Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Xetheral]

Why do you believe that there's a difference between your examples? Why do you accept that the fighter mechanics are tied to their skill with a weapon, but not accept that the barbarian's mechanics are tied to their barbarism?

Consider the Fighter's primary ability, Extra Attack. It works via the Attack Action, which in turn permits one to make Weapon Attacks. If you wanted to refluff the Fighter as a spellslinger, you'd have to either redesign the Attack Action to work with Spell Attacks, or redefine Weapon Attacks to include spells. Considering that either would be a major overhaul of the game's underlying mechanics, I'm comfortable claiming (if somewhat hyperbolically) that the Fighter's mechanics are "inextricably" tied to their use of weapons.

By contrast, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who aspires to have his tribe join civilization rather than shunning it as a form of weakness. For that matter, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who is already part of civilization and has no ties to "barbarism" whatsoever. So I see absolutely no reason that the Barbarian's mechanics are tied (let alone inextricably) to a belief that civilization is a form of weakness.

The paladin's Oath and the warlock's Pact are the sources by which they acquire their powers. By defining the terms of how these works, you're establishing how the world works, when it comes to accessing those powers. If Cthulhu exists, and your Pact with Cthulhu grants you magical powers, then the terms of the Pact define a truth about Cthulhu, which is beyond the purview of the player or their character.

The paladin's Oath is the price which they must pay in order to access their spells and other magical abilities. Letting a player dictate that price would be like letting them dictate the price for plate armor. A world where there's no real cost associated with becoming a paladin is a different world than one where only the few are capable of becoming (or willing to become) a paladin, in much the same way that a world where plate armor is expensive is different from a world where plate armor is cheap.

I agree with you on the Warlock, because the patron is an NPC and thus a part of the setting. But I disagree with you about the Paladin. I see the nuances of each Paladin's Oath as an idiosyncratic manifestation of the Paladin's underlying conviction, rather than as a setting-specific price that must be paid for power. One could certainly design a campaign world in which an Oath is a price, or each Oath has only a single Knightly Order, just as one could design a campaign setting in which every Wizard was first a formal apprentice to an NPC, or every Barbarian is a member of a fixed list of tribes, or any number of other setting-specific tie-ins. But I don't see the Paladin (unlike the Warlock) as having a setting-specific tie-in by default.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'm generally on board with hating a game for any reason whatsoever, but I don't quite follow you here.

Ah, a man after my own heart. Seriously, I'm not hatin' on 5e. I think 5e is the best version of D&D to come along since 1e. Love DM'ing (and now playing!...got to play THREE whole sessions as Wargrim Battlebrew, Dwarven Battlebrewer of Ulaa!). It's just that I don't like the way the MC works. Doesn't feel right to me.

I just don't get why it hurts your ability to multiclass evenly, if some other player chooses to multiclass unevenly. If your character maintains an even split between classes, and another character dips a single level into warlock (for whatever reason), then that shouldn't hurt your character identity.

Unless you want to argue from a setting design standpoint, that a world with only even split multiclassing is more interesting than a world where anyone can develop in different ways. Or if you think it makes for a more interesting Game, to play with more limited options. (In either case, I would expect you to also say that dwarves and halflings shouldn't be arcane spellcasters). Those arguments would make sense.

My main "argument" is that a MC character in 5e never feels like a MC character to me. Why? I guess the "problem" I have with it is a DM can't say "Ok, Tracy, here's your characters XP. You get 1200 even. Divide them between your Fighter and Thief classes". ...because there is not difference between the characters classes and their XP's gained. That amalgamation of XP equaling a "total number of levels" simply does not feel..."right"...to me.

Probably because I'm old. And crotchety. And am in need of my nap. Or maybe it's because I just don't like the way 5e MC "feels". Or, most likely, all of the above.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By contrast, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who aspires to have his tribe join civilization rather than shunning it as a form of weakness. For that matter, not a single element of the Barbarian's mechanics needs to change to accommodate a Barbarian who is already part of civilization and has no ties to "barbarism" whatsoever. So I see absolutely no reason that the Barbarian's mechanics are tied (let alone inextricably) to a belief that civilization is a form of weakness.

Any character who belongs to the Barbarian class has the ability to rage, wherein they gain the ability to shrug off wounds that would kill a lesser person as long as that wound is inflicted while they are raging (among other benefits). If that ability isn't tied to their barbarism, then where does it come from? Why can't anyone else do that whenever they get angry? What is the in-game reality which is associated with a character belonging to that class?

I agree with you on the Warlock, because the patron is an NPC and thus a part of the setting. But I disagree with you about the Paladin. I see the nuances of each Paladin's Oath as an idiosyncratic manifestation of the Paladin's underlying conviction, rather than as a setting-specific price that must be paid for power.

In your understanding of the default D&D setting, where does a Paladin's magic come from? Do they grant it to themselves, based on the strength of their own resolve? And if so, why would there be specific Orders that such convictions must fall into? Why can't anyone gain magic power, regardless of what they believe, as long as they believe it strongly enough?

But I don't see the Paladin (unlike the Warlock) as having a setting-specific tie-in by default.

I guess this is the important part, but I can basically see where you're coming from with your points here. You're presenting a fairly well-reasoned argument. Do you see your positions as being obvious and indisputable? Or do you see how some people might read more into the class descriptions, as I do?

If you can concede that it's possible to have a different interpretation here, then you should also agree that the DM (or setting creator) is the one who says what the truth actually is for that world. If you were the DM, and you told me that Barbarians could be civilized and have different fluff for their rage, and that Paladins granted powers to themselves, then I would have to accept that if I wanted to play at your table.

And that's basically what it comes down to. A player who shows up with their own specific Oath interpretation is the equivalent of telling the DM how Oaths work in that world, and that they're definitely up to the individual rather than coming from one of a few specific divine sources. And if the DM doesn't agree with that, because they interpret the text as saying that the Orders correspond to a few specific divine Powers, then it's the player telling the DM that the DM's interpretation of how the world works is wrong.

 

[Salthorae]

My main "argument" is that a MC character in 5e never feels like a MC character to me. Why? I guess the "problem" I have with it is a DM can't say "Ok, Tracy, here's your characters XP. You get 1200 even. Divide them between your Fighter and Thief classes". ...because there is not difference between the characters classes and their XP's gained.

Why couldn't you do that in 5e though? Sure it'd be a bit homebrew, but... ok? or you can just only level at even levels and advance two classes at one time! Or ou bring back gestalt concepts or something. You're still limited by the action economy, so there are only so many things you can do in one round!

 

[Salthorae]

That sounds great and working as intended. If the Paladin blatantly goes against this Oath how would you have the benefactor react?

My theory (and it seems I am in a minority) is that the very being that GRANTS you powers has their own motivations for doing so, and if you go against that beings plans then they would take back the powers they granted to you to accomplish their goals. It’s seems that is written all over the descriptions for clerics, druids, Paladins and warlocks. There is no explicitly stated rule that says that, but it’s all over the descriptive text.

Those powers are controlled by the DM as the PC only controls himself. There has to be some give and take there, it can’t be the PC tells the DM “No it’s my PC so I control the whole situation between my PC and its power/diety/patron.

I agree with you on most of these points. That is one of the big differentiators between Wizards/Sorcerers/Bards who achieve magic through their own study or force of will and divine casters or people who have the power granted to them on a platter (warlocks). My only confusion is consequences for Warlocks (see my post above).

Also - I don't know how the DM who brought this spirit into our game would react if the PC went against the oath. he'd probably punish the player by either revoking powers or making him go Oathbreaker (depending on how egregious the violation is/was).

 

[5ekyu]

Why couldn't you do that in 5e though? Sure it'd be a bit homebrew, but... ok? or you can just only level at even levels and advance two classes at one time! Or ou bring back gestalt concepts or something. You're still limited by the action economy, so there are only so many things you can do in one round!

One of my house rules for my next campaign is to only level up at two level jumps.

if we start at 1st or 3rd it will be at odd levels. 2nd or 4th, even ones.

It has nothing to do with MC feel - instead about making leveling even more significant for all and less often with longer periods to explorer new abilities before getting another set.

But it would also help that in a way - for those for whom it matters.

But, honestly, not a complaint i have ever heard.

 

[Arial Black]

Er...no? I mean, technically, if the DM always awards XP equally to all a MC characters classes, it may look that way, but it really isn't. I can't remember where (took a quick look in the 1e PHB and DMG in the likely spots) but I distinctly remember reading that the DM could/should award a MC characters XP "unequally" if it made more sense (e.g., a F/T who is in a gladatorial pit fighting his way to freedom gets 3000xp; the DM could say that 2k of it goes to Fighter, and only 1k to Thief, for example).

No, I think you imagined that. I suppose it may be an optional rule hidden somewhere, but the actual multiclass rules were that:-

* each (single class) PC has an experience point total gained from various adventuring activities
* if you have 16+ in your class' prime requisite(s) then add 10% to that total
* to find out what level this PC is, cross-reference that XP total on that class' table

How that changed for multiclass PCs:-

* each multiclass PC earns XPs from adventuring activities
* that total is divided by the number of classes in that multiclass (so divide by 2 for a F/M, divide by 3 for a F/M/T)
* for each individual class XP total, if you have 16+ in the prime requisite(s) of that class, add +10%
* to find out the level in each of those classes, cross-reference each individual total with that class' advancement table

For example, let's say that your single class druid had earned 34000 XP through adventuring activity. If you cross-reference this total to find their level on the druid advancement table you will find that this druid is 6th level.

But wait! I just remembered that my Wis is 17 and my Cha is 16. I get +10% XPs. Therefore my total is 34000+3400=37400. Cross-referencing that total on the druid advancement table I find that they are now 7th level. I really hope the DM doesn't use that 'you have to train to level up' rubbish! Of course he doesn't, nobody does.

(forgive me for any mistakes on specific numbers but I'm working from memory of the druid advancement table when I haven't seen it in 30 years. )

But my multiclass F/M/T friend has been on the same adventures and gained the same number of XPs, which is a bit of a coincidence since the DM usually awarded some bonus XPs for class-specific things, like thieves getting more for money and fighters getting more for killing, etc. Maybe that's what you are (mis-)remembering?

So the F/M/T has the same 34000 XP, including any bonuses from class-specific activity. The player, not the DM, then divides that total by 3 (round down) to get 11333/11333/11333. They then add +10% for each class that has 16+ in that class' prerequisites. This PC has 18/82 Str, 16 Dex and 15 Int, so the F and T totals get +10% but the M total doesn't, getting 12466/11333/12466. Now, cross-reference 12466 on the fighter advancement table to see what fighter level they are, cross-reference 11333 on the mage advancement table to see what mage level they are, and cross-reference 12466 on the thief advancement table to see what level thief they are.

At this point my memory fails as to what total XPs correspond to which levels for those classes and totals. I just remembered 35000=druid 7th because it was unusually high.

But it would resemble something like 4/4/5. Something like that. If someone has access to those tables, by all means let us know the actual numbers.

My point is that the DM awards XPs, including bonus XPs for class specific stuff, to the player. The player then does the dividing and adding any +10%s. So doing more of thieving and casting and less of fighting during an adventure did not impact the divided XP totals unevenly. The only thing that could make them uneven were the possible +10%s.

Of course, we may have been playing wrong all those years ago, but if so I played in many groups that accidentally did the exact same wrong thing!

As opposed to the things we deliberately did wrong, like requiring training to level up (nobody ever!), or using class level limits for demihumans (variable).

 

[Kobold Boots]

But my multiclass F/M/T friend has been on the same adventures and gained the same number of XPs, which is a bit of a coincidence since the DM usually awarded some bonus XPs for class-specific things, like thieves getting more for money and fighters getting more for killing, etc. Maybe that's what you are (mis-)remembering?
.

I think you're both circling the difference and neither is entirely accurate. Arial has the math down pat, PMing has the application down pat but there's a middle that can be found on page 83 of the 1e DMG.

Paraphrased (and you can find my post up thread for clarity) the DM has the ability to rank your character on a four rank scale based on their performance by the class or classes they play. It's entirely possible for a multi-class character to earn a thousand XP, then split it up by 2 (500 XP per class) then get rated highly on one class and poorly on another and end up with 750 towards one class and 250 towards another.

Note that this ranking system was not considered optional in terms of RAW, but was certainly just as optional as anything else in the rules given how people freely interpreted things or didn't read things at the time.

Be well
KB

 

[Warpiglet]

I think you're both circling the difference and neither is entirely accurate. Arial has the math down pat, PMing has the application down pat but there's a middle that can be found on page 83 of the 1e DMG.

Paraphrased (and you can find my post up thread for clarity) the DM has the ability to rank your character on a four rank scale based on their performance by the class or classes they play. It's entirely possible for a multi-class character to earn a thousand XP, then split it up by 2 (500 XP per class) then get rated highly on one class and poorly on another and end up with 750 towards one class and 250 towards another.

Note that this ranking system was not considered optional in terms of RAW, but was certainly just as optional as anything else in the rules given how people freely interpreted things or didn't read things at the time.

Be well
KB

Just wow! So many nuggets untouched in this great game! Gygax was
A damn genius even if you ignored some
Of his rules. Wish I could have been his friend and gaming buddy! I give two sh*ts about celebrity...but him? Always amazed.

 

[Arial Black]

Any character who belongs to the Barbarian class has the ability to rage, wherein they gain the ability to shrug off wounds that would kill a lesser person as long as that wound is inflicted while they are raging (among other benefits). If that ability isn't tied to their barbarism, then where does it come from? Why can't anyone else do that whenever they get angry? What is the in-game reality which is associated with a character belonging to that class?

Up to the player.

For example, my current 5e PC is a Bar3/War 6. Conceptually, this PC (soldier background) is completely civilised, never worn a loincloth in his life. It's just that he has....anger management issues! They stem from the circumstances of his birth which (briefly and tastefully) involve him being conceived at the same moment his father transformed into a werewolf for the first time! Think Blade from the comics/films, but instead of being a bit vampire-y he's a bit wolf-ey. When he rages, he seems to manifest some minor wolf-ey features (hair, eyes, what-have-you) and the game mechanics of all that are simply the barbarian's Rage without any game mechanic alteration whatsoever! Exactly the same barbarian class mechanics, fluffed as a super-civilised army officer.

My fluff. It's up to me.

Just like I fluffed my background (soldier-officer) into Captain of the Avant Guard, the best regiment in the army, focusing on scouting and trail-blazing, with a uniform so smart its got a PhD from the best university in the land!

Yeah, I fluffed it, not the DM. I imagined this whole regiment. The DM is okay with it.

Sure, the DM could refuse. If he were a jerk. He could say that he has already created every regiment in every army in the world and there can be no more....but why would he? Just to be a jerk? As if he has already thought of every detail in the world and the players are not allowed to think of anything? What kind of jerk would be like that? DMs are happy to let players think about that kind of thing! It's good that the player is so invested!

But doesn't that mean the player can abuse it by saying he's the king? Well, at that point the player is probably treading on the DM's toes, because the DM probably will have already decided who the king is and even if he hasn't he doesn't want the PC to have that kind of power.

But the player could easily have chosen the Noble background. If the DM has a load of noble families already detailed, what does the DM do? Say that the player doesn't have more money or influence beyond that stated in character creation? Of course, I wouldn't expect anything else. My job as a player is to explain how I've only got this much money/power/influence despite being a noble. I may be a younger son. It may be that all the money and magic and influence that surrounded me as I grew up doesn't actually belong to me but to my family, and when I run away to join the circus/adventuring company I could take only what the book says I have as starting equipment.

I'll think of something, and it will make sense. Happy to collaborate with the DM; in fact, that collaboration with the DM is the 'A' option for both player and DM. But what DM would say, "No! I'm the DM, you don't get to decide about anything except your own PC, therefore you cannot choose your parent's names, or backgrounds, or....anything except your own PC".

Try it! Try to make a background for every PC you will ever play without 'treading on the DM's creative toes' and even mentioning an NPC. Who were your parents? No idea, the DM hasn't informed me yet. What kind of jerk DM works that way?

Does the DM say that I can't be a noble on the grounds that he's already created every noble family and knows how many children each noble family has and you are not one of them? Does he give you a list of acceptable noble families? Or does he allow you to think of your own noble family and work with you to fit it into his world making adjustments as necessary, like a proper DM and not a jerk?

He could say that even though he hasn't thought of everything in the world, I still cannot invent this new regiment. Why? Because it would mess with his world? Because he is so jealous of his authority that no-one except him can contribute?

What if I say my parents were called Janet and John? Would a DM say, "No! It's my world, and I decide what the NPCs are called, not you!" Sure, he could say that, but what kind of jerk would actually prevent the player from making up the names of his own PC's parents?

In your understanding of the default D&D setting, where does a Paladin's magic come from? Do they grant it to themselves, based on the strength of their own resolve? And if so, why would there be specific Orders that such convictions must fall into? Why can't anyone gain magic power, regardless of what they believe, as long as they believe it strongly enough?

They can. Those that do may become paladins

And that's basically what it comes down to. A player who shows up with their own specific Oath interpretation is the equivalent of telling the DM how Oaths work in that world, and that they're definitely up to the individual rather than coming from one of a few specific divine sources. And if the DM doesn't agree with that, because they interpret the text as saying that the Orders correspond to a few specific divine Powers, then it's the player telling the DM that the DM's interpretation of how the world works is wrong.

The Oaths are like laws: you cannot break them. Imagine a law that says 'No smoking'. If you smoke, you've broken the law. If you don't, you have not broken that law.

Now imagine a law which says 'Be nice to people'. Okay, I do my best to be nice to people. One day, I see a beggar and give him a gold piece. Is that nice? Sure. Have I broken the 'be nice' law? No.

But my DM says that I've lost my paladin powers! WTF? Why? "Because you could have given the beggar 10 gp instead of 1gp, and I'm the DM and what I say goes and how I interpret the text of the law trumps yours!"

That's the kind of DM I'm complaining about!

Meanwhile, there are those who (correctly) see the game mechanics as a metagame rules structure that allows us all to play in our imaginary worlds, but the imagination part is up to us. Just to give you an idea of what we mean, here are three example character ideas for each class, but the fluff is up to you.

Then there are those who (wrongly!) read the exact same words and come to the conclusion that the only allowed PCs are those three examples per class. That the game mechanics of class (barbarian, bard, cleric) are not only the metagame but also the in-world reality. That a 'fighter' is something that the creatures in the game world can know, as opposed to a thief. That the creatures in the game world can get a microscope and tell the difference between a 'fighter' and a 'thief' by looking.

It's rare I say this, but those guys are role-playing wrong.