Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Tony Vargas]

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.

MCing increases the complexity of the system and the system mastery required to use it, in exchange for that somewhat increased flexibility. Classless systems just cover more concepts without needing kludges and increased complexity.

Class-based systems do have their advantages: they can be evocative of a property or genre, can make character generation more of a broad-strokes process, and so forth. But they are innately poor at covering a broad range of concepts.

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.

More slopes than speeds, but sure. Gasoline engines, with speeds, too - just compare to electric motors.

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.

Well, this is a 5e forum, and 5e makes multi-classing explicitly optional, and is all about evoking the classic game, so, while they may have tested it some, it's not /assumed/ ...
...rather like Feats and Magic Items and powergaming in general.

But, even if you assume multiclassing, you're still fighting the class-based design with it. As a sort of thought experiment, take 3.5 multiclassing to the logical extreme, make it easier and easier to combine smaller and smaller elements of each class in more and more combinations: eventually the classes are gone, they're just arbitrary headings for lists of abilities.

Second, it depends on what you define as "reasonable" as far as number of concepts.

Granted. My idea of reasonable is probably pretty unreasonable. I've been spoiled by games like Hero.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In many fantasy movies or fiction, many of the characters powers are not mapped to a game class. Why couldn't an evil sorcerer both consult with evil beings while also using force of will and study?

Most fantasy movies and fictions do not take place in a world that can be accurately described using a D&D ruleset. For those which do, character powers can always be mapped directly onto a game class.

Remember, D&D isn't some sort of generic fantasy engine that lets you describe any fantasy world. Each edition of D&D presents an extremely codified ruleset where wizards work one specific way, and druids work a different specific way. If you want to describe some other fantasy movie or fiction, and you want to use D&D in order to do it, then you need to house rule things in order to make it possible.

 

[abirdcall]

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.

I think the limitations of a class based game is a feature, not a bug.

I want D&D to be D&D, not all encompassing fantasy.

I don't want all possible character concepts.

I disagree with Tony about modelling a 'reasonable range'. We can hit the mark of reasonable with much fewer classes than we currently have.

 

[Gadget]

Personally, I have always found multi-classing to be kind a kludge from a design standpoint: trying to have your cake with a class based system and eat it to with a mod to make it more of a point buy type of system. It puts constraints on the design to take multi-classing into account for each new feature and design element. I don't think they did a great job with it, and they know it: thus the 'optional' label.

I've also found it to be very min/max, system mastery type of thing that draws players toward certain inclinations. Many of the 'builds' seem to coincidentally maximize the synergy of multi-classing for maximum effect. I don't think you would see so many 'sorcadins', 'warlock/sorcerers', paladin/sorcerers if the Warlock and/or sorcerer was not charisma based. Sure not every multiclass is a total min/max, optimize to the nines attempt, but there is that path.

I realize it can be boring to stick with the same class for 20 levels (for those few games that make it that high), so in my ideal world the classes would go to level 10, after which you could select a prestige class/paragon path that represents the direction you want to take. There are few high level class abilities (other than high level spells) that could not be distilled down to a ten level progression.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I realize it can be boring to stick with the same class for 20 levels (for those few games that make it that high), so in my ideal world the classes would go to level 10, after which you could select a prestige class/paragon path that represents the direction you want to take. There are few high level class abilities (other than high level spells) that could not be distilled down to a ten level progression.

Frightening thought: you could just have spell levels track caster levels. 1-9 spells levels over 1-10 caster levels...
...I suppose the caster class like that could be an 'advanced'/prestige/paragon class that you take as your second 10 levels...

 

[Satyrn]

Frightening thought: you could just have spell levels track caster levels. 1-9 spells levels over 1-10 caster levels...

That's less scary than 1-20 spell levels over 20 caster levels like Monte Cook experimented with.

And its far more restrained than the 1-30 spell levels over 1-30 fighter levels that Mike Mearls implemented.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the limitations of a class based game is a feature, not a bug.

I want D&D to be D&D, not all encompassing fantasy.

Sure, and other people want D&D to be a fantasy toolkit. That's why we have a core D&D game with both highly flexible core classes and highly specific ones.

But, even if you assume multiclassing, you're still fighting the class-based design with it. As a sort of thought experiment, take 3.5 multiclassing to the logical extreme, make it easier and easier to combine smaller and smaller elements of each class in more and more combinations: eventually the classes are gone, they're just arbitrary headings for lists of abilities.

Well, that's pretty much Star Wars Saga, and that was a pretty great system.

 

[abirdcall]

Sure, and other people want D&D to be a fantasy toolkit. That's why we have a core D&D game with both highly flexible core classes and highly specific ones.

I guess my point here is that if you want that you should look to a classless system.

 

[TwoSix]

I guess my point here is that if you want that you should look to a classless system.

Or just keep treating the fluff as mutable. Same result, but exponentially larger number of fellow players. 90% of the player base doesn't care either way.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think the limitations of a class based game is a feature, not a bug.

I want D&D to be D&D, not all encompassing fantasy.

I don't want all possible character concepts.

Who gets to decide which concepts are "D&D"?

I guess my point here is that if you want that you should look to a classless system.

Why? Multiclassing does the job.