Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

Half-orc child acquired through the slave trade, but was quickly dumped on the streets when it became apparent it was sickly and proved to be no good for manual labour. The local thieves guild trained it up as one of their street urchins, their eyes and ears, however the creature was always plagued by a mysterious illness, being malnourished and living on the streets certainly did not help matters. Then one eventful day the Horde knocked on the town walls...
Taking pity on the bastard muggle that survived the onslaught, the local shaman/warlock of the tribe managed to shake off the child's illness/curse and so blossomed the half-orc barbarian, the secret weapon of the Horde.

Whenever the Horde desired to pillage a settlement, they would send in the half-orc who spoke the common tongue fairly well and had a knack for deceit having picked up the skill during his years on the street. Pretending to be trader/travelling labourer, the half-orc would scope out the village/town's defenses and report back to the Horde.

Additional backstory exploration - what was the mysterious disease or curse and how did the half-orc obtain it?

Half-Orc check
Street Urchin check
Barbarian check

Bored noblewoman
Orc in the gladiator pits
9 months
Half-orc child delivered with payment to discrete street level scum.
Insert a vast majority of fantasy story foundations.

 

[Maxperson]

I know. Arnold was 5'10" and 240 when he was 9 years old! Close maybe But come on! How many body builders do you know? When I was younger I lifted a bit and read about the sport. There were many scrawny guys that bulked up and talked about it in books on the subject.

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

I agree with modifying things to find a fit. I really do. But Alfred Adler talked a lot about striving for superiority and changing greatly to overcome weakness. It doesn't matter if it's true---this is a very common idea even in pop culture. And that is D&D at times---emulating Batman as improbable but possible (little 8 year old in a mansion did not know martial arts or carry all that muscle.

He also wasn't extremely malnourished during a critical time of growth like urchins are.

I get that D&D characters are better than normal humans, but things still need to make sense. A street urchin, even an angry one, isn't barbarian. He's a civilized street urchin with severe anger issues. He can grow to become very powerful in many ways, but barbarian just doesn't fit in my opinion.

that you would not see a way for something improbable in a fantasy game makes it seem like you are just trying to bait someone. A sailor background in a desert setting? Sure! He is a far travelled! Why assume he had to learn the skill right there? And if he grew up there couldn't he have left and learned the trade? No one said he sailed on a sand barge.

I specifically said he was raised and grew up there, and that he had never been on a boat(which includes sand boats). I set it up so that he had never seen anything like sailing, but by RAW could still pick the sailor background.

but you really don't think the improbable belongs in a realm of fairies and dragons, ever?

If a fairy godmother gifted him with great strength, I could see an urchin becoming one of the strongest. He might even have many or all of his memories taken from him and replaced with those of a barbarian, allowing him to take the class, but then it's not really an angry street urchin barbarian as has been put forth here.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, considering that your apparent expert knowledge on people who have gone from being small to buff is based on pretty much exactly the same level of knowledge as what you personally know about street urchins, ie. nothing, it's pretty hard to take you seriously when you are making absolute claims about what a street urchin can only be.

My knowledge is at least equal to the rest of those here, and is backed up by definitions, pictures of urchins and real world history.

 

[Grognerd]

And?

And... you have been provided with ample and repeated possibilities. And you have offered no substantive argument for their rejection other than a very apparent personal bias which essentially amounts to "uh-uh."

Multiple people have given multiple options, and most (I'll agree not all) have been cogent, fitting, and well within the bounds of a typical fantasy setting. You don't like the idea. Fine. You don't want it in your game. Fine. But at least have the integrity to acknowledge that you are basing this entirely on a preconceived bias that ignores multiple details observations.

Seriously.

 

[Greg K]

On a side note, I also kind of feel that the criminal background should give you thieves' cant.

I had the same thought a while back.

 

[Hussar]

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



He also wasn't extremely malnourished during a critical time of growth like urchins are.

I get that D&D characters are better than normal humans, but things still need to make sense. A street urchin, even an angry one, isn't barbarian. He's a civilized street urchin with severe anger issues. He can grow to become very powerful in many ways, but barbarian just doesn't fit in my opinion.



I specifically said he was raised and grew up there, and that he had never been on a boat(which includes sand boats). I set it up so that he had never seen anything like sailing, but by RAW could still pick the sailor background.



If a fairy godmother gifted him with great strength, I could see an urchin becoming one of the strongest. He might even have many or all of his memories taken from him and replaced with those of a barbarian, allowing him to take the class, but then it's not really an angry street urchin barbarian as has been put forth here.

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.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

Well, to be fair, rage only works with strength attacks and if they make it to level 20 they can reach a strength score of 24, something no other class can do without magical items.

 

[Hussar]

Well, to be fair, rage only works with strength attacks and if they make it to level 20 they can reach a strength score of 24, something no other class can do without magical items.

Well, that's true. I forgot that capstone. But, to be fair, it doesn't really counter my point. A single capstone power that is almost never seen in play isn't really a big thing is it? And, 5e uses the term "strength attacks" because if they say melee, then a barbarian can't use thrown weapons while raging without losing his rage.

Now, to be fair, most barbarian PC's are going to be pretty high strength. 16 at 1st level (if human) is pretty likely. Although 15 isn't unheard of. Strong, but, no stronger than any other human character. The notion that barbarians MUST be one thing or another is what I'm arguing against.

 

[cbwjm]

Well, that's true. I forgot that capstone. But, to be fair, it doesn't really counter my point. A single capstone power that is almost never seen in play isn't really a big thing is it? And, 5e uses the term "strength attacks" because if they say melee, then a barbarian can't use thrown weapons while raging without losing his rage.

Now, to be fair, most barbarian PC's are going to be pretty high strength. 16 at 1st level (if human) is pretty likely. Although 15 isn't unheard of. Strong, but, no stronger than any other human character. The notion that barbarians MUST be one thing or another is what I'm arguing against.

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.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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.