Do you multiclass for raw mechanical power or for character reasons?

[sydbar]

I usually prefer single class due to falling behind of the good stuff. My current Pathfinder character is a Rogue/Swashbuckler that started in 3.5 as a Rogue that could fight and went Thief/Acrobat. Converting him to Pathfinder was troubling till the DM found a Swashbuckler class, and then i had to convert to the official Swashbuckler class when it was released.

 

[hejtmane]

What it says in the title.

When you're looking at some silly build like the Sorc 5/Warlock 5/Fighter 2, do you try to justify the multiclass in-game, or do you prefer to ignore the fiction and concentrate on eldritch blasting all the things?

Relevant comic.

Both reasons some times for a theme build sometimes for damage. I love to to do damage focused around melee and if I am going for a specific theme i will stick to it and just and try to optimize the best i can around that theme.

 

[David Norris-King]

Back when I played 5e I found a lot of my builds ended up with a one or two level dip. It was usually for a mechanical benefit that served a character concept.

One time I built a Norse Raider, so I had a Rogue X/Barbarian 1 for example who would knock people over with shield master while raging. Another time I played a Rogue X/Fighter 1 so I had access to decent two weapon fighting. Mechanically it made the characters better, but it also allowed them to feel more like I'd imagined they would.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

One of the best parts of 4e was the explicit permission to reskin. If your barbarian (totem) takes on more aspects of a bear, there's no mechanical reason not to describe getting shaggy with hair and some werebear blood coming to the fore. Same for anything else - classes are bundles of ways to interact with the mechanics of the game, not fetters to insist on how your character must be seen in the game.

That was, by a wide margin, the absolutely worst part of 4E. Even worse than minions.

The quality of an RPG is in its ability to translate narrative concepts into mechanical language for the purpose of adjudication. The reason why a particular barbarian takes on certain aspects of a bear is because that's how totems work, in the codified reality of the game world. Not every game world works that way, of course, but every game world that can be described using this rule set must work that way. If your barbarian is part were-bear, then that's an entirely different reality which needs to be modeled, so there's no reason to believe it would have similar mechanics associated with it.

A wizard uses the rules that it does because those rules are the best attempt to model the in-game reality of the wizard concept. You have someone who learns magic from a book, and can do all of these things with these particular limits, and the rules of the game tell us how to model that reality. If you have a different reality that you need to model, then you use different rules to model that.

If you start with the mechanics and then go back to redefine their associated reality based on anything you feel like, then you have two major problems: 1) The mechanics don't mean anything, since they aren't trying to reflect any particular reality; and 2) We have no idea how the world actually works.

But if the mechanics don't actually mean anything - if they don't represent any particular reality of the game world - and if we have no idea how their world actually works, then all we're left with is meaningless mechanics for the sake of mechanics. At that point, you might as well be playing a board game, and make up your own story about what you think is going on.

 

[Blue]

That was, by a wide margin, the absolutely worst part of 4E. Even worse than minions.

The quality of an RPG is in its ability to translate narrative concepts into mechanical language for the purpose of adjudication. The reason why a particular barbarian takes on certain aspects of a bear is because that's how totems work, in the codified reality of the game world. Not every game world works that way, of course, but every game world that can be described using this rule set must work that way. If your barbarian is part were-bear, then that's an entirely different reality which needs to be modeled, so there's no reason to believe it would have similar mechanics associated with it.

A wizard uses the rules that it does because those rules are the best attempt to model the in-game reality of the wizard concept. You have someone who learns magic from a book, and can do all of these things with these particular limits, and the rules of the game tell us how to model that reality. If you have a different reality that you need to model, then you use different rules to model that.

If you start with the mechanics and then go back to redefine their associated reality based on anything you feel like, then you have two major problems: 1) The mechanics don't mean anything, since they aren't trying to reflect any particular reality; and 2) We have no idea how the world actually works.

But if the mechanics don't actually mean anything - if they don't represent any particular reality of the game world - and if we have no idea how their world actually works, then all we're left with is meaningless mechanics for the sake of mechanics. At that point, you might as well be playing a board game, and make up your own story about what you think is going on.

Please, tell me what is the sole narrative interaction that can bring about the rules response of "I do 12 bludgeoning damage".

The rules are a level of abstraction, and as can can describe many things that fit within the abstraction layer.

And MUST.

What's color are magic missiles? They are just described as "glowing darts of magical force". If I describe them as "glowing green" and someone else describes them as "glowing red", which of us is doing it wrong?

If there are no bears in a world, can I play a bear totem barbarian describing it as something in the world similar to a bear?

If my DM reflavors tieflings for a race in her homebrew with the same mechanics but fit the setting better, is she not playing D&D anymore?

Really, let's take this a step back. Let's take away all description and fluff and play it like a wargame. The rules still work. Now create fluff around the mechanics, not knowing any previous fluff or feature names. Are they they same across the board because there's only one possible interpretation of what could cause that result in-game? No, not in the least.

It's not what you are putting forth that the mechanics don't mean anything if you take away the fluff. It's that the rules are an abstraction to support a mechanical interpretation of the narrative, but because they are an abstraction there are multiple narratives that they can still describe.

I reject that the game is harmed if my 12 bludgeoning damage comes from a two handed club, using the rules for the maul because there is no two-handed club on the equipment list.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Please, tell me what is the sole narrative interaction that can bring about the rules response of "I do 12 bludgeoning damage".

I never said that only one reality can have a particular mechanical reflection. I said that any particular mechanic exists because it is a reflection of the reality, and not the other way around. There are more objects within the game reality than there are simple mechanical ways to reflect them within the mechanical language of the game; some of those objects are going to have the same reflection.

A battleaxe and a longsword both deal 1d8 slashing damage, because both of those realities generate the same reflection. That doesn't mean you can take the 1d8 slashing damage and just declare that it comes from anything you feel like; you need to evaluate it for what it actually is within the reality of the game world, and determine the reflection based on that reality, in order for it to have any meaning whatsoever. It's entirely possible a two-handed club would have very similar mechanics to a maul, not because the fluff doesn't matter, but simply because that is the most accurate way to reflect that reality within the game world. (Although, for the record, it's not; the greatclub already exists, and it's a simple two-handed weapon which deals 1d8. An unbalanced tree branch that you can buy for 2sp is simply no match for a precision-crafted maul that costs 10gp.)

It's not what you are putting forth that the mechanics don't mean anything if you take away the fluff. It's that the rules are an abstraction to support a mechanical interpretation of the narrative, but because they are an abstraction there are multiple narratives that they can still describe.

The mechanics are somewhat broad, and intended to cover a variety of similar realities, and some of those abstractions are broader than others. The fighter class is much broader than the druid class, for example. The fighter class is intended to cover samurai and non-raging vikings and less-pious knights and so on. The druid class is intended to cover only members of a specific type of organization which teaches its members very specific abilities; if your character concept isn't that you were a member of this type of organization and learned these very specific abilities, then you aren't a druid, and re-skinning the existing class as something else entirely would be a disingenuous way of representing that other thing.

The fact that the druid class exists, and has this particular fluff, is valuable information about how the world works. If the class didn't exist, or if others could gain similar abilities without joining that specific organization, then we would know less about the world and it would require more work from the DM in order to define how that part of the world works.

 

[Blue]

Let's take a step back. Because in this last post I think we're really saying very similar things.

I never said that only one reality can have a particular mechanical reflection. I said that any particular mechanic exists because it is a reflection of the reality, and not the other way around. There are more objects within the game reality than there are simple mechanical ways to reflect them within the mechanical language of the game; some of those objects are going to have the same reflection.

A battleaxe and a longsword both deal 1d8 slashing damage, because both of those realities generate the same reflection. That doesn't mean you can take the 1d8 slashing damage and just declare that it comes from anything you feel like; you need to evaluate it for what it actually is within the reality of the game world, and determine the reflection based on that reality, in order for it to have any meaning whatsoever. It's entirely possible a two-handed club would have very similar mechanics to a maul, not because the fluff doesn't matter, but simply because that is the most accurate way to reflect that reality within the game world.

This is where I'm coming from - reskining isn't changing the mechanics, so it only makes sense where the mechanics will have the same expression. It's just changing the description to something else that can be described in the same way - but because the mechanics are a rough simulation, "same way" is pretty broad.

No one is saying to take Eldritch Blast and reskin it as a piece of defensive equipment - the mechanics simply aren't there. But at-will multiple ranged force attacks could be described in multiple ways and still be 100% true to the mechanics we have. Maybe someone calls the "blows of the demon" based on her pact, and someone else describes them as telekinetic blasts because of the mental theme of the Great Old One.

If Alice's barbarian rages and screams and has spittle coming out of his mouth and Bob's enters into a passionless killing focused fury, those are both valid ways to describe it without changing the mechanics. If Charlie is playing in Eberron and want to describe it as his aggressive shifter nature (true-breeding lycanthropes without a curse but that can change), why does the non-mechanical addition of hair sprouting out which is not described by the mechanics suddenly a deal breaker?

Reskinning needs to keep to the mechanics, that the first rule because you are trying to find a way to get your narrative and mechanics to mesh up. So let's start from there as a definition: reskinning is finding a different description fit by the same mechanics.

The druid class is intended to cover only members of a specific type of organization which teaches its members very specific abilities; if your character concept isn't that you were a member of this type of organization and learned these very specific abilities, then you aren't a druid, and re-skinning the existing class as something else entirely would be a disingenuous way of representing that other thing.

This is untrue because there is more to the world then just the PCs. First example for the druid that pops to mind is I've run treant NPCs that were absolutely, word-of-DM druids. That were not built with the druid class. They couldn't wild shape. They shared some casting and had other features that made sense for a plant-based druid. But they absolutely were still druids, and my players had no problems understanding it. What "Druid" means in-game is not the same as the druid class.

Now, the druid class, because it is such a specific blend of features, probably isn't a great one to reskin. Reskinning only works if all the mechanics fit. But there's still options. A hermit with a ranger-like connection to nature but without the rest of the martial chassis could have one level of druid (pre-wild shape and circle) and some levels of monk. A hedge witch who dabbles in several types of magic and transforms herself into a cat or a raven could multiclass between druid and some other caster class. See, there are things that make sense with the mechanics, and they don't dismantle the idea of druids for the player because they are never presented as druids.

The fighter is a great example the other way - it covers so many different martial superiority archetypes, with so many different way of applying them mechanically (STR based, finesse, ranged, protection, even before subclasses). If it had fluff it would be ripe for reskinning. As it is, I will tell you with 100% certainty that players have taken the Samurai subclass from XGtE and have reskinned it to have a non-oriental theme. Probably many are noble- or knight- based, or some other ideal that well explains the bonus to to Persuasion given at 7th. As you can guess, I don't see any problems with that.

So, to sum up:

• Reskinning is finding descriptions that match the mechanics.
• Having things that aren't [whatever shorthand like Druid] won't confuse your players if they obviously aren't [Druid] because they are described differently.
• Having things that ARE [Druid] that have different abilities but are described as part of it [like treant druids] will also not confuse players.

 

[MoonSong]

Please provide a citation instead of a singsong.

Show me where "paladin" is an in-game term in all settings.

I'll give you a hint, its not. Therefore, your statement can not be true.

Not all paladins are holy warriors, and as you have clearly stated only some holy warriors happen to be paladins. Paladins are knightly, virtuous and noble defenders of justice and other noble causes.

Sorry, this is not "I'll make things up and use them as proof" hour. yes, the rogue class gets thieves' cant. As does any NPC I want to.

Weren't you talking about a PC?

I find personally would rather focus on the narrative we're creating rather then say that book-fluff is ascendant to our story.

Maybe you don't personally care, but some of us care. In fact fluff is what makes or breaks things for me. Even then default book-fluff shapes the shared fiction.

 

[Blue]

Maybe you don't personally care, but some of us care. In fact fluff is what makes or breaks things for me. Even then default book-fluff shapes the shared fiction.

Let me try to take you at your word, and put out a few examples that I think will show how crazy saying that book-fluff is the only right way to play.

First, please let me know the definitive fluff for the Fighter. You know, the book-fluff that is the only type of fighter you'll allow.

I'm playing in an official 5e setting, Forgotten Realms. I have a character from Kara-Tur which is oriental themed. Am I playing the game wrong if I describe my character having a wakizashi instead of a short sword?

Of course, it's lucky I'm playing a character from Kara-Tur because I wanted to play the Samurai fighter subclass from XGtE, and I understand you wouldn't allow it without Japanese fluff.

I've got a new player who's familiar with fantasy tropes from reading but not D&D classes. She wants to play an elf with a strong nature connection who can transform into birds and other beasts of the forest, but she's never heard of druids except with Stonehenge and doesn't want to be part of their organization. Is this person unsuited to play D&D without serious reeducation? Or can they play D&D as long as I shoot down their character concept?

Okay, the new player has a friend who wants his character to fight with a rapier and stiletto, should I insist it's a dagger and he's not to call it a stiletto because it will ruin the fun for the other players?

He's going to play a swashbuckler, do I explain that until he takes the subclass at 3rd he needs to adhere to the "official" fluff of the rogue class, he can't be out of the shadows and full of panache until then?

I want to play a hard-swilling dwarven tavern brawler, is the monk class closed to me?

 

[Arilyn]

I think reskinning is a powerful tool, which we use quite a lot at out table. If a player has an idea for a character ability, or piece of equipment that is not explicitly in the rules, we always look for something that can be reskined first. Way easier than writing a new mechanic. And since a lot of barebones mechanics get "'reskinned", even in core F20 games, I don't see the problem. Since practically every Spellcaster has Thunderwave in 5e, for example, this is a spell that's just begging to be reskinned.

It works really well for monsters too.