Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Tallifer]

Some people see this as the reason why multiclassing is good. I see this as the reason why multiclassing is unnecessary.

Multiclassing is good for recreating classes which do not exist in any form, such as the Dark Age of Camelot Friar: cloth armour, staff-based acrobatic fighting style; plus minor blessings and healings. (Not the best example perhaps, as any attempt I have made to create such a D&D character has been a multi-ability-score-dependent weakling.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Multiclassing is good for recreating classes which do not exist in any form, such as the Dark Age of Camelot Friar: cloth armour, staff-based acrobatic fighting style; plus minor blessings and healings. (Not the best example perhaps, as any attempt I have made to create such a D&D character has been a multi-ability-score-dependent weakling.)

Monk with Magic Initiate, high-Dex Cleric in light armor, Divine Soul Sorcerer with good physical stats also work.

 

[Warpiglet]

I am seeing an argument that multiclassing in not necessary.

But my question would so are many choices in he game.

You can have a successful game without it but is the objection one of fluff or mechanics. If fluff, why is it such a sacred cow?

When 5e first came out, I thought no optional rules was the way to recreate an old school feel. Pretty quickly my focus changed...but why are others holding back? No judgment, just curiosity...

 

[Ymdar]

5e Paladin/Warlock? Seems like Griffith from Berserk to me.

 

[Ancalagon]

That would be a good way to do it.

Personally I like how subclasses fill the role of multiclassing and prefer it to your way, but I could live with yours.

I think for the popularity of the game it was better that they made multiclassing an optional module rather than something they designed around. Works well for me too as I just don't use it.

It is optional!

 

[Warpiglet]

The answer is in past editions alignment and sticking to an oath/code of honor/path/ideal for the special classes (ranger/paladin/druid/etc) was indeed part of the "balance" in exchange for all the cool stuff you got. So that's sort of become imprinted in the genetics of the overarching metagame.

Personally I'm fine with sacrificing the sacred cow - if you can come up with a neat idea to do so. Personally I can see a lot of possible ideas for the warlock/paladin. A paladin devoted to a holy cause but also under the sway of some kind of demonic shadow weapon is like 70s/80s fantasy 101.

On the other hand, besides feats multiclass /is/ the main way min/maxing gets silly in 5e. But it's not as silly as it was in 3.5, so I kind of remain ambivalent to it. Until players ask about polearm mastery/sentinel with a quarterstaff and shield, or dual wielding lances. Then my ambivalent genial DM facade melts away to reveal the demonic grognard within.

Edit: I have more to say and didn't want to doublepost:

One reason you see reaction especially to Warlock multiclassing is because of the way Warlock spell slots work. That affects class features from other classes in a profound way, which is why you see Warlock pop up so much in optimization discussions. Being able to use spell slots and get them back with a short rest, and those spell slots all being the highest level that your spell slots can be, really super charge certain class mechanics. The reaction comes from the folks who don't like bottom-up character development; i/e conceptualizing the possible interplay of mechanics before the story and flavor of the person.

In my personal opinion, bottom up or top down is fine as long as at the end you have a character that can add to the story at the table. If you're a walking frankenstein creation with no veneer of background flavor or anything to add to the narrative, that's when I get.... ​hasty.

Yes, my own tolerance for creativity meets its limit when someone does something for an in game advantage that does not make any sense given some assumptions about the world and medieval combat. No, dual wielding lances is not OK and polearm master while using a shield? Nope. RAW may say otherwise but I cannot stomach that among a few other things. Some people don't care and I trust they are having as much fun doing it as I have avoiding it.

Yes the old days had some fluff elements to balance the game...however, if you read the description of multiclassing for demihumans, you will note nothing about RP and everything about playstyle and strengths and weaknesses!

I suspect the whole "multiclassing doesn't make sense" gained traction in an era when there was more mechanical synergy vs. merely expanding options...which might be ironic.

I will tip my hand a bit...I like multiclassing and changing fluff to fit either the class combo or story or both but reviled prestige classes being combined in ways that made no in game sense. I think I am sort of in the middle of the positions about multiclassing.

However, I am not against reflavoring warlock abilities as only partially related to patron for example or perhaps in suggesting the pact is not all that important or life long...unless the DM story says it is or it adds something. I don't think a warlock who is instructed like a wizard is any game harming thing as an example.

I am starting to realize that I am close to 50/50 in terms of character development. Half the time I want a certain playstyle (gish) and the other half of the time I think of an interesting character. In either case, sometimes the story in my head supersedes fluff.

Part of my willingness to go in different directions is the open ended way some of the classes are written about! While talking about sorcerers for example, one source of spark could be the touch of an outsider! What does that have to do with dragons? I hope not much since I am not particularly into dragons...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I suspect the whole "multiclassing doesn't make sense" gained traction in an era when there was more mechanical synergy vs. merely expanding options...which might be ironic.

An uncomfortable truth about multiclassing rules is that they are a sort of tacit admission that class-based systems are innately inadequate to model a reasonable range of character concepts.

 

[Irennan]

I allow multiclassing if it makes sense lore-wise and world-wise. For example, a Cleric/Warlock is fine, as long as the warlock patron is a servant or an ally of you deity, and if you can come up with a story to justify it. There could also be the whole "an evil entity is trying to claim the character's soul, but the character is trying to escape the consequences of their pact/the entity's infuence by latching themselves onto a good deity" thingy. However, barring extremely pragmatic gods, that stroy would beg the question of why the character is even continuing to channel the evil entity's power.

Same thing for a paladin/warlock--your patron and your beliefs have to align at very least. A Bard/Cleric would be awesome for priest(esse)s of deities of arts, beauty, music, etc... Combining classes like Fighter, Rogue, and Monk could even simply represent the character experimenting with different combat tactics in their career.

Of course, picking a class mid-game would require a proper story/introduction to justify that. No gaining powers out of the blue, it's just jarring.

The sun is a very threat to your existence. It wouldn't feel good.

But that is beside the point, why a Drow? Why not any of a myriad of other races?

1. To be the centre of attention.
2. To tell a story to a captive audience rather than to create a story with friends.

It's just disrespectful. At our table we don't allow any of that sort of thing. You're here to contribute to the group or you should go write a novel on your own.

Some worlds do have drow presence on the surface--the Realms included, with 2 whole drow deities and their faiths dedicated to that, so it could very well make total sense, lore-wise (I mean, the possibility exists that they were born on the surface, and that has been true for millennia, in-universe). Some of those drow have managed to gain some presence in other races' settlements, like Waterdeep. On a side note, in FR at least, the drow only take as little as 10 years to adapt to sunlight. They're no vampires.

That said, the reason for picking a drow could simply be that the person likes the concept, which can be spun in many ways. The very part of conquering a new beginning (if the player is even going for a drow that came from a Lolthite background) can be played in many different ways, without begging for attention or anything like that--just like a character of any other race could have a story about rising from a shady past.

If their very presence is going to be problematic, disguises and magic initiate with disguise self (or picking that spell if you're a caster with it in your list) can go a long way. I mean, why assume that someone is going to be a drama queen when they could just be invested into the character?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

An uncomfortable truth about multiclassing rules is that they are a sort of tacit admission that class-based systems are innately inadequate to model a reasonable range of character concepts.

I don't think that creating a tool to expand the flexibility of a system demonstrates that the system is "innately inadequate". On the contrary, if the tool works and the system becomes more flexible, obviously it's not innately inadequate. You wouldn't say that gearshifts are a sort of tacit admission that bicycles are innately inadequate for travel at a reasonable range of speeds.

 

[5ekyu]

An uncomfortable truth about multiclassing rules is that they are a sort of tacit admission that class-based systems are innately inadequate to model a reasonable range of character concepts.

That depends on two things

Is multiclassing assumed as a part of the system or somehow relegated as an outside element. Maybe early classed systems treated it as an outside element but it seems most modern classed sysyems are built and tested with multi-classing as an expectation. Its not a tacit admission of a lack at all.

Second, it depends on what you define as "reasonable" as far as number of concepts. For a tight approach to a setting, a dozen classes may well serve the setting just great even as single classes - very reasonable. But when your defined goal is a whole lot of coverage for a wide variety of settings, single class multi-classing would seem to require a lot of single classes.

I dont find it harder to reach a reasonable range of character concepts with good class based systems myself, compared with the problems of non-classed system which imo often produce a lot more problems with just the cosmetic coversge of many concepts.

But there is not an absolute here, just preferences and expectations.