Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Arial Black · Sep 16, 2018

smbakeresq said:
Yes. As said in another thread by Obliza:

“Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”

Badly thought-out PC =/= multiclass PC.

There are badly built single class PCs. There are well built multiclass PCs.

Until your build comes together other players are carrying you. If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.

Equally true for badly built single class and multiclass alike.

Remember in 1e when the 1st level wizard was a 1/day mobile sleep grenade, who was a liability for every single minute of every single day apart from that minute when they cast their one-and-only sleep spell? But you had to keep them around so that they got a share of the XPs because when they got to higher levels they could change reality while the rest of us were still poking things with sharpened sticks?

What has 'multiclassing' got to do with that?

Arial Black · Sep 16, 2018

Saelorn said:
Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.

The DM has already decided that rapiers exist, so the barbarian using one is just a matter of them coming across one and keeping it. Since 'barbarian = in world culture' and 'barbarian = game mechanic' are not exclusively connected, then my barbarian could easily have been raised in an area where rapiers are common.

Since at least AD&D 1E, there's been a problem with some classes being over-defined and others being under-defined, in terms of conceptual narrative space. In the Basic game, whether you want to play an acrobat or an assassin, you can do that as a Thief. If you're playing AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, your acrobat should probably be a Thief-Acrobat and your assassin should really probably be an Assassin.

The same general problem got much worse under 3E, and I'm not just talking about the Samurai class which took the last remaining archetype from the Fighter. It became a major issue if you were using all of the supplements (as many 3E fans were inclined to do), that any cool thing you might want to do was locked behind some feat chain somewhere. If you were just using the PHB, you could try and fire an arrow in such a way as to pin someone to a wall; if you were using all of the supplements, then there was a specific feat chain for that maneuver, which meant you couldn't do it unless you planned it in advance and sacrificed your basic competency in order to pursue that feat.

So yes, adding more options does equate to the game taking away options. It's the exact same reason why I would rather play a game that had twelve skills, instead of a game with 400 skills.

Sooo....your DM gave your fighter the Rage game mechanic....but now that barbarians are a character class then your fighter no longer has that mechanical ability?

IF, and it is a big 'if', your original concept was 'raging barbarian' but the closest class was fighter because barbarian wasn't a class yet, you should be ecstatic when they introduce the new class! Now you have the game mechanics to better realise your concept! Barbarian FTW!

The Crimson Binome · Sep 16, 2018

Cap'n Kobold said:
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.

Right, and I'm saying that they're the same thing. The barbarian class has the mechanics which it does, because it is trying to reflect the barbarian warrior archetype which it posits as existing in the world. When the DM is creating the setting, part of that is deciding which classes exist, and the next part is deciding how and where those classes fit into the world.

And the DM, when designing the world, can absolutely decide that it does make sense for the barbarian class mechanics to apply within an urban setting. Though it was not the original intent of the class, as written, it's certainly a change that the DM is capable of making. Likewise, they can say that barbarians are proficient in heavy armor but not martial weapons, or that their resistance while raging can be overcome by silver weapons. Both the fluff and the crunch are equally mutable to the DM, in the course of world-building.

The Crimson Binome · Sep 16, 2018

Arial Black said:
Since 'barbarian = in world culture' and 'barbarian = game mechanic' are not exclusively connected, then my barbarian could easily have been raised in an area where rapiers are common.

Unless the DM tells you, flat-out, that the barbarian class mechanic is exclusively connected to the barbarian culture; which is entirely their prerogative, as world-builder.

Arial Black said:
Sooo....your DM gave your fighter the Rage game mechanic....but now that barbarians are a character class then your fighter no longer has that mechanical ability?

If the barbarian class is not part of the game, then the best representation of a barbarian warrior is that is uses the fighter class. If the barbarian class does exist, then the best representation of a barbarian warrior is that it uses the barbarian class.

If your character concept is of a barbarian warrior, and the barbarian class exists, and you try to use the fighter mechanics to represent that character, then you're being disingenuous. The fighter class mechanics are not the best representation of the barbarian warrior concept, if the barbarian class exists, and everyone should know that.

Hussar · Sep 17, 2018

Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are. The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion. But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find:

PHB 5e said:
... You fought fiercely over food and kept a constant watch out for other desperate souls who might want to steal from you. You slept on rooftops and in alleyways, exposed to the elements, and endured sickness without the advantage of medicine or a place to recuperate. You survived despite all odds, and did so through cunning, strength, speed or some combination of each.

Huh, sounds like a high Str and Con barbarian would fit this background perfectly. Surviving the elements, constantly fighting, and surviving through strength. Sounds like a barbarian to me.

See, this is why I have such a problem with the argument that DM's put forth that "X doesn't fit in my setting". Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction.

5ekyu · Sep 17, 2018

Hussar said:
Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are. The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion. But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find:

Huh, sounds like a high Str and Con barbarian would fit this background perfectly. Surviving the elements, constantly fighting, and surviving through strength. Sounds like a barbarian to me.

See, this is why I have such a problem with the argument that DM's put forth that "X doesn't fit in my setting". Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction.

"Because, most of the time, they just haven't actually read what X is, and are just going with the gut reaction."

Who you gonna believe, your lying PHB or Dickens?

S'mon · Sep 17, 2018

Arial Black said:
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.

If you're at my table at the restaurant, I have an interest in your table manners. If you're at some other restaurant, no.

So, different groups should do what they want. But people within a D&D group should aim for compatible behaviour. That can be aided by the GM setting some table rules. I don't like 5e multiclassing so as GM I don't allow it. If some other group elsewhere wants to use it, I don't care. Likewise I like and allow 5e Feats. If some other group disallows them, fine.

Hussar · Sep 17, 2018

S'mon said:
If you're at my table at the restaurant, I have an interest in your table manners. If you're at some other restaurant, no.

So, different groups should do what they want. But people within a D&D group should aim for compatible behaviour. That can be aided by the GM setting some table rules. I don't like 5e multiclassing so as GM I don't allow it. If some other group elsewhere wants to use it, I don't care. Likewise I like and allow 5e Feats. If some other group disallows them, fine.

To me, therein lies the difference. You are being pretty up front here. You don't like the multiclassing rules, so, you disallow them. You're not trying to say that the rules are broken or bad or anything else. Just expressing your preference. Which is fine. It would be helpful if more DM's were more upfront about their personal preferences instead of trying to justify them.

Heck, I just ran a campaign with no classes with cantrips. Any class with a cantrip was off the table. I was trying an experiment (and it worked pretty well too) and I made that very clear to the players - I wanted to see if 5e works as a low magic game. It does. That being said though, I did run into a LOT of resistance. Three of the six players tried to "one off" caster characters as their concept. It did get kinda frustrating. And, in the end, because we wound up with like 3 rangers and a paladin, there was still a fair bit of spell casting going on.

I think if I wanted to run that experiment again, I would insist that everyone play caster up front. That way when everyone tries to create non-casters, I win.

S'mon · Sep 17, 2018

Hussar said:
To me, therein lies the difference. You are being pretty up front here. You don't like the multiclassing rules, so, you disallow them. You're not trying to say that the rules are broken or bad or anything else. Just expressing your preference. Which is fine. It would be helpful if more DM's were more upfront about their personal preferences instead of trying to justify them.

Yeah; I mean I have my reasons and I was talking about them yesterday with my Sunday group. But if people at another table get a thrill out of building optimised (or incapable) multi-class PCs, or whatever it is they like doing with that nonsense, it's no skin off my shin.

Maxperson · Sep 17, 2018

Hussar said:
Rolling back to the Street Urchin Barbarian for a second, because this, in my mind, gets to the heart of the issue of the disconnect between DM and Player.

@Maxperson is insisting that Street Urchin doesn't fit with the barbarian class because street urchins aren't physically strong and barbarians are. The image just doesn't fit, in his opinion. But, here's the rub, when you actually READ the description of Street Urchin in the PHB you find:

And because they are pure city, while barbarians are all about being away from the city in a barbarian tribe. An urchin that becomes a barbarian would need to have lived enough of his life in a barbarian tribe to remember it, before being taken or moving to the city and becoming an urchin.

Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Arial Black

Adventurer

Arial Black

Adventurer

The Crimson Binome

Hero

The Crimson Binome

Hero

Hussar

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

S'mon

Legend

Hussar

Legend

S'mon

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads