Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, I'll bite:

The Strongest Man in the World became too proud and (insert some god) struck him down with debilitating joint pain. He can barely lift a mug of beer without experiencing crippling agony. So he doesn't.

The Strongest Man in the World accidentally killed (insert somebody he loved). He swore an oath to never use his great strength again.

That's all I got off-hand. Admittedly it's tougher to do this for attributes that have outwardly obvious, physical manifestations.

But, regardless, what's wrong with those character concepts? While they could be played farcically, I don't think they are inherently so. As long as you trust your player to not suddenly say, "Ok, I guess I'll use my great strength" it's functionally equivalent to having 5 Strength. (If I recall correctly, one of Max's objections was exactly this. I.e., that players couldn't be trusted not to try to exploit the fluff as mechanics.)

They're backstory, maybe, but not a coherent character concept. Neither of these can ever choose to overcome or ignore their built in faults and will always operate as weaklings. When you're functionally a weakling, the claim to be the strongest man alive is farcical and incoherent. You can do it, sure, but it's not in the same ballpark as a scrappy urchin background urban barbarian. That concept refluffs around the mechanics -- it doesn't attempt to narrate against them but instead with them to provide a different story that still supports the mechanics. The 5 STR strongest man is an exercise in narrating against the mechanics, as is the 5 INT "genius." The story you're telling isn't of the strongest man or a genius, but of a magically or emotionally hobbled person that isn't whatever you're claiming them to be anymore, but is instead something different.

Regardless, we hashed this in the other thread -- no need to relitigate. My point is that you can be on your side for this topic, but not agree that 5 INT geniuses are the same thing as this topic. More "staking out a middle position" and pointing out why rather than challenging you to reopen the 5 INT thread.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Speaking of relevant other posts, may I provide a link to one on this very topic, with a poll for anyone that hasn't yet to register an opinion and be counted?

Do Classes Have Concrete Meaning In Your Game?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe we can move on to "Do you care about setting canon?" or "Fighter versus spellcasters" after that.

I'd rather do dissociated mechanics.

 

[TwoSix]

A good example is a character whose "thing" is "hate magic, magic users and especially wizards and kill them whenever possible" or "devout follower of the true god Puff-n-Preach and i work against all other gods and non-believers" then having ideas as to how the Gm should be playing the game for this character might be a bit of a problem.

I do think a valid point is that if you're willing to build a setting around the players' ideas, the players need to also be invested in coming up with workable, flexible ideas. "Player empowerment" and "problem players" don't work well together. There definitely exists a subset of players where stronger DM control is necessary to get a good roleplaying experience out of them.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Man, so much arguing over mechanical fluff. Are you all just white rooming this discussion? Because if not, then the fluff that is associated with the mechanics and the classes will naturally vary with the world setting being used. If you are playing in the Realms, then sticking more to how it is presented in the PHB makes sense, since the Realms is really the default world for 5E, whether Mearls and Co want to admit that or not. If you are not using the Realms, or another well-documented published world, then what the PHB says is much more malleable and can be shaped to match the DM's homebrew world.

For example, if I were running a world where lycanthropy did not exist at all, then the background created by Arial Black would be invalid. Or if I were running a world where the Powers are much more involved with the followers They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed.

I would also require common sense be used when modifying fluff or multiclassing. So I may allow a barbarian with the street urchin background, but only if said character was kidnapped from a city and raised by a barbarian tribe. Maybe that kid has barbarian ancestry and the raiders recognized it somehow and snatched him or her.

But back to the first point. Setting Matters. After all, just look at how much of the classes and backgrounds had to be modified by C7 in order for the 5E rules to fit Middle-Earth.

 

[5ekyu]

Man, so much arguing over mechanical fluff. Are you all just white rooming this discussion? Because if not, then the fluff that is associated with the mechanics and the classes will naturally vary with the world setting being used. If you are playing in the Realms, then sticking more to how it is presented in the PHB makes sense, since the Realms is really the default world for 5E, whether Mearls and Co want to admit that or not. If you are not using the Realms, or another well-documented published world, then what the PHB says is much more malleable and can be shaped to match the DM's homebrew world.

For example, if I were running a world where lycanthropy did not exist at all, then the background created by Arial Black would be invalid. Or if I were running a world where the Powers are much more involved with the followers They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed.

I would also require common sense be used when modifying fluff or multiclassing. So I may allow a barbarian with the street urchin background, but only if said character was kidnapped from a city and raised by a barbarian tribe. Maybe that kid has barbarian ancestry and the raiders recognized it somehow and snatched him or her.

But back to the first point. Setting Matters. After all, just look at how much of the classes and backgrounds had to be modified by C7 in order for the 5E rules to fit Middle-Earth.

"They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed"

Assumes facts not in evidence - specifically some form of opposition between the two.

Consider a divinity of magic also enlisting subordinate entities as more hands on tutors.

Sounds like cleric-warlock multi-class to me.

I am also sure that patrons who choose pawns that will devote and pledge them selves to a cause the patron wants to see supported is also workable as long as not opposing. Sounds like Warlock paladin to me.

Or heck, fey patron supporting druid...

Any number of possibilities.

 

[5ekyu]

Wonder if a player would take me up on this...

"I want the old one's patton that doesnt know i exist."

"Ok so when it comes to the patrons' bargains and services, you will become of its "needs" just like it does. When it gets hungry, you do. When it gets sleepy, you do. When it gets angry, you do. Basically you have tapped into it like say a flea and are subject to its "needs" that you will then either act on or not, just like any other warlock with similar outcomes. Wonder what turns on that entity/entities?"

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

"They give power to, multiclassing that involved getting powers from two different Powers, whether divine or arcane in source, would not be allowed"

Assumes facts not in evidence - specifically some form of opposition between the two.

Consider a divinity of magic also enlisting subordinate entities as more hands on tutors.

Sounds like cleric-warlock multi-class to me.

I am also sure that patrons who choose pawns that will devote and pledge them selves to a cause the patron wants to see supported is also workable as long as not opposing. Sounds like Warlock paladin to me.

Or heck, fey patron supporting druid...

Any number of possibilities.

Eh, whatever floats your boat in the worlds you create. If I am running a world with active spell/ability-granting Powers, just because a player says he will add a level of cleric to his existing class, does not always mean the deity he chose will accept him enough to give him the power he wants. Or if a cleric wants to try adding a level of warlock, you better believe the deity he follows will know about it and there is a good chance he would become an ex-cleric. And yes, I homebrew rules for that based on 1E and 2E AD&D.

Whether people like it or not, I do not always run using the 5e goal of anyone can be anything and everyone gets a gold star just for participating. To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be.

 

[FrogReaver]

Eh, whatever floats your boat in the worlds you create. If I am running a world with active spell/ability-granting Powers, just because a player says he will add a level of cleric to his existing class, does not always mean the deity he chose will accept him enough to give him the power he wants. Or if a cleric wants to try adding a level of warlock, you better believe the deity he follows will know about it and there is a good chance he would become an ex-cleric. And yes, I homebrew rules for that based on 1E and 2E AD&D.

Whether people like it or not, I do not always run using the 5e goal of anyone can be anything and everyone gets a gold star just for participating. To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be.

Why do you run it that way?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Why do you run it that way?

Because the people I game with have more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat in the game. Gotta have those role-playing opportunities, after all. And what someone wants to do with their character can turn into a quest for the whole party. But I think this has been pointed out before: mining a character's background or future plans for gaming ideas.