Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Maxperson]

I don't know, man. If "A street urchin can't be a barbarian" and "A street urchin can be a barbarian, assuming a narratively coherent chain of transformative events" mean pretty much the same thing to you, there's going to be communication problems.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've been saying that they are not the same thing this entire portion of the thread. A street urchin can't be a barbarian. Exceptions exist to virtually every rule, but only under very specific sets of circumstances. If a player wants to be an exception, they will need to explain HOW they are an exception in a way that makes sense.

People are obviously assuming a rationale between the transformation from state A (background) and state B (1st level character), because there's a ton of narrative space in between.

No such rationale is given and I'm not going to assume that they mean anything other than a typical street urchin can be a barbarian if he's angry, if that's what they are saying. The only thing some of them have given as their rationale is aging.

 

[Krachek]

The barbarian class is not tied to a specific background in DnD 5.
The class itself do not make any reference to tribal or nature background.
The frenzy berserker is not loved but give plenty of space to play with an soldier, criminal, urchin or any background that a fighter would usually choose.

The unpopularity of the frenzy berserker sub class made people think barbarian == tribal totem warrior.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Both intelligence and spellcasting are equivalents in this analogy. ie. "Things that define a class"

Wizard's don't have to use spells. Barbarians don't have to be strong.

Wizard's also don't have to be intelligent. Barbarians also don't have to use weapons.

No, I think that the distinction stands. The ability scores may be enablers that affect how well the character performs their class' functions, but that is not the same as actually being class functions.
Of course. most characters of the wizard class will have a reasonably high intelligence, and many characters of the barbarian class will have a decent strength. But that is not the same as claiming that having a score that synergises with some of the core mechanics of the class is the same as having and using those core class mechanics in the first place.

If the group has agreed to use the PHB point buy only then that player upon explanation would realize his error and instead keep his character and modify his class concept or keep his class concept and change to the barbarian class. Either would be acceptable. In the situation you describe the game rules were already set out and there was a misunderstanding. Since he was the one in error he needs to be the one to adapt and make the game work.

What error? The concepts posited in this example are within the given boundaries of the suggested game. The issue being examined is the clash of concepts. (Wanting to play the strongest starting human vs. another character happening to have the same strength as you do.)

I've already elaborated why it's a perfectly rational position. Calling it irrational now serves no purpose other than to inflame.

Disliking multiclassing for example can be perfectly rational. Telling another player that they can't multiclass because you don't like multiclassing would be regarded as less so. At the very least, you're likely to be called out by the DM, if not the rest of the table.

Player 1's preference is the same as player 2's. They both want to play a specific character concept with a specific set of mechanics.

I feel there there is a distinction between applying a personal preference (within the group rules) to your character: (eg. "I want to play a street tough using barbarian class mechanics." or "I don't like multiclassing so I'm not going to play a multiclass character.")
And applying that personal preference to someone else's character as player 1 is in this example: "You can't have a character use the class mechanics of the barbarian class unless you're from an outlander culture." or "I don't like multiclassing so you can't play a multiclass character."

Those preferences, if enforced are not the same.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, I think that the distinction stands. The ability scores may be enablers that affect how well the character performs their class' functions, but that is not the same as actually being class functions.
Of course. most characters of the wizard class will have a reasonably high intelligence, and many characters of the barbarian class will have a decent strength. But that is not the same as claiming that having a score that synergises with some of the core mechanics of the class is the same as having and using those core class mechanics in the first place.

What error? The concepts posited in this example are within the given boundaries of the suggested game. The issue being examined is the clash of concepts. (Wanting to play the strongest starting human vs. another character happening to have the same strength as you do.)

In the example Arial provided he made it clear that the player was told the PHB but then used the limited free version not realizing there was a difference.

Disliking multiclassing for example can be perfectly rational. Telling another player that they can't multiclass because you don't like multiclassing would be regarded as less so. At the very least, you're likely to be called out by the DM, if not the rest of the table.

That's the actual point of this discussion. When it's very presence affects your character concept, it is rational to not want others to use it.

I feel there there is a distinction between applying a personal preference (within the group rules) to your character: (eg. "I want to play a street tough using barbarian class mechanics." or "I don't like multiclassing so I'm not going to play a multiclass character.")

And applying that personal preference to someone else's character as player 1 is in this example: "You can't have a character use the class mechanics of the barbarian class unless you're from an outlander culture." or "I don't like multiclassing so you can't play a multiclass character."

Those preferences, if enforced are not the same.​

I totally agree. The issue is that you refuse to view the option of multiclassing as ever affecting a players character concept that doesn't multiclass. Once the mere presence of an option starts affecting a players character concept then it's no longer just a personal preference to "your" character.​

So you are saying the person that wants the multiclassing option isn't applying his preference to the others character and I'm saying, wait a minute they actually are. All a character boils down to is mechanics and concept. By adding in class A that better represents X than class B you are taking away some of the concepts that class B supports in the game.

So what we actually have is a rule that's very presence affects player A that hates multicalssing and a rule that's absence affects player B that likes it. If the rule didn't affect player A by it's very presence then the best solution is for him to personally not multiclass and player B to personally multiclass. That isn't what is going on here though.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I've never seen one start lower than 14, and usually higher than that. They also usually get even stronger with stat increases. Lastly, even if you stay at 14, you will have an 18 when you hit 20th level, have advantage on strength checks and saves while raging, and be unable to fail to have at least a 14 on strength checks(18 when 20th level). Even if the score is 14, those extra abilities give you more "strength" than normal people who can fail to roll equal to their strength and don't have advantage on those checks when they get angry.

Cool. So we're on the same page that rage can push the limits of what a character is capable of beyond what their physique would normally allow. And that the typical ability distribution of someone playing a character using barbarian class mechanics is just typical rather than required.
(Its also worth bearing in mind that in 5e, the Strength Ability score represents natural athleticism and ability to generate power rather than raw muscle bulk. Bruce Lee would be a good example of a high-Str character in 5e.)

Adventurers typically start young

Adventurers start at whatever age that player writes on their character sheet at beginning of play.

First, I would help the player create a Street Tough background. A Street Tough is not an Urchin. Second, I would work with the player to see whether he is just cludging barbarian into his concept because some of the abilities fit the concept. Often there are better ways to get to the concept that the player hasn't thought of. Third, there's often a way to tweak the background, which while it includes the mechanical background choice, is the entirety of the character's background from birth on up. If the PC had been captured from a barbarian tribe at a young age and brought to the city, he could have the Street Tough background and be a barbarian. There is almost always a way to make something work. I almost never have to ask a player not to play a character. In fact, I can't think of the last time it happened. Would have been more than 10-15 years ago at the very least.

Remember that this discussion is about a clash of concepts between players within the game rules set by the DM. A DM would be within their authority to lay down the law about what sort of characters are allowed to use what classes, or what backgrounds must represent. What people have been arguing with you about is that a player shouldn't have the ability to tell another player that they can't play their concept due to the player's preferences.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've been saying that they are not the same thing this entire portion of the thread. A street urchin can't be a barbarian. Exceptions exist to virtually every rule, but only under very specific sets of circumstances. If a player wants to be an exception, they will need to explain HOW they are an exception in a way that makes sense.

No such rationale is given and I'm not going to assume that they mean anything other than a typical street urchin can be a barbarian if he's angry, if that's what they are saying. The only thing some of them have given as their rationale is aging.

No, people have been talking about a street fighting character that uses the class mechanics of the barbarian class, and the 'Street Urchin' background as given in the PHB.
Any implication that this must mean that they spent time in an outlander culture, or that they were a weak and malnourished child right up to the point of becoming an adventuring PC are yours and yours alone.

 

[5ekyu]

No, I think that the distinction stands. The ability scores may be enablers that affect how well the character performs their class' functions, but that is not the same as actually being class functions.
Of course. most characters of the wizard class will have a reasonably high intelligence, and many characters of the barbarian class will have a decent strength. But that is not the same as claiming that having a score that synergises with some of the core mechanics of the class is the same as having and using those core class mechanics in the first place.

What error? The concepts posited in this example are within the given boundaries of the suggested game. The issue being examined is the clash of concepts. (Wanting to play the strongest starting human vs. another character happening to have the same strength as you do.)

Disliking multiclassing for example can be perfectly rational. Telling another player that they can't multiclass because you don't like multiclassing would be regarded as less so. At the very least, you're likely to be called out by the DM, if not the rest of the table.

I feel there there is a distinction between applying a personal preference (within the group rules) to your character: (eg. "I want to play a street tough using barbarian class mechanics." or "I don't like multiclassing so I'm not going to play a multiclass character.")
And applying that personal preference to someone else's character as player 1 is in this example: "You can't have a character use the class mechanics of the barbarian class unless you're from an outlander culture." or "I don't like multiclassing so you can't play a multiclass character."

Those preferences, if enforced are not the same.

In my current 5e campaign as a player, my inventory is detailed into four distinct groups...
Stuff on person in clothes and pouches
Stuff in on duty backpack (short mission)
Stuff in long duty sack
Stuff in other sacks generally stored.

Within each, it's broken down into containers and positions. Coins also divided.

It's a preference of mine carried over from older school days when that's how we did it.

I did not insist other players do that (not required by GM or rules) nor does it bother me that they didn't. Using normal 5e ruled could carried it all.

When we lost wagons, marked off the sacks cuz that's where they would been. No problem.

 

[FrogReaver]

Maybe it's best to ask when you hear someone say I dislike multiclassing whether they mean they just dislike doing it themselves or dislike playing in games where it's present. Those are both two very valid preferences and it seems the one about disliking playing in games where it's present is being conflated with a dislike of doing it yourself which in turn is driving some to claim that the preference of disliking D&D games with multiclassing present is irrational, shouldn't matter to you if others multiclass as long as you aren't etc. Basically the preference of not liking multiclassing to be a thing in a D&D 5e campaign is turning into a preference that no one can or should ever have because XYZ.

 

[FrogReaver]

...

Remember that this discussion is about a clash of concepts between players within the game rules set by the DM. A DM would be within their authority to lay down the law about what sort of characters are allowed to use what classes, or what backgrounds must represent. What people have been arguing with you about is that a player shouldn't have the ability to tell another player that they can't play their concept due to the player's preferences.

I think you may be misunderstanding the disagreement.

 

[smbakeresq]

Maybe it's best to ask when you hear someone say I dislike multiclassing whether they mean they just dislike doing it themselves or dislike playing in games where it's present. Those are both two very valid preferences and it seems the one about disliking playing in games where it's present is being conflated with a dislike of doing it yourself which in turn is driving some to claim that the preference of disliking D&D games with multiclassing present is irrational, shouldn't matter to you if others multiclass as long as you aren't etc. Basically the preference of not liking multiclassing to be a thing in a D&D 5e campaign is turning into a preference that no one can or should ever have because XYZ.

Yes. As said in another thread by Obliza:

“Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”

Until your build comes together other players are carrying you. If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. As said in another thread by Obliza:

“Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”

Until your build comes together other players are carrying you. If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.

Yep, in addition to impacts to character concepts, there's also the mechanical and game balance issues a person can dislike multiclassing being present in games.