D&D 5E Why do you multiclass?

[pming]

Hiya!

The 'reasoning' is the issue.

I have no expectation of being in your campaign, simply because I live half a world away. I'm not envisioning feeling any frustration with what you'll allow in your game. I'm coming at this from the other side: that you have no rational basis for your stance.

You don't have to worry about the hard work of putting the PC together crunch-wise, you don't have to come up with a back story; the player does those things.

Not exactly...the player can do those things. The MC rules do not list that the player has to do that. There is NOTHING in the MC rules that state a player can't have a character who is a hard-core, military career family, sword in hand since the day he was born, Fighter (Battlemaster) of 8th level. Always fighting. Always hitting the pit fights, boxing matches, areana death match circuit, etc. Then, he gains enough XP to hit 9th and the player says "We need a cleric, so I'll take a level of Cleric. I'll take Life so we have decent healing". POOF! He's now got all the abilities of a 1st level cleric for which he never even hinted at being religious, let alone "life" (having his entire history devoted to the pursuit of how to kill someone quickly).

That's one of the key points I'm trying to get across to you. I don't like the way the MC rules work because they allow completely arbitrary, inconsistent and "random" class additions. There isn't any rule that says "The PC must have pre-chosen his MC classes and have them worked into his characters background story and personality. If he doesn't, the DM may require the PC to undergo the lengthy training that normally is required for gaining level 1 in any class (typically between 5 and 10 years of time)"... or anything of the sort. Nothing. Just pick a class when you have the XP. No need for background "wroking in" or even having any interest in the class prior. That's a HUGE problem for me.

The 'illogic' of how PCs gain new abilities out of the blue simply by gaining XPs and without any training is identical for single AND multi class PCs.

No, it isn't. A Fighter, for example, is trained to Fight. He's been fighting, presumably, if the campaign is anything akin to the core play-style of Dungeons & Dragons. He gets better at it. Oh, he just gained Second Wind? How? Simple, he had the training and knowledge of it from the get go...he just didn't quite figure it out (re: he wasn't experienced enough) to 'do it' the right way. That Wizard just gained a new level of Spell, and a new spell to go with it! How? Simple, he already knew the basics of magic, being a wizard, and he already 'knew' the spell. He wasn't skilled enough to cast it before, and he didn't quite understand some nuances of how to subjugate the primary mana influx coupled with the dimensional location matrix based on where he was in relation to the nearest ley-portal. Now he "gets it". That Fighter just gained a level...and took Wizard. How? Who the F knows?!? He couldn't read the wizards spell book the night before, and had no concept of what the hell "primary mana influx" was, let alone what at "dimensional location matrix" is. But, he just got 2,700xp from killing goblins, so yeah. POOF! He can now cast spells.

The MC rules simply DO NOT work for this.

The concept that you have had to train for a decade or so before your 1st level abilities manifest works just as well for a multi class PC who is designed as a multi class character from the outset.

Yup. Correct. But the MC rules don't require ANY of that stuff you seem to be holding onto. If the player didn't "design" his charcter to be MC'ing Fighter/Wizard from the get go, it makes zero sense that he can wake up on moring after drinking his ass off at the bar after a successful dungeon foray and suddenly be able to "cast wizard spells and all that 1st level wizard stuff". The MC rules simply do not support this.

There are no abilities that the MC PC has that you haven't already approved. If you approve the abilities of a Rog 2 and approved the abilities of a Mnk 2, then you have already approved all of the abilities possessed by a Rog 1/Mnk 1. The names of classes don't really define what PCs are; what defines them is what they can do. You've already approved of everything a Rog 1/Mnk 1 can do.

And if I approve Minotaur's from the Dragonlance Unearthed Arcana thing from WotC? Does that mean I 'automatically' approve Half-Minotaurs? Of course not! Just because I actually use the Core Rules, doesn't mean I "automatically have to accept/approve" the OPTIONAL Multiclass rules. They are OPTIONAL for a reason. Some people like them, some people don't. I'm one who doesn't like them in their current form. Maybe I'll come up with my own homebrew MC rules later on, or maybe someone else will come up with something I like. But as the 5e MC rules are now...no thanks.

All that's left is an irrational dislike. Disliking MCing is okay, but telling everyone else that they cannot MC based on your irrational feelings about MCing is wrong. You should be self-aware enough that you recognise your own irrationality on this particular issue, and not let it colour your decisions.

My dislike isn't irrational in the least. I'm also not telling everyone else that they can't MC...except those who play in my campaign. They can't use MC in my campaign because it's my campaign and I don't like the MC rules as they are. Why you are having a hard time grasping that is beyond me.

Ah...a potentially rational reason, wrapped up in your unintentional insult.

The idea that an unknown MC combo may 'break the game' is really an irrational fear if you don't know what it is. You fear the unknown. Blind ignorance is not the answer, knowledge is.

The reality of MCing is that you gain a greater variety of abilities by sacrificing power. For example, I have a Pal 2/War 3. This combo can do some cool stuff, no doubt, but when you compare that stuff to the stuff that the Bar 5 can do, you realise that he has no second attack. When you compare him to the Wiz 5 you realise that he has no 3rd level spells. What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. He is cool though.

That wasn't exactly what I was concerned about. I don't "fear" MC'ing. I can deal with whatever crops up because of it. What I don't want to do is even have to deal with things cropping up in the first place. To me and my group, it's just not worth it. We wouldn't get enough out of MC'ing compared to the potential "patch jobs" I'd have to do to make certain class/race/whatever combos 'fit' into my game.

Also, it's not about your Pal/War 2/3 being equivalent to other 5th level classes. It would be about you 'stacking up' to another Warlock or Paladin in the group who was 5th level. If there was a 5th level paladin in the group, would your characters 3rd level Warlock abilities/spells/etc make him "better at paladin'ing" than the single-class paladin? Do you use any Warlock stuff to augment or otherwise "power up" ANY of your paladin abilities? If yes, do they outshine the core abilities that you would have if you were just a 5th level paladin? Can you do more paladin things than the paladin can?

Now, depending on the player, this can be a HUGE thing, or nothing at all. My contention is that when a single PC is able to mix-n-match abilities from two or more classes, there can be certain combo's that give one of the classes too much of a power-boost to something. Just go look at the Character Optimization forum here. Multiclassing and Feats are used to, effectively, "break" the game (or otherwise try and gain more power for level X than a normal character of a single class would have at level X). There is a reason why MC is used quite often for this...

What you've done by banning MCing is decide that MC PCs are too powerful, without checking to see if a particular combination actually is too powerful, while at the same time happy to have high level wizards!!!!

First, I'm not "banning" it. Multiclassing is OPTIONAL. I can't "ban" something that isn't assumed to be part of the core game.
Second, MC PC's are not, by default, 'more powerful' than single-classed. However, they have the potential be seriously mess up the balance of the system..especially if one is using Feats as well. I'm not that worried about that, as I said a few paragraphs above...I can fix things that crop up if I was using it. However, I just don't like the way MC'ing is actually done/handled. Seriously. That's the primary reason. I don't like the MC rules...not necessarily the results.

The unintentional insult is this:-

You're assuming the lowest of motives. You assume that anyone who wants to MC is 'focussed solely' on creating an 'uber-combo', with 'almost no RP goodness'. You assume that anyone who wants to MC is a dirty, min-maxing powergamer who doesn't deserve to sit at the same table as 'proper' role-players like you!

I don't assume...I plan for. Thing is, all it takes is one of these "power gamers" to completely and utterly mangle a campaign. But that's beside the point. I just do not like how the 5e MC rules work. Seriously. That's the main reason.

First, you disregard those who feel a MC PC fits their concept even if it is mechanically inferior.

Second, the idea that an optimised character and a 'proper RP' character are mutually exclusive concepts. This is the old Stormwind Fallacy rearing its ugly head once again.

Yes, game balance is something to be monitored, but the idea that single class PCs must be balanced while MC PCs must be uber is false. You're pre-judging every single MC PC as too powerful, before you've even seen it, because of your own, irrational dislike.

For the love of....! *sigh* Ok. One LAST time. Seriously. I'm not replying after this. If you want to continue, PM me. Here it is...

I have no problem with Multiclassing! I HAVE a problem with the WAY that the 5e Multiclassing Rules ARE WRITTEN.

MC'ing can make uber characters. It can make sub-par characters. It can make flavourless, mechanics-only-matter characters. It can make the most well-rounded persona possible. BUT, the RULES OF MC'ing... I JUST DON'T LIKE HOW THEY ARE DONE....SO NO MC'ing IN MY CAMPAIGN! Because of that...I don't feel that me allowing MC'ing is worth it to me, for me, or my group, in my campaign. I'm more happy with saying "No MC" than I am having to vet every single MC combo a player throws at me, as well as having to come up with my own rules for things like "pre-choosing" classes to fit background/personality, and all that other stuff. It's just not worth it to me. Sorry.

Over and out.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Kithas]

Now, depending on the player, this can be a HUGE thing, or nothing at all. My contention is that when a single PC is able to mix-n-match abilities from two or more classes, there can be certain combo's that give one of the classes too much of a power-boost to something. Just go look at the Character Optimization forum here. Multiclassing and Feats are used to, effectively, "break" the game (or otherwise try and gain more power for level X than a normal character of a single class would have at level X). There is a reason why MC is used quite often for this...

Just going to address this first because it literally made me face-palm.
The reason that multiclassing and feats are used to optimize characters is because those are the only options we have for optimizing. Otherwise it would just be a 11fighter with a greatsword does 22.5+3*str avg damage a turn, end of discussion. There's nothing to discuss or brew about because there is nothing to work with...
It's not because multiclassing is game-breaking or overpowered in and of itself. You're basically saying that wall-paint automatically makes a room better because it is discussed when talking about decorating. It is what they are working with so of course they are discussing it.

Anyways.
No there is no built-in rule that says that you have to have proper rp to back-up your multiclassing.
But guess what? There is no built in rule that says you have to properly back-up your single-classing either!
There is nothing in the core rules that says that Jimmy the Barbarian with a str of 6 that has never held an axe before and is actually a very calm and pacifistic individual, cannot exist. Nor anything that says that even without fighting he will become better at fighting. There are plenty of ways to gain exp outside of combat. So specifically by the RAW Jimmy can get all the way to level 20 as a Barbarian without ever raising his fist or Raging once.

But that's not D&D and no DM in their right mind would tolerate that at his table, it would be boring and silly.
The same goes for multiclassing, no there is not specific rule that says your fighter cannot gain levels in cleric. But any DM worth his salt would ask him: "Where did you gain a faith strong enough to channel Divine energy?" to which the player will have to have a good answer.

What you're afraid of seems to be two things;
-Your players outclassing each other at what they set out to be good at.(being out-paladined)
-Your players abusing an oversight of the rules to change classes without having any rp to back it up. (fighter changing to cleric)

Both of these are solved by having good players.
If your players can't be trusted with big-boy toys then I guess you shouldn't give them to them. Or you could help them grow as players.

There are plenty of rules in the book that I don't like how they are written -I'm still not 100% on how Improved Divine Smite is supposed to work, its some of the worst rules text I've seen- ,but that doesn't mean I throw the rule out.

To be clear I'm not trying to tell you how to run your table, you do what is best for you and your players. All I am trying to communicate is that there is no real reason for what you are doing besides "It's what we like and it works." That is a fine reason, but to site other things as you are is just muddying the waters and spreading disinformation.

 

[Maxperson]

Hiya!
No, it isn't. A Fighter, for example, is trained to Fight. He's been fighting, presumably, if the campaign is anything akin to the core play-style of Dungeons & Dragons. He gets better at it. Oh, he just gained Second Wind? How? Simple, he had the training and knowledge of it from the get go...he just didn't quite figure it out (re: he wasn't experienced enough) to 'do it' the right way. That Wizard just gained a new level of Spell, and a new spell to go with it! How? Simple, he already knew the basics of magic, being a wizard, and he already 'knew' the spell. He wasn't skilled enough to cast it before, and he didn't quite understand some nuances of how to subjugate the primary mana influx coupled with the dimensional location matrix based on where he was in relation to the nearest ley-portal. Now he "gets it". That Fighter just gained a level...and took Wizard. How? Who the F knows?!? He couldn't read the wizards spell book the night before, and had no concept of what the hell "primary mana influx" was, let alone what at "dimensional location matrix" is. But, he just got 2,700xp from killing goblins, so yeah. POOF! He can now cast spells.

The MC rules simply DO NOT work for this.

They work just fine. This is how. That fighter you just mentioned has been studying with the party wizard every day. He's been learning to read that book and has finally gotten down that language but for a few sounds and gestures that he hasn't quite gotten right. The next day he masters those last few sounds and gestures and is good to go.

Now, if there's no wizard in the group and no other way to have learned it, say no. That's not an MC rules issue, though. It's a realism issue.

 

[Argyle King]

Sometimes it's hard for me to fit my character concepts into one class.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

They work just fine. This is how. That fighter you just mentioned has been studying with the party wizard every day. He's been learning to read that book and has finally gotten down that language but for a few sounds and gestures that he hasn't quite gotten right. The next day he masters those last few sounds and gestures and is good to go.

Yup. Also, how is an Eldritch Knight explained? A 1st level fighter doesn't have to declare which subclass he intends to take upon reaching 3rd level. Yet, at that decision point, he can choose any currently available subclass. Said fighter can step into the Champion or Battlemaster path easily enough, sure. Not much of a stretch there since they are extensions of their martial training and expertise. But he can also chose to be an Eldritch Knight. Waitasecond. How did that happen? All of a sudden he knows how to use magic?! That's impossible! He never even picked up a book...

Single class characters can be just as "illogical" as any hypothetical MC'ing scenario he wants to present to defend his rigid stance.

 

[Arial Black]

Not exactly...the player can do those things. The MC rules do not list that the player has to do that. There is NOTHING in the MC rules that state a player can't have a character who is a hard-core, military career family, sword in hand since the day he was born, Fighter (Battlemaster) of 8th level. Always fighting. Always hitting the pit fights, boxing matches, areana death match circuit, etc. Then, he gains enough XP to hit 9th and the player says "We need a cleric, so I'll take a level of Cleric. I'll take Life so we have decent healing". POOF! He's now got all the abilities of a 1st level cleric for which he never even hinted at being religious, let alone "life" (having his entire history devoted to the pursuit of how to kill someone quickly).

Who says the fighter's never thought about cleric-y stuff before? Just because it wasn't on camera, doesn't mean he didn't. These kind of minor ret-cons are the staple of the entire body of fiction where the protagonist has more than one book/film/episode. We suddenly learn that our hero used to be married, or dropped out of priest school, or is an expert chef, or a black-belt in judo, or whatever. The writer decides he wants the hero to be able to do something that he hadn't thought of before, so he writes the hero as if he could do that thing the entire time, but it never came up in his recorded adventures before.

In the game, we cannot just decide that our PC is also a 20th level wizard; we have to obey the rules. But, according to those rules, we can decide that he was an apprentice wizard; at least, we can when we get enough XPs to level up!

That's one of the key points I'm trying to get across to you. I don't like the way the MC rules work because they allow completely arbitrary, inconsistent and "random" class additions. There isn't any rule that says "The PC must have pre-chosen his MC classes and have them worked into his characters background story and personality. If he doesn't, the DM may require the PC to undergo the lengthy training that normally is required for gaining level 1 in any class (typically between 5 and 10 years of time)"... or anything of the sort. Nothing. Just pick a class when you have the XP. No need for background "wroking in" or even having any interest in the class prior. That's a HUGE problem for me.

The way the MC rules work is exactly the same as the single class rules work! You have already written that the class abilities that you don't have yet are explained when you do get them (as you level up) as being part of your training before you were even 1st level, but you needed experience before those abilities actually manifested. Yet this is exactly the same reasoning that a MC PC gets his abilities. Whether or not it was mentioned in the game is neither here nor there, because every single detail of the PCs pre-adventuring life has not been detailed, leaving plenty of room for a ret-con.

And even that is deliberately disregarding all those who have a MC concept from the start. My latest organised play PC has been planned out (in terms of what levels, when) before she was ever played. The concept of a spy who becomes a field agent who eventually earns her 'license to kill' is realised by Rogue at 1st, then Monk (shadow) for 6 levels, then Rogue for 4 more (license to kill is gained when she gets to Rog(assassin) 3/Mnk 6), before finishing her career in Monk levels. This has been trained for since childhood, and even though she doesn't have all of those abilities yet (she's Rog 1/Mnk 2 ATM), the seeds for all those abilities were part of her childhood training in exactly the same way as they are for any single class PC!

No, it isn't. A Fighter, for example, is trained to Fight. He's been fighting, presumably, if the campaign is anything akin to the core play-style of Dungeons & Dragons. He gets better at it. Oh, he just gained Second Wind? How? Simple, he had the training and knowledge of it from the get go...he just didn't quite figure it out (re: he wasn't experienced enough) to 'do it' the right way. That Wizard just gained a new level of Spell, and a new spell to go with it! How? Simple, he already knew the basics of magic, being a wizard, and he already 'knew' the spell. He wasn't skilled enough to cast it before, and he didn't quite understand some nuances of how to subjugate the primary mana influx coupled with the dimensional location matrix based on where he was in relation to the nearest ley-portal. Now he "gets it". That Fighter just gained a level...and took Wizard. How? Who the F knows?!? He couldn't read the wizards spell book the night before, and had no concept of what the hell "primary mana influx" was, let alone what at "dimensional location matrix" is. But, he just got 2,700xp from killing goblins, so yeah. POOF! He can now cast spells.

The MC rules simply DO NOT work for this.

They work the same for MC as they do for single class. At 2nd level, my 1st level rogue could have taken a 2nd level of rogue, gaining Cunning Action. Instead she took a level of monk (completely planned in advance), gaining Martial Arts and Unarmoured Defence. How? The explanation is exactly the same (and exactly as sensible/stupid) for either case; she trained for those abilities for years but only gets the hang of it now, even though she never did any of those things in play. And that is just as true for the single class and the MC version.

If you don't like the game mechanic of gaining abilities as you gain XPs and levels, then this is not a reason to ban MCing because it's the same system for single class PCs!

Yup. Correct. But the MC rules don't require ANY of that stuff you seem to be holding onto. If the player didn't "design" his charcter to be MC'ing Fighter/Wizard from the get go, it makes zero sense that he can wake up on moring after drinking his ass off at the bar after a successful dungeon foray and suddenly be able to "cast wizard spells and all that 1st level wizard stuff". The MC rules simply do not support this.

First, just because it wasn't shown 'on camera' doesn't mean the previous training wasn't there. Second, this disregards planned MC PCs because you ban them too. Third, the 'zero sense' that 'a fighter can wake up from drinking his ass off at the bar and suddenly be able to cast spells' already is supported by the single class rules! If my 2nd level fighter ends the day with enough XPs, the single class rules support my choice to wake up with a 3rd level of...fighter...Eldritch Knight!

Yet again, the MC rules really are no different to the single class rules in explaining how PCs can do stuff now that they couldn't yesterday.

And if I approve Minotaur's from the Dragonlance Unearthed Arcana thing from WotC? Does that mean I 'automatically' approve Half-Minotaurs? Of course not! Just because I actually use the Core Rules, doesn't mean I "automatically have to accept/approve" the OPTIONAL Multiclass rules. They are OPTIONAL for a reason. Some people like them, some people don't. I'm one who doesn't like them in their current form. Maybe I'll come up with my own homebrew MC rules later on, or maybe someone else will come up with something I like. But as the 5e MC rules are now...no thanks.

And this illustrates what I've been saying all along: your taste in the rules is a personal one for you, just as everyone is entitled to theirs. But you impose your taste on others. You might have a dislike of the colour 'pink'. Fine. But it's not your business to ban others from wearing pink. You should be self-aware enough to tell the difference between an objectively faulty rule and an irrational dislike, and not to impose your likes/dislikes on others.

My dislike isn't irrational in the least. I'm also not telling everyone else that they can't MC...except those who play in my campaign. They can't use MC in my campaign because it's my campaign and I don't like the MC rules as they are. Why you are having a hard time grasping that is beyond me.

Because 'the MC rules as they are' are actually the same as the single class rules! You gain XPs, you level up, you gain new abilities that you've never used before, and you justify it however the hell you want! That is the same system for single class AND MC characters!

That wasn't exactly what I was concerned about. I don't "fear" MC'ing. I can deal with whatever crops up because of it. What I don't want to do is even have to deal with things cropping up in the first place. To me and my group, it's just not worth it. We wouldn't get enough out of MC'ing compared to the potential "patch jobs" I'd have to do to make certain class/race/whatever combos 'fit' into my game.

Again, there is nothing to deal with for MC PCs that you don't already have to deal with regarding single class PCs. 'Is this PC too powerful?'; if yes, deal with it. This is equally true for both single class AND MC PCs.

Also, it's not about your Pal/War 2/3 being equivalent to other 5th level classes. It would be about you 'stacking up' to another Warlock or Paladin in the group who was 5th level. If there was a 5th level paladin in the group, would your characters 3rd level Warlock abilities/spells/etc make him "better at paladin'ing" than the single-class paladin? Do you use any Warlock stuff to augment or otherwise "power up" ANY of your paladin abilities? If yes, do they outshine the core abilities that you would have if you were just a 5th level paladin? Can you do more paladin things than the paladin can?

What if there are two single class paladins in the group? Will one outshine the other? What about another martial; will they be better at engaging the enemy? Will one of my players feel his paladin is useless compared to the PCs of the other players? Yet again, this is not a problem with MC PCs that isn't also a problem with single class PCs.

Now, depending on the player, this can be a HUGE thing, or nothing at all. My contention is that when a single PC is able to mix-n-match abilities from two or more classes, there can be certain combo's that give one of the classes too much of a power-boost to something. Just go look at the Character Optimization forum here. Multiclassing and Feats are used to, effectively, "break" the game (or otherwise try and gain more power for level X than a normal character of a single class would have at level X). There is a reason why MC is used quite often for this...

Wizards can mix and match any spells they like. They can combine these at high levels in an almost infinite variety, totally beyond any DMs ability to predict. They can alter reality, step outside time, create their own little universes... No problem.

What? Your 2nd level PC has Martial Arts AND Sneak Attack 1d6? BAN!!! Ban it now!!!

First, I'm not "banning" it. Multiclassing is OPTIONAL. I can't "ban" something that isn't assumed to be part of the core game.
Second, MC PC's are not, by default, 'more powerful' than single-classed. However, they have the potential be seriously mess up the balance of the system..especially if one is using Feats as well. I'm not that worried about that, as I said a few paragraphs above...I can fix things that crop up if I was using it. However, I just don't like the way MC'ing is actually done/handled. Seriously. That's the primary reason. I don't like the MC rules...not necessarily the results.

That's the point. You know there's nothing you can't handle. It's just your personal taste....being imposed on others.

I don't assume...I plan for. Thing is, all it takes is one of these "power gamers" to completely and utterly mangle a campaign. But that's beside the point. I just do not like how the 5e MC rules work. Seriously. That's the main reason.

Yeah, I don't like brown shoes. I never wear them. Therefore, I will not allow brown shoes in my house! My house, my rules!

For the love of....! *sigh* Ok. One LAST time. Seriously. I'm not replying after this. If you want to continue, PM me. Here it is...

I have no problem with Multiclassing! I HAVE a problem with the WAY that the 5e Multiclassing Rules ARE WRITTEN.

MC'ing can make uber characters. It can make sub-par characters. It can make flavourless, mechanics-only-matter characters. It can make the most well-rounded persona possible. BUT, the RULES OF MC'ing... I JUST DON'T LIKE HOW THEY ARE DONE....SO NO MC'ing IN MY CAMPAIGN! Because of that...I don't feel that me allowing MC'ing is worth it to me, for me, or my group, in my campaign. I'm more happy with saying "No MC" than I am having to vet every single MC combo a player throws at me, as well as having to come up with my own rules for things like "pre-choosing" classes to fit background/personality, and all that other stuff. It's just not worth it to me. Sorry.

You don't see it, do you? You don't see that the MC rules work the same as the single class rules! There is no rational reason to dislike MCing any more than how the class/level rules work anyway, for both MC and single class PCs.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

And even that is deliberately disregarding all those who have a MC concept from the start. My latest organised play PC has been planned out (in terms of what levels, when) before she was ever played. The concept of a spy who becomes a field agent who eventually earns her 'license to kill' is realised by Rogue at 1st, then Monk (shadow) for 6 levels, then Rogue for 4 more (license to kill is gained when she gets to Rog(assassin) 3/Mnk 6), before finishing her career in Monk levels. This has been trained for since childhood, and even though she doesn't have all of those abilities yet (she's Rog 1/Mnk 2 ATM), the seeds for all those abilities were part of her childhood training in exactly the same way as they are for any single class PC!

Bingo. Exactly like the holy assassin character I mentioned earlier. He will eventually reach assassin-11/shadow monk-6/feypact bladelock-3. I've had it figured out from the beginning. And he's been receiving all that training from the Order of the Unseen since he was a small boy. I had to start somewhere so I started rogue-1. Then picked up warlock. Then monk. And I've been jumping around ever since. I've gotten as far as 14th-level thus far (assassin-5/shadow monk-6/feypact bladelock-3).

 

[MoonSong]

Really, only with wizards, monks and druids present this problem. Maybe your PC has some primal urges and repressed wrath that he/she learns to channel into rage (you are now a barbarian), has dabbled here and there on many things but after experimenting the world has learned how to inspire (bard), has been praying so hard at night that one deity has finally paid attention and granted him/her divine power (cleric), after witnessing so much combat has learned how to fight better (fighter), has a tuning moment when he or she makes a solemn oath and the devotion empowers him/her (paladin) and so on.

It isn't limited to only people who plan all in advance, each time I make a new PC I don't really know anything about the future of that PC, not even if I will even take a second level on the original class. One PC I had was a textbook example of this, my sorcerer was a gish who was always looking to spar with strong people, getting into fights and courting death at any opportunity, Wis penalty and all. In the end I took my second level in paladin when the party paladin died -I was always acting like a clown and messing with him- and my rogue best pal too. My PC was chaotic, but as hell broke lose and with so many deaths I made a vow to never rest before peace was restored and turned the page, until the end of the campaign -shortly after making an heroic sacrifice- my PC was the moral center of the party.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I don't always plan out in advance either. The example I gave was just my most recent endeavor. In this case it showed a "career path" built around a specific in-story set of class features. Those features just happen to be gleaned from several classes. Combined they make a new whole. A whole that has a new definition derived from the sum of its parts (assassin/monk/warlock). Members of the Order of the Unseen are these things. All of them. Its what makes them unique.

But I've also had characters who have deviated from an otherwise straight path as a result of in-game circumstances and/or story reasons.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As a DM, I usually just ask the player how they learned the new class, if it's not something they've already told me about. It can be as simple as learning from another party member or an NPC. I work with them to make it work...and usually, it actually creates more verisimilitude rather than less.

But it's an optional rule for a reason, and not for every table. I can understand those who do 't like it.