Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[FrogReaver]

OK. In what way?

It's typically not okay for a player to tell another how to play and what is acceptable etc etc.

So while the group that dislikes multiclassing is saying that if we have any input in our groups style of game we are going to give feedback / push / hope for no-multiclassing. The other group is taking that and saying it's not right that you want to ban multiclassing for everyone because I prefer to have it and then acting like the middle ground is you just don't use it and I will. That defeats the purpose, is ultimately telling us how to play (just to accommodate you) and doesn't give us the thing we actually prefer.

The issue is that some preferences are mutually exclusive and that either person on either side of that issue pushing / lobbying etc for their preference is pushing / lobbying against someone elses preference.

 

[Maxperson]

I've not heard of a group who take that attitude before. How much wiggle room outside of the flavour text does your group allow?

I think pretty much all my experience has been considerably different: outside of the "Will this character concept fit in your world?" you might ask the DM, they've never really assumed that level of control.
Could you possibly give a page reference for the rules about what weapons are appropriate for what upbringings? Outside of the proficiency rules, I can't recall any. By "upbringing", do you mean backgrounds? Are they in that section?

Yeah. I don't take it that far, either. If someone wants their barbarian to use a scimitar, because his father took it off of a strangely dressed man who strayed into their territory, I'm fine with that. If he wants to use full plate armor, because it works for the tin men from the south and he thinks it's good, so be it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think pretty much all my experience has been considerably different: outside of the "Will this character concept fit in your world?" you might ask the DM, they've never really assumed that level of control.

No, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The concept of a barbarian using a rapier might not fit the DM's world.

I can imagine a player telling the DM that they had an idea for a barbarian who used a rapier, and a DM saying that it didn't really fit because barbarians were from region X and the rapier-using culture was way over by region Q, so a barbarian ending up with a rapier would require an interesting explanation, and then they'd work together to explain this aberration or the player would pick a new character concept.

 

[Warpiglet]

In light of my OP...here is some "sage advice."


Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.

 

[5ekyu]

No, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The concept of a barbarian using a rapier might not fit the DM's world.

I can imagine a player telling the DM that they had an idea for a barbarian who used a rapier, and a DM saying that it didn't really fit because barbarians were from region X and the rapier-using culture was way over by region Q, so a barbarian ending up with a rapier would require an interesting explanation, and then they'd work together to explain this aberration or the player would pick a new character concept.

Barbarian knife fighter specializing in smaller blades and throwing blades (darts) instead of axes. Add rogue level(s) and decently savage warrior with decent enough AC with shield.

Plenty savage enough in these parts.

 

[cbwjm]

In light of my OP...here is some "sage advice."


Each class has story elements mixed with its game features; the two types of design go hand-in-hand in D&D, and the story parts are stronger in some classes than in others. Druids and paladins have an especially strong dose of story in their design. If you want to depart from your class’s story, your DM has the final say on how far you can go and still be considered a member of the class. As long as you abide by your character’s proficiencies, you’re not going to break anything in the game system, but you might undermine the story and the world being created in your campaign.

Speaking of the druid class, once I saw someone online who completely redid the fluff for the druid to create a shaman class. All abilities exactly the same as the druid, but the fluff rewritten which made it feel like a different class.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

No, that's pretty much what I was getting at. The concept of a barbarian using a rapier might not fit the DM's world.

I can imagine a player telling the DM that they had an idea for a barbarian who used a rapier, and a DM saying that it didn't really fit because barbarians were from region X and the rapier-using culture was way over by region Q, so a barbarian ending up with a rapier would require an interesting explanation, and then they'd work together to explain this aberration or the player would pick a new character concept.

Sorry. My bad for not being clear enough I think.

I wasn't talking about a 'barbarian culture' (lives outside civilisation, has beards, maybe tribal). While people in the game world would refer to them as barbarians, most wouldn't actually be barbarians in terms of the DnD game mechanics. Common depictions of such cultures may have unfortunate overtones, but them being less technologically developed is a common trope, and so making rapiers might be beyond them.

I meant a character using the barbarian class mechanics, as in the rules in the PHB: fast, tough, capable of intense periods of physical power. They would generally use whatever weapons they grew up with: The street tough who fights like a frenzied rat when cornered might use knives and rapiers, the holy zealot would probably use their deities favoured weapon, the Conan expy would use whatever weapon was superior at the time etc.

Of course there are some DMs who might ban rapiers from the game entirely. At which point neither the barbarian, nor anyone else would be allowed them.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

They are not equivalent.

Equivalent pairs here are:-

* intelligence/strength

* spell/weapon use

The reason these are different is that spell/weapons are how those classes interact with the game world. A wizard not using spells is pointless. A barbarian not using weapons is pointless.

Meanwhile, a wizard with only average intelligence and a barbarian with only average strength are perfectly viable. They will either be less effective than those with higher scores in those stats OR will be built in such a way that they will be effective anyway, such as a Dex-based barbarian.

So it's wrong to suggest that barbarians with average strength would be as pointless as wizards who don't use spells! The barbarian may be less competent but his axe will still hurt you, OR he will be just as competent and his rapier will skewer you.

 

[Arial Black]

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).

The 'mapping' part is and always has been flexible. There is no 'One True Map' for 'strongest = fighter'.

So you can keep the concept of strongest and hardest to physically kill. It's just that concept maps to a barbarian now.

No, now that you have the option of fighter OR barbarian, you can choose either for your 'strongest in the party' concept.

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.

The barbarian is 'hard to kill' (concept) in a specific way (hit points, damage reduction), but you can have the same concept using a different class (druid has many bags of hit points, fighters can have hit points AND full plate, Second Wind, re-roll failed saves, etc.).

So the new and interesting mechanics with the barbarian class do not have the result of lowering the number of concepts the fighter class mapped to.

(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.)

Exactly!

Your house it built on shifting sand.

Let's go back to your concept: 'strongest'. Strongest what? Strongest PC in the party? That's not a character concept, that's something you might notice if you look at the character sheets of every PC and see which has the highest strength score. Even in OD&D there may have been two or more fighters. All it takes is four or more players playing a game with only three character classes, and any 'concept' of being the best 'X' in the party is no longer under your control.

Do you mean 'my class means I'm used to being the strongest in any group I belong to'? So all fighters and all barbarians are always the strongest in their group, and have grown so used to this that it is integral to their self image? How? That fighter, given the training rules in early editions, would have been trained from childhood by an adult fighter in a group of other children who all want to be fighters when they grow up. How can it be true for ALL of them that 'strongest in the group' is an inalienable part of their identity?

How can a barbarian, even if we conflate the game mechanics of class with the in world culture, have grown up with the idea that they are the 'strongest in the group'? He was raised in a culture where every single member of his tribe was stronger than every other member? That is literally absurd.

When these various 1st level PCs meet in their first tavern before their very first adventure, they cannot previously have had 'I'm the strongest in my group' as part of their identity, and that cannot claim to be 'strongest in the group' before they know the strength scores of the other PCs.

It's really not a valid 'concept' at all! 'Strong' is a valid concept that you can certainly choose, but 'strongest' is not under your control because you are not in control of the strength scores of the other PCs.

'Strongest' was never a valid concept, so the appearance of another Str-based class cannot take away something that never existed in the first place.

 

[Arial Black]

Maybe it's best to ask when you hear someone say I dislike multiclassing whether they mean they just dislike doing it themselves or dislike playing in games where it's present. Those are both two very valid preferences and it seems the one about disliking playing in games where it's present is being conflated with a dislike of doing it yourself which in turn is driving some to claim that the preference of disliking D&D games with multiclassing present is irrational, shouldn't matter to you if others multiclass as long as you aren't etc. Basically the preference of not liking multiclassing to be a thing in a D&D 5e campaign is turning into a preference that no one can or should ever have because XYZ.

And yet we, as a free society, recognise the line of demarcation. I get to choose my stuff, you get to choose your stuff. If you have an opinion about MY stuff, that may or may not interest me, but the final say on my stuff belongs to me. If I have an opinion about YOUR stuff, the final say remains with you.

Getting upset about the choices of others is not a successful 'happiness' strategy.