Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[5ekyu]

Hiya!



No. Why do you ask?



It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

How is that different from a rogue spending weeks without dashing in seen playtime, not once using disengage and suddenly at 2nd level getting cunning action dash and disengage?

In both cases, the player and GM can decide to nust assume off-screen prep *or* choose to show it on-screen as a lead up *or* work the new choice into the narrative in a number of ways for both single class and multi-class features.

This is nothing different from many point buy systems where a lung fu master can spend say 3 new pts to *buy* some new skill (say pilot jet) by the standard rules to very significant level barring GM imposing/inventing training times.

Spontaneous new abilities sans house rules is not a feature soecific to multiclass, classed or point buy.

 

[Winterthorn]

Hiya!



No. Why do you ask?



It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I basically agree with what you are saying. I'm not a big fan of multi-classing (I soured on it from 3E onwards) and I'm glad it is optional. For me, as a DM trying to maintain a modicum of suspension of disbelief, it's all about the degree of change when leveling up. It's one thing to gain a new class feature when gaining a level, it very much a massive difference when gaining a whole new class and its new focus, concept and features.

That said, there are particular circumstances where a adopting a new class can be well supported by character experiences and/or story development. The most dramatic I can think of is character death and ressurrection. Also, a campaign world might also encourage MC-ing such as spellcasting being baked into a culture where to join the aristocracy one must have had training or ability in magic, e.g. Alphatia on Mystara.

Being optional means as a DM I can negotiate limits and require justification on MC-ing in concert with the kind of campaign I'm running and what the players have as expectations.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

So if both the player and gm choose to not make the training an aspect of the narrative, you get annoyed the result doesnt match the narrative?

I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread.

What if in all the downtime and rsst periods the thief was sern workong over his magic all along? Or what if the monk wannabe was sern practicing his kung fu mantras etc for a while? Both of those could lead to the same outcome but where the player and GM see it as fitying the events sufficiently to not bother them.

This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something"...because that is simply not what "happened" during the X number of sessions. It's the same as if the DM said "Oh, yeah, you guys did destroy the Bad Evil Dude's castle and burn down all the surrounding farms supporting it. But I guess he was just rebuilding it and stuff over the last couple months"...when the PC's never left the town that is within sight of the hill where the Bad Evil Dude's castle was...and now his new one is. It's lame, it's cheezy, and it's rubs me in so many wrong ways.

In my experience, most point buy systems like hero leave all limits on "what it takes beyond points to get new wierd stuff" entirelt at the feet of the gm.

But, frankly, in 5e there are pkenty of spontaneous new abikities inside single classes...

Sorc did not have sorc points until 2nd. So did not "use them at all" until poof they were there.

Rogue at 2nd may get cunning dash, disengage and hide even if they did not do them at all during first.

Many many examples of spontaneous abilities in most of the single classes that could seem just as skewed if written in snarky ways eith assumptions of non-use and non-practice.

I don't think your individual class-skills hold water though, for this debate anyway. A Sorcerer did/does have "sorcerer points" at level 1...he just doesn't know how to use them yet; he's still learning how. The Rogue, the same thing...he just didn't quite "grasp" how to do this or just wasn't good enough at it. A class doesn't just "poof!" in knowledge of his abilities...he just isn't experienced enough to use the correctly or at all. Hence...XP and Levels.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ccs]

It's not the 'leveling up day' so much as the 194 days prior to that leveling up being filled with rest, swinging swords, killing orcs and traipsing through a multi-level dungeon in platemail. And then, on the 195th day, when they finally have enough XP to gain a level...put "Warlock, 1st Level" down. The prior 194 days had the character doing absolutely nothing with regards to becoming a Warlock. The player just "decided" to add it. That's what I don't like about it.

Sounds like your real problem lies with people not being good storytellers & not communicating with or listening to each other.
This cannot be fixed via the rules.

 

[5ekyu]

Hiya!



I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread.



This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something"...because that is simply not what "happened" during the X number of sessions. It's the same as if the DM said "Oh, yeah, you guys did destroy the Bad Evil Dude's castle and burn down all the surrounding farms supporting it. But I guess he was just rebuilding it and stuff over the last couple months"...when the PC's never left the town that is within sight of the hill where the Bad Evil Dude's castle was...and now his new one is. It's lame, it's cheezy, and it's rubs me in so many wrong ways.



I don't think your individual class-skills hold water though, for this debate anyway. A Sorcerer did/does have "sorcerer points" at level 1...he just doesn't know how to use them yet; he's still learning how. The Rogue, the same thing...he just didn't quite "grasp" how to do this or just wasn't good enough at it. A class doesn't just "poof!" in knowledge of his abilities...he just isn't experienced enough to use the correctly or at all. Hence...XP and Levels.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

So, to you a spontaneous set of points or new speedier movemt options and maneuvers for action they havent taken is fine as long as its not wrapped up in different class name.

Gotcha.

My point with training wasnt about retro fitying the entire last month of play. You keep creating conflicts as problems but thebproblems are not required by the rules.

Most games i have ever sern do not assume every bit of character time is played out or even announced on screen. They dont announce every piss or training workout or meal.

So, some GM and players are fine with "the next level stuff was done off screen". Some might actually prefer referencing it in various ways as part of side fluff as the level is played up to. (I frequently see that more for mystic side.) Some might prefer more exacting insertion and can apply various training rules for things.

These can apply for MC or single class or any conbo of things.

But your examples of "we choose to do it this way" and "it bothers us" are examples where the rules chosen and the preferences clashed, not examples of bad rules which force you to do things you dont like.

Edit to add actual case in point not hypotheticals -

In my 5e game my halfling sorc dreams of dragons, thinks she she talks to dragons in her dreams, uses dragon decks to tell futures for money and is an entertainer who sings and dances and plays the flute.

She will be working with the bard on performances and spending time jamming studying watching listening etc.

So, at sixth level i plan it likely to be the case that she takes a level or three in either warlock or bard MC.

Which ever way it plays out, i have no idea, decision will be made based on the first four levels events, i will have in game examples all along to make that transition fit the narrative seen in play to that point.

It will be a turning point for sure but not shocking or unprecedented.

"So, those voices were real?" Or " she picked up metging song and her innate gifts?"

Was this required, nope. But since i prefered it, i chose to do it so i wont have any jarring back story retrofit or inexplicable swings.

I plan to make my decision when i reach 5th so i can give my GM a full level of play notice, especially for the warlock route if i choose that one.

Its basically "it hurts when i do that so i dont do that" thinking. You dont need rules requiring rolrplaying to roleplay the stuff you think should be roleplayed.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something"...because that is simply not what "happened" during the X number of sessions.

Then don't let them do that. It's your prerogative as DM. But you seem to be assuming that all multiclassing is going to happen like that, when of course, it doesn't. Would you be fine with this player taking a level of wizard if they actually had roleplayed hitting the libraries over those sessions? If so, then your problem is with "DM/player style", not multiclassing per se. And if not... well, why not?

 

[ccs]

I don't think the rules require the DM and Player to make the training an aspect of the narrative. That's the problem. Well, one of them. What is more annoying is that MC is listed as OPTIONAL, yet AL uses it. Same goes for Feats. But that's another thread.

So what? AL is a specific campaign. Just like my Thur night game is a specific campaign. As is my friend Alex's Fri night game. And yours. And his. And hers....
The only difference is that it's WoTC deciding wich options are/aren't permitted in AL, not the individual DMs.
You want to play in a campaign? You do so using whatever rules & options those in charge have green-lit. Disagree? Don't play in that campaign.

This is "fluff" and "DM/Player style"...not the rules for MC. Oh, sure, ANYTHING can be "retroactively applied/assumed". I don't like that. I don't want to see a player suddenly say "I added a level of Wizard. I guess my Fighter was hitting the libraries, and taking night-class at the Wizard Academe or something"...because that is simply not what "happened" during the X number of sessions. It's the same as if the DM said "Oh, yeah, you guys did destroy the Bad Evil Dude's castle and burn down all the surrounding farms supporting it. But I guess he was just rebuilding it and stuff over the last couple months"...when the PC's never left the town that is within sight of the hill where the Bad Evil Dude's castle was...and now his new one is. It's lame, it's cheezy, and it's rubs me in so many wrong ways.

And there's nothing you can do about this rules wise. Rules can't fix poor play.
If you're a DM & it bugs you enough? RP some of that downtime. Story doesn't only occur once "Roll Initiative" has been said you know.
If you're a bugged player? DO something during your sessions.
For ex; My 1/2ling barbarian will (most likely) take the Linguist feat next lv (8th). She's stuck adventuring in an Arabic/Egyptian style desert area populated largely by elves. She's running into ALOT of runes/hieroglyphs, many in some form of elvish, & it'd be really handy to be able to translate some of them. So up until the player of the wizard dropped out, I was having her work with the wizard to learn this stuff. She's also been picking up Thieves Cant from the two rogues. This has been SHOWN during play by 1) RPing with the Wizard player, 2) making sure the DM/rest of the table knows my character is paying attention to the rogues & trying to figure out their Cant, & 3) actively trying to decipher the various runes etc. {I'm NOT one of those barbarian players who only participates in combat}
So in about 2k xp I'll be adding a few languages to the character sheet.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Phew! Lots to get to before I head of to bed...

How is that different from a rogue spending weeks without dashing in seen playtime, not once using disengage and suddenly at 2nd level getting cunning action dash and disengage?

In both cases, the player and GM can decide to nust assume off-screen prep *or* choose to show it on-screen as a lead up *or* work the new choice into the narrative in a number of ways for both single class and multi-class features.

This is nothing different from many point buy systems where a lung fu master can spend say 3 new pts to *buy* some new skill (say pilot jet) by the standard rules to very significant level barring GM imposing/inventing training times.

Spontaneous new abilities sans house rules is not a feature soecific to multiclass, classed or point buy.

A Rogue learning "Cunning Action" is a Rogue thing. A Rogue NOT learning "Cunning Action", but in stead knowing how magic works and being able to cast Cantrips and 1st level Wizard spells...when 8 hours ago he was finishing his dinner and beer down in the common room. HUGE difference, imnsho.

Sounds like your real problem lies with people not being good storytellers & not communicating with or listening to each other.
This cannot be fixed via the rules.

I beg to differ. Having something like this would do the trick, I think...

"In Game Considerations
Multiclassing can not just be taken on a whim. If you are planing on having your PC learn a level in another class, you must inform the DM at least one full level before you take on a new Class (e.g., a 4th level character could not add a new class at 5th level, but could at 6th). This gives both you and the DM time to work in just how the character learns the arts of Wizardry, or suddenly finds himself having visions from a particular deity, etc. This only applies to adding a new class, not another level to a class you already have. Remember, the Multiclassing rules are here for those who want to create a character who's abilities and skills don't quite fit into the Class system as presented here. With Muliclassing you and your DM can create unusual secret orders who's members are trained in the arts of Fighting as well as have innate magical abilities as Sorcerers, or perhaps there is a clan of Barbarians who have special individuals who are trained to use gurrila tactics of hit and run, communing with animals, watching the stars for portents, and speak in the sacred language of the Druids."

There. Now there's a rule. It fixed a "RP'ing problem".

Then don't let them do that. It's your prerogative as DM. But you seem to be assuming that all multiclassing is going to happen like that, when of course, it doesn't. Would you be fine with this player taking a level of wizard if they actually had roleplayed hitting the libraries over those sessions? If so, then your problem is with "DM/player style", not multiclassing per se. And if not... well, why not?

It's not a matter of "it doesn't usually happen like that"...it's that there is nothing in the rules that prevent or even really deter it. As I listed in my example above, they designers could have come up with something to make MC'ing this way a little more...sensical. At least to my old eyes anyway.

Just like Feats, I'm glad others use them and have fun. I'm also glad that MC and Feats are both listed as OPTIONAL. But for me (and my group), they just don't. Our games run fine without Feats and Multiclassing, so...yeah.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[TheCosmicKid]

A Rogue learning "Cunning Action" is a Rogue thing. A Rogue NOT learning "Cunning Action", but in stead knowing how magic works and being able to cast Cantrips and 1st level Wizard spells...when 8 hours ago he was finishing his dinner and beer down in the common room. HUGE difference, imnsho.

That can happen the the very next level, even if he doesn't multiclass: arcane trickster.

I beg to differ. Having something like this would do the trick, I think...

"In Game Considerations
Multiclassing can not just be taken on a whim. If you are planing on having your PC learn a level in another class, you must inform the DM at least one full level before you take on a new Class (e.g., a 4th level character could not add a new class at 5th level, but could at 6th). This gives both you and the DM time to work in just how the character learns the arts of Wizardry, or suddenly finds himself having visions from a particular deity, etc. This only applies to adding a new class, not another level to a class you already have. Remember, the Multiclassing rules are here for those who want to create a character who's abilities and skills don't quite fit into the Class system as presented here. With Muliclassing you and your DM can create unusual secret orders who's members are trained in the arts of Fighting as well as have innate magical abilities as Sorcerers, or perhaps there is a clan of Barbarians who have special individuals who are trained to use gurrila tactics of hit and run, communing with animals, watching the stars for portents, and speak in the sacred language of the Druids."

There. Now there's a rule. It fixed a "RP'ing problem".

This is a houserule that you're welcome to implement, but it should not be in the PHB. It makes lots of assumptions about the pace of the campaign (is it days between leveling or years?), the narrative style (do they roleplay down time or handwave it?), and the nature of the classes (do they really need that much time to break through as a sorcerer or sign a deal with a devil?) that may be true at your table, but not others. Furthermore, it actively encourages preplanning character "builds", which a lot of roleplayers don't like. The open-ended approach WotC took is the correct one: present the basic rules, and leave it to the DM and player to work out the best explanation for the specific circumstances rather than impose one-size-fits-all limitations. Turning all the numbers into a compelling story is, as ever, your job.

 

[Satyrn]

This is a houserule that you're welcome to implement, but it should not be in the PHB.

I was gonna say the same thing.

Although I could see a compromise, where something like pming's suggested text is a sidebar suggesting that some DMs might want to use it as an optional rule when deciding to use multiclassing.