Should multiclassing be restricted by race?

[foolish_mortals]

dudes,

multiclassing, should it be an absolutely free experience? Should my dwarf be able to take the wizard class with a little bit of the singing dork class? Should my elf be able to be a barbarian and a dancing buffoon? In other words, things that don't seem to fit who the person is? Or should there be some limitation on what classes a person of a specific fantasy race can get into?

Personally I think that there should and it would be based off of the campaign setting. If it's normal for dwarves to be wizards and thiefs in the campaign then I'd limit it to that. If they really want to be a fighter then then need to give up their thieving options and maybe their wizard options.

that's what I'm currently thinking,
foolish_mortals

 

[Ahnehnois]

For some campaign settings it is reasonable to place restrictions on class selection (although I'd generally say it should stop short of a hard cap). I would, however, suggest operationalizing them in a less arbitrary manner. Perhaps you *need* to learn wizardry in an academic setting and the colleges don't accept dwarves. You could still rationalize a rare exception.

Then again, if you want to do the Dragon Age thing and say dwarves just can't become mages because of some inborn quality that's okay if not done to excess.

Frankly, these sorts of restrictions only make sense with magic, and generally arcane magic. I don't see that you would ever try to deny a gnome the opportunity to be a fighter or an orc the opportunity to be a rogue, even if it is off-type. Divine magic generally has to be accessible to everyone unless there's some big sweeping justification as to why a race is atheistic or forsaken by the divine forces.

The core assumption of the game, however, should be that everything is available to everyone, and restrictions can be added if needed.

 

[Desdichado]

No. Those kinds of limitations--prior to 3e--were one of the most commonly house-ruled items in the game. Hardly anyone liked them. If you want to do that in your game with your campaign, knock yerself out, but trying to implement that as a design decision going forward would--I predict--be massively unpopular.

 

[Nivenus]

No. Just no.

For some games where the races and/or species are significantly different it would make sense. But not for D&D. Most of the races are just reflavored humans with particular quirks anyway (which I'm fine with, BTW).

 

[foolish_mortals]

For some campaign settings it is reasonable to place restrictions on class selection (although I'd generally say it should stop short of a hard cap). I would, however, suggest operationalizing them in a less arbitrary manner. Perhaps you *need* to learn wizardry in an academic setting and the colleges don't accept dwarves. You could still rationalize a rare exception.

Then again, if you want to do the Dragon Age thing and say dwarves just can't become mages because of some inborn quality that's okay if not done to excess.

Frankly, these sorts of restrictions only make sense with magic, and generally arcane magic. I don't see that you would ever try to deny a gnome the opportunity to be a fighter or an orc the opportunity to be a rogue, even if it is off-type. Divine magic generally has to be accessible to everyone unless there's some big sweeping justification as to why a race is atheistic or forsaken by the divine forces.

The core assumption of the game, however, should be that everything is available to everyone, and restrictions can be added if needed.

I don't know about hard limits. I don't think I'd make it mandatory for every race that multiclasses. If there is some inborn limitation on how powerful a certain character can be with something, than probably. If the culture of a certain character has only advanced the art of a particular class than there might be a soft limit. He'd have to find a more advanced culture and somehow be accepted by them. I don't know if I've ever seen any cultural limit in a dnd game, but it is interesting. There certainly have been advanced mage cultures that are no longer around. It would be humourous to have an evil culture that had way better magics than the PCs and see how they handled that. The Drow way back in 1rst edition had access to special magics that the characters didn't have. That was always cool and made them seem nastier.

foolish_mortals

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Limits like that should be a perk left to a DM for campaign creation, and not hard-coded into the game, IMO.

 

[Roland55]

No.

This sort of thing might lend interest and even versimilitude to some campaigns of in some game settings, but it's not worth irritating players who want to multi-class.

I think the last 35+ years have taught us that there are plenty of players who want the freedom to multi-class. Let them.

 

[Wormwood]

I sense a strange consensus in the Force.

 

[malkav666]

I think that the previous editions demihuman focus with multiclassing had to do with the fact that humans could in the end be higher level than their demihuman counterparts. Mutliclassing made those non-human characters more appealing for long term campaigns. It also gave distinction to humans.

I am not sure if arbitrarily racially limiting multiclassing to non-humans would make much sense without a mechanic such as the previously mentioned level cap to give humans something in trade.

I could see racial restrictions on classes in general if there were classes that were designed thematically for members of a certain race (ie arcane archer in the 3.x). but that has more to do with the flavor of the class itself. I don't imagine we would see a great deal of that in the core rulebook (but its possible. arcane archer is itself core PHB).

I am not sure how multiclassing should work in 5e. I think in 3e/PF it was very abusable, and in 4e it didn't really make sense to me. It is one of the areas I am very interested in seeing information on. My PF group uses a houserule carried over from 3.x that for every class/prestige class added beyond the second that you must be at least the same level in all of your classes/prestige classes as the number of classes you will have with the addition of the new class. For example if we have a fgt/thf that wants to add a third class then they must be level 3 in both fighter and thief to do so. It sounds complex but it really works well for our group. It allows for meaningful and easy multiclassing and prevents cherry picking.

But TBH, with the changes PF made to core classes (cap abilities and new stuff for classes throught the entire progression other than "caster level +1" or "bonus feat") and variant substitution rules, I find that multiclassing or going prestige is a less popular choice among my players than it was in 3.x.

I am looking forward to seeing the multiclass rules for 5e, but I don't think race should come into play without a thematic reason or without a balancing mechanic for races that cannot multiclass.

love,

malkav

 

[jbear]

I really don't think they are going to go down the "restrictions path". I really don't think building a character is going to be as rigid at all. Initially it will be very simple.
From there you will proceed down the path of "options". DMs will be empowered to put any options/restrictions relevant to their campaign world