldn't have is whatever mechanics that class provided to go along with that concept.

Kind of like how player 1 can keep his concept and change classes to one that better suits his concept if more are allowed but won't get to have whatever set of mechanics his original class choice provided to go along with the concept.

Why does player 1's irrational preference trump player 2's rational choice to play what they want?

Player 1's preference is the same as player 2's. They both want to play a specific character concept with a specific set of mechanics.

(Yes I know I've slightly changed definition of concept in this elaboration as I didn't really have a better word. Concept definition 1 = class and identity intertwined. Concept definition 2 = identity apart from class.)

 

[TwoSix]

I don't know anyone that went from scrawny to being equal to the most buff bodybuilder in the real world, nor have I heard of it.

Even assuming a Str-focused barbarian (not required by RAW), a 1st level Barbarian will typically only between a 14 to 17 Str. Hardly the most buff bodybuilder in the world.

Plus, moving into tropes, we have a pretty iconic example of "zero-to-hero" in Captain America. If you wouldn't allow a fantasy equivalent of a "super-serum" in your game for a PC backstory, our versions of what D&D is supposed to be like are so incongruent that there's really nothing to discuss.

 

[5ekyu]

Even assuming a Str-focused barbarian (not required by RAW), a 1st level Barbarian will typically only between a 14 to 17 Str. Hardly the most buff bodybuilder in the world.

Plus, moving into tropes, we have a pretty iconic example of "zero-to-hero" in Captain America. If you wouldn't allow a fantasy equivalent of a "super-serum" in your game for a PC backstory, our versions of what D&D is supposed to be like are so incongruent that there's really nothing to discuss.

Super serum another name for patron gift for say a barbarian character.

Backstory includes faustian deal with "patron" for abilities to let young scoundrel seeking revenge get power up.

So insert any number of gimmicks and you have a barbarian with rage spawning from less tribal sources and the obvious opening for warlock multi-class door open in the future if the PC is a good pawn.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Street urchin has meaning, yes.

That you view characters using the barbarian class mechanics as being required to have a high strength?

I've never seen one start lower than 14, and usually higher than that. They also usually get even stronger with stat increases. Lastly, even if you stay at 14, you will have an 18 when you hit 20th level, have advantage on strength checks and saves while raging, and be unable to fail to have at least a 14 on strength checks(18 when 20th level). Even if the score is 14, those extra abilities give you more "strength" than normal people who can fail to roll equal to their strength and don't have advantage on those checks when they get angry.

And that you see the character background as what the character still is, or at least was immediately before that game starts?

Adventurers typically start young

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?

First, I would help the player create a Street Tough background. A Street Tough is not an Urchin. Second, I would work with the player to see whether he is just cludging barbarian into his concept because some of the abilities fit the concept. Often there are better ways to get to the concept that the player hasn't thought of. Third, there's often a way to tweak the background, which while it includes the mechanical background choice, is the entirety of the character's background from birth on up. If the PC had been captured from a barbarian tribe at a young age and brought to the city, he could have the Street Tough background and be a barbarian. There is almost always a way to make something work. I almost never have to ask a player not to play a character. In fact, I can't think of the last time it happened. Would have been more than 10-15 years ago at the very least.

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?

Well, I'd think that athletics or intimidation would be better to represent a Street Tough than sleight of hand would.

 

[Maxperson]

Even assuming a Str-focused barbarian (not required by RAW), a 1st level Barbarian will typically only between a 14 to 17 Str. Hardly the most buff bodybuilder in the world.

Assuming no other increases along the way(unlikely in my experience) that barbarian will finish at 18-21 strength. 19-21 are actually higher than the most buff body builder in the world as you can't go above 18 by just working out.

Plus, moving into tropes, we have a pretty iconic example of "zero-to-hero" in Captain America. If you wouldn't allow a fantasy equivalent of a "super-serum" in your game for a PC backstory, our versions of what D&D is supposed to be like are so incongruent that there's really nothing to discuss.

I've already said that all I require is for things to make sense. Some sort of potion giving great strength could work. A fairy godmother. A wizard spell gone awry. Lots of way to do it that make sense. None of those were given in the examples I have been arguing against, though. The example is just a street urchin that became a barbarian. Some others later on have come up with some ways it could work, and I agreed with those and provided examples of some othe rways.

 

[TwoSix]

I've already said that all I require is for things to make sense. Some sort of potion giving great strength could work. A fairy godmother. A wizard spell gone awry. Lots of way to do it that make sense. None of those were given in the examples I have been arguing against, though. The example is just a street urchin that became a barbarian. Some others later on have come up with some ways it could work, and I agreed with those and provided examples of some othe rways.

I don't know, man. If "A street urchin can't be a barbarian" and "A street urchin can be a barbarian, assuming a narratively coherent chain of transformative events" mean pretty much the same thing to you, there's going to be communication problems. People are obviously assuming a rationale between the transformation from state A (background) and state B (1st level character), because there's a ton of narrative space in between.