Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[smbakeresq]

Barbarian class to me in the game terms some sort of character who grew up in a tough, wild environment where the strongest survive. Urbanization is a distant concept, formal education is almost non-existent. It’s something you are born into (start at first level) not learned (you can freely MC into.) If the campaign or just the PC moved spent time with a tribe or clan or something where they could learn the ways of those people then they could go into that class. Yes I still use training.

In my game world of Greyhawk the term barbarian would mean “foreigner.” Your PC could be labeled as such without actually being one.

I get what an street urchin is but they don’t have a background for “wild orphan” or “camp scrounger.” It’s easier to just change it a little bit then reinvent the wheel.

I haven’t had anyone try a “city barbarian” but I could see that, a massive metropolis (in fantasy terms) has a group that lives under the streets in tough conditions always on the edge of survival, learning to shrug off hardships through sheer toughness. Maybe you were a slave brought to the city and escaped or something like that.

If you as a player think of something half way reasonable I will work to fit in most if not all of it. I had a player who played a mute due to injury, he never spoke at the table, only made gestures or wrote things down. I wouldn’t have used that idea but it works for him.

 

[Arial Black]

No, I'm not. That is the recurring problem we keep having. People can see the differences in other areas, but when it comes to some certain preference that they, individually, have, it becomes an issue that isn't about preferences, but some sort of universal law.

Just look back at your post, arguing points regarding metagame knowledge for PCs for your point. Sure, that sounds fine, but that also sounds like an argument that has been had countless times in countless threads, and not everyone agrees with you (or me) regarding metagame knowledge.


Heck, just think of real life-

There are some people, couples even, that prefer to coordinate their orders at a restaurant, so people don't order the same thing.

Other people think that's crazy.

Matter of preference.

???

I don't understand your point at all!

Husband: I know we usually order the same thing dear, but this time I think I'll try the salmon. I know you don't like salmon.
Wife: You don't love me anymore!

Each player gets to choose their own PC. One player has no business being upset at another player merely for exercising that choice, or making a choice that you would not have made.

As for disagreeing about metagame knowledge, are you suggesting that roughly half the roleplaying tables play the game such that their PCs, in game, are aware of each others' character sheets? That they can tell, by looking, if another person in multiclass or not? Or even what single class they are?

Is it:-

DM: As you turn the corner you see four humans leaving the tavern: a thief, a mage, a cleric and a fighter.

OR

DM: As you turn the corner you see four humans leaving the tavern: one guy in leather armour, a horizontally-striped shirt, and carrying a bag with 'swag' written on the side, one in a dress and a tall, pointed hat embroided with stars, one in full plate and carrying a mace, and one in full plate carrying a greatsword. You know what classes they are because the law tells them how they must dress according to what 'class' they are.

OR

DM: As you turn the corner you see four humans leaving the tavern.
Player: What classes are they?
DM: You cannot know! You might make an educated guess, based on what weapons and armour you can see, but some clerics can use greatswords, rogues aren't forced to be thieves, fighters could wear light armour and use a rapier, and wizards haven't dressed like stereotypical 'wizards' since The Great Arcanist Purge of 2365; they just wear...clothes.

OR

DM: There is no such thing as 'character class' in game. That's just a metagame mechanic. In the game world, each person is an individual with their own talents.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

Husband: I know we usually order the same thing dear, but this time I think I'll try the salmon. I know you don't like salmon.
Wife: You don't love me anymore!

But you're leaving out what happened just a moment before!

Waitress: The salmon is my favorite, sir.


I mean, this thread forum internet is littered with people twisting someone else's examples to use against them. I just wanna join in!

EDIT - I should point out that I'm not trying to suggest that you're twisting anyone's examples, or doing something similar, Arial. It's precisely because you're not that I'm using your example as a springboard for the joke.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

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.

 

[cbwjm]

Well, there's also the part where he's insisting that the background of growing up a street urchin means that you're still a street urchin -- 10 years old, malnourished, scrawny. That absolutely could have been true, but something happened after to get to our young adult barbarian PC, yeah? Yeah.

Picked up by some thugs and forced to fight in an underground arena, you had to become tough to survive. Your rage kept you alive when others feel to the side until one day, you were strong enough to break free.

 

[Maxperson]

OK. Let's try another one. Say you have a half-orc character with the urchin background. Are you going to argue they have to be little? They survived by being little and fast but not resilient and strong?

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.

I understand the Charles Dickens archetype here but Half-Orcs did not figure into his tales. This is illuminating. While we draw on real world experience and stories that have been told, we are telling a NEW take on different tales because we are playing a fantasy game. Sure, the basic idea is a dirty little kid but this is D&D with cities that may have nonhuman inhabitants.

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.

This is where my approach differs from what I assume yours might be. You are finding reasons to quash a character concept by using the dictionary and English fiction. I would help the player find a way to play a street urchin (or whatever background is recommended for a kid who fights in the streets and grows up fighting) who later grows into an adult who goes berserk.

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.

When we do this we are inventing restrictions to what end? Why paint people into corners?

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

 

[Maxperson]

Picked up by some thugs and forced to fight in an underground arena, you had to become tough to survive. Your rage kept you alive when others feel to the side until one day, you were strong enough to break free.

Sure, and that explains rage. It doesn't explain barbarian, though. I'd work with the player to come up with a cool rage mechanic for his PC.

 

[cbwjm]

Sure, and that explains rage. It doesn't explain barbarian, though. I'd work with the player to come up with a cool rage mechanic for his PC.

Really it's just a difference in your and my styles. I see the barbarian class fitting perfectly for that character since I don't equate the barbarian class as a barbarian culture and I see no need to come up with a cool rage mechanic when we already have one.