Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Sadras]

It is a fundamental part of the system. If you don't like class based games you should play a different game. Multiclassing just creates the worst aspects of both.

I'm not so phased about it, certainly not in 5e.
In our two play groups of 9 players, only one has a MC character - so I cannot offer any valuable insight.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not really a poke against multi classing, but some things I find odd...

The best smites come from someone who multi classes and takes only a few levels of paladin then go primary spell caster.

If you are a magic user you can increase your potential by dipping into cleric. Because clerics know there entire spell list, one level of cleric delays higher level spells a bit (but not slots) but grants you instant healing and buffs that you can cast.


because you don't loose out on slots, just spells known you end up with wonky things with spell casting...


Personal Experience:
I thought I was being 'nice' to a new DM when I multi classed my 5th level character (concept was originally the healer/priest) because it was his first game of 5e he ran (had not run since 3.0). the only prime spell caster was a blaster warlock, and he told us he planed on running from 5th-17thish level... so I knew high level spells could mess up his idea, I figured I would dip a bit and loose out on high level spells... so at level 5 I was a Paladin 2 Druid 1 Cleric 2. This would mean even though I started with 2nd level slots (and I would go up cleric so next level I would have 3rd level slots) but only knowing 1st level spells...but I knew a TON of 1st level spells... but opps I ended up still being OP in the group.

 

[Arial Black]

I fundamentally disagree with your stance on multiclassing.

Multiclassing muddles the archetypes and is unnecessary.

Archetypes? I'll make my own damn archetypes, thank you very much! I'm not interested in playing a cardboard cut-out clone of everyone else's paladin (Where's your plate armour? You're not a real paladin without plate armour!), warlock (No, all warlocks are evil in my world!), barbarian (the only allowed background for barbarians is Outlander, otherwise you're not a real barbarian!), etc.

Unnecessary? Sure. Just like rogues are not necessary. Just like sorcerers, bards, greatswords, mage armour, skills! None of these are 'necessary'! If we banned everything that was unnecessary then we'd just have fighting men, wizards and clerics, all weapons would do 1d6 damage, and there is no need to level up at all!

It's good for characters at the table to have clear and distinct abilities.

Implying that, automatically, multiclass PCs do not have clear and distinct abilities. Strange, when I look at the character sheets of both single and multiclass PCs, each has a list of their class abilities. No difference at all in the clarity of these abilities.

Distinct? In what way? Making every fighter identical to every other fighter? Multiclassing makes for far more 'distinct' individuals than single class PCs in terms of abilities possessed.

With that as a foundation it is easier for them to stand out with characterization. If everyone is a mishmash of different classes then building identities in the game is harder.

The opposite is true. Characterisation comes from me not the book! If we all had to play the same 11 classes, our PC would not stand out at all!

What you are talking about is that each class would be played differently. Sure. But that is a circular argument: "It's easier to play each class differently because each class is played differently". But I'm not remotely interested in playing a 'class'; I'm playing a 'character!

The biggest knock against it is that it is clunky and uneven. Classes are built as a chassis. When you combine them together they don't behave properly. A Fighter/Wizard is different than a Wizard/Fighter for example.

I'm totally happy with my PC. It plays the way I want it to because I chose (within the limits of the RAW and those set by the DM) each class level and the abilities that went with them. I did this knowing exactly what I was doing.

It makes it easy for brand new players to play single class PCs because the thought that goes into creating a PC that works has been done for them. You really have to know what you're doing to make an effective multiclass PC. But I've been playing for 40 years now; I've got the hang of it!

D&D is a class based system. That has strengths and weaknesses. Undermining the classes with multiclassing results in the downsides of a class based game and the downsides of a classless game. The subclass system is an elegant solution to the mess of multiclassing that D&D has been plagued with.

I have another take on this: D&D is a class based system. That has strengths and weaknesses. Multiclassing, done well, can eliminate (or greatly mitigate) those weaknesses, leaving the strengths of the class based system intact while gaining the strengths of classless systems too.

 

[Warpiglet]

I fundamentally disagree with your stance on multiclassing.



Archetypes? I'll make my own damn archetypes, thank you very much! I'm not interested in playing a cardboard cut-out clone of everyone else's paladin (Where's your plate armour? You're not a real paladin without plate armour!), warlock (No, all warlocks are evil in my world!), barbarian (the only allowed background for barbarians is Outlander, otherwise you're not a real barbarian!), etc.

Unnecessary? Sure. Just like rogues are not necessary. Just like sorcerers, bards, greatswords, mage armour, skills! None of these are 'necessary'! If we banned everything that was unnecessary then we'd just have fighting men, wizards and clerics, all weapons would do 1d6 damage, and there is no need to level up at all!



Implying that, automatically, multiclass PCs do not have clear and distinct abilities. Strange, when I look at the character sheets of both single and multiclass PCs, each has a list of their class abilities. No difference at all in the clarity of these abilities.

Distinct? In what way? Making every fighter identical to every other fighter? Multiclassing makes for far more 'distinct' individuals than single class PCs in terms of abilities possessed.



The opposite is true. Characterisation comes from me not the book! If we all had to play the same 11 classes, our PC would not stand out at all!

What you are talking about is that each class would be played differently. Sure. But that is a circular argument: "It's easier to play each class differently because each class is played differently". But I'm not remotely interested in playing a 'class'; I'm playing a 'character!



I'm totally happy with my PC. It plays the way I want it to because I chose (within the limits of the RAW and those set by the DM) each class level and the abilities that went with them. I did this knowing exactly what I was doing.

It makes it easy for brand new players to play single class PCs because the thought that goes into creating a PC that works has been done for them. You really have to know what you're doing to make an effective multiclass PC. But I've been playing for 40 years now; I've got the hang of it!



I have another take on this: D&D is a class based system. That has strengths and weaknesses. Multiclassing, done well, can eliminate (or greatly mitigate) those weaknesses, leaving the strengths of the class based system intact while gaining the strengths of classless systems too.

I have no problem with the absence of optional rules for a specific campaign. I can have fun almost anywhere. However, I find your arguments to be compelling and I am probably starting to lean this way: finding that by allowing multiclassing there is probably more benefit than problem.

I like that it is optional from campaign to campaign...but am starting to prefer its inclusion. This is a long way from where I started in 5e. At the very start I got very excited about creating AD&D 1e with clearer rules and resolutions and up do date rules and mechanics. I think now I am good with 5e as its own thing.

As grown ups with decades of gaming behind us (hell with a decade break in the middle for me....damn school) I feel mature enough to consider the gameworld and other players while indulging my own desire for certain in game abilities. Really, some are merely flavor if you think it through. How different is a fighter 1 wizard X from a mountain dwarf wizard who had armor and axes built in? Maybe I want to play that way but want to picture a human hero instead. Not exactly world breaking for me but I respect that others might argue the dwarf lived longer and had more time to learn both or what have you.

So I have decided to accept 5e's bounty and let a little of my grog-ness recede. I still think Gygax is the King of All Entertainment (tm), nevertheless.

 

[5ekyu]

The way I see it, multiclassing exists to fix the fact that the inherent game does not possess a classless/skill-tree system.

the classed vs classless religious divide will never end.

IMO each serve different masters.

 

[5ekyu]

Not really a poke against multi classing, but some things I find odd...

The best smites come from someone who multi classes and takes only a few levels of paladin then go primary spell caster.

If you are a magic user you can increase your potential by dipping into cleric. Because clerics know there entire spell list, one level of cleric delays higher level spells a bit (but not slots) but grants you instant healing and buffs that you can cast.


because you don't loose out on slots, just spells known you end up with wonky things with spell casting...


Personal Experience:
I thought I was being 'nice' to a new DM when I multi classed my 5th level character (concept was originally the healer/priest) because it was his first game of 5e he ran (had not run since 3.0). the only prime spell caster was a blaster warlock, and he told us he planed on running from 5th-17thish level... so I knew high level spells could mess up his idea, I figured I would dip a bit and loose out on high level spells... so at level 5 I was a Paladin 2 Druid 1 Cleric 2. This would mean even though I started with 2nd level slots (and I would go up cleric so next level I would have 3rd level slots) but only knowing 1st level spells...but I knew a TON of 1st level spells... but opps I ended up still being OP in the group.

Bold - You describe a way to maximize smite at the expense of the other benefits from pally. trade-off to get what you want.

italics - trade off access/rate to higher level spells and ASi in exchange for low level cleric abilities - trade-off. not an increase in potential - an exchange of benefits.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Lack of Multiclassing seems like it would inform the world more than the presence of Multiclassing.

That's pretty much what I said, yes. If there's no multiclassing, then we know more about how the world works. Without multiclassing, each class represents a rigidly codified archetype that is present in the world. With multiclassing, each class is generalized down to a set of related but learn-able abilities.

Now, the big disclaimer here is how many levels are assumed to be the average in your setting. In a world where almost nobody has levels, then this is a completely moot issue because anyone with a meaningful amount of levels is the outlier. But as the average level of your world increases (like Eberron for example) these things become increasingly noticeable, and inform the world.

For a very long time, the average character level in a setting was assumed to be less than one. Even in the Forgotten Realms. Most men-at-arms or town guards were not even level 1 fighters. Any individual even having the option to pursue a path of power - being accepted as a wizard's apprentice, or stumbling across a druid's grove as a child - was a rare exception to the rule. Paladins were assumed to be so rare that the idea of one also having been raised by druids, or chancing into some other incredibly rare class, would have been implausible.

If one in a million people are druids, and one in a million are paladins, then the likelihood of someone being both is too small to bother modeling.

 

[Warpiglet]

That's pretty much what I said, yes. If there's no multiclassing, then we know more about how the world works. Without multiclassing, each class represents a rigidly codified archetype that is present in the world. With multiclassing, each class is generalized down to a set of related but learn-able abilities.

For a very long time, the average character level in a setting was assumed to be less than one. Even in the Forgotten Realms. Most men-at-arms or town guards were not even level 1 fighters. Any individual even having the option to pursue a path of power - being accepted as a wizard's apprentice, or stumbling across a druid's grove as a child - was a rare exception to the rule. Paladins were assumed to be so rare that the idea of one also having been raised by druids, or chancing into some other incredibly rare class, would have been implausible.

If one in a million people are druids, and one in a million are paladins, then the likelihood of someone being both is too small to bother modeling.

This makes a lot of sense if the fluff is accepted as is.

However, if the character represents a holy guardian of the wood, selected by Obad-hai himself, then he is simply one in a million if the source of power and training has a common source.

This is sort of my point about sacred cows. When we played 1e, we would have chuckled at the thougt; then again no one would have had the prerequisite ability scores to do it in the first place.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This makes a lot of sense if the fluff is accepted as is.

Okay, but why did you buy the book, if you don't care about how the world actually works?

That was my one big problem with 4E, is that all of the fluff was so mutable, there was no way to tell what was really going on there.

However, if the character represents a holy guardian of the wood, selected by Obad-hai himself, then he is simply one in a million if the source of power and training has a common source.

One of the things I miss about AD&D was when they described weird corner-case scenarios, like this one. It was probably one of the priest books, or maybe just Deities & Demigods, but it would tell you outright that a god of nature was served by druids (rather than some sort of cleric that could cast nature spells); just as the clergy for a god of magic was made up of wizards (rather than divine spellcasters), and the high priest of the thief god was just a high-level thief.

They didn't feel compelled to invent entire new sets of class abilities to cover obscure situations that would probably never even come up in most worlds.

 

[5ekyu]

Okay, but why did you buy the book, if you don't care about how the world actually works?

That was my one big problem with 4E, is that all of the fluff was so mutable, there was no way to tell what was really going on there.
One of the things I miss about AD&D was when they described weird corner-case scenarios, like this one. It was probably one of the priest books, or maybe just Deities & Demigods, but it would tell you outright that a god of nature was served by druids (rather than some sort of cleric that could cast nature spells); just as the clergy for a god of magic was made up of wizards (rather than divine spellcasters), and the high priest of the thief god was just a high-level thief.

They didn't feel compelled to invent entire new sets of class abilities to cover obscure situations that would probably never even come up in most worlds.

I bought the book PHB to use it to run games in *my* or *our* worlds, not to be a one true world. 5e is intended to represent a lot of different worlds, not just one. that seems very clearly ingrained in its design, its mechanics, its options and its so-called "fluff."

The book PHB serves me well right now in two very different worlds.

i expect it will serve me well in many more.

I dont even expect to buy a specific setting book with the idea of using it as written - but for what i can use it for in the games and worlds and settings i want.