Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Umbran]

I have been trying to figure out a paladin/swashbuckler that is plausible.

Folks, when we tell you to leave a discussion, we mean it. If you fail to do so, you earn yourself a vacation from the site.

It should go without saying - best behavior in here from this point on.

Thank you, everyone. We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion of how to pretend to be elves.

 

[Greg K]

Why not? Paladins aren't "knights in shining armor" anymore. Never really were, but, that's how a lot of people viewed them..

I am not saying others cannot or should not do it or interpret them that way. However I would not allow it a game that I am running. For the Three Musketeers and Wesley, I would rule that the oaths falls under ideals and bonds rather than Paladin oaths, because, as you pointed out, they are not doing spell stuff. For Luke, I can see it inspiring a Paladin like order, but to me the Jedi stuff falls more under a psionic or arcane warrior or even a weapon using monk with semi-religious or philosophical overtones. Assuming, there is a jedi influenced order, I as the DM would decide how I want them represented.

 

[Greg K]

Yep. I do this. But that's also because of my previously stated point about classes supposedly taking years of training to develop, et al. So if a character was created as a Fighter, them suddenly MC into Monk isn't cool with me.

This is my take as well.

That said, if a character is always presented with this concept ("I was trained in a monastery, but rejected because I pursued war rather than peace"), then the later addition of a MC is valid ("Having trained in war, I later recalled the focus that defined me earlier in life"). In fact, this is one of the few ways that I'd consider allowing a MC!

I am going to want a little more. An appropriate background, and/or, maybe, a feat taken at first level. If not, I am going to require significant downtime and a trainer unless a PC is available to train the character in the class. In the latter case, I am going to want some type of indication of training such as investing in a feat relating to the new class at least one level prior to taking it.

(edit: My preference for many concepts, would be as with 3e - create a new class variant or find a new base class somewhere)

 

[Greg K]

Examples of my take on multiclassing when running (ommv):

The Count of Monte Cristo ((Jim Caviezel): Edmond Dantes trains as fighter while in prison picking up maneuvers and weapon style (I like Khaalis's Light Fighter variant which, for me, fits a missing archetype). When he joins up with the pirates, he gains his first level in rogue.

Zorro (Antonio Banderas version). Rogue 1 (or, possibly, just a criminal background, but I will go with Rogue for this). Upon meeting up with Anthony Hopkins's character multiclasses into the Light Armor variant above where he picks up his weapon style and maneuvers (then, moves into one of Khaalis's subclasses for his variant. (most likely Swashbuckler).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I've never planned a 20 level path, and this is my method! But I do understand what you are saying, and I actually agree: characters should evolve through game play and they are far, far more than their backstory. Where I think we differ is in the degree of that evolution. As I mentioned, the classes supposedly represent years of previous training and experience. One does not just wake up one day and become a wizard when they've spent their whole life as a thief. So for a character to "suddenly" gain levels in wizard doesn't work for me. There has to be a connection. So with that in mind, we have a few options:

1) The character doesn't become a wizard. But that thief might dabble into the mystic arts as an Arcane Trickster. In this case, it's simply a question of archetype selection. As I think I mentioned in my first post in this thread (or maybe it was a different thread), the 5e archetypes largely remove the need to MC since they emulate many of the traditional MC concepts. This is my preferred method. Microevolution, if you will.
2) The characters take a year or so of Downtime, with the PC using that time Training for the new class. Then they can MC into the new class. Now this only works if the players are all willing for their characters to have that extended downtime. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily bad. Pendragon did great things with the passage of time and it's direct relationship to the characters' developments. Slow evolution.

Or there is the option posited above...
3) Connect the MC with the character's backstory so that there is a reasonable expectation that the base for the class existed, so the years of downtime are not necessary. Hidden evolution.

And actually, now that I think of it, you could argue for option 4, which allows certain classes to be overnight MC. Warlock comes to mind. Theoretically, a Patron could overload a character's mind with all the knowledge and understanding necessary to be a Warlock 1 as soon as the character seals a pact with them. But this method really only would work with select classes. Cambrian explosion?

This is also why I am not a big fan of MC. Now - and I don't want to be misunderstood - in my experience most players have a general idea of the character they want to play from the beginning. They typically know if they want to be a tough guy, a sneak, a spell-caster, or what-not. Further, they usually know if they want to do a "spellsword" or "magician thief" early on. So -still speaking anecdotally from my own experience- most (though not all) of the people I've seen who "spontaneously" MC in a direction that has no connection to their character's backstory or no direct connection to the adventures they've encountered are just making a grab for new and kewl powerz. While this is obviously not true for every player, this sort of macroevolution does seem to attract that sort of player. So it is easier and more consistent for me to just disallow most MC, and demand a tie in for the ones that are allowed. Does this punish the "good" players who aren't looking for a power grab? I suppose, if you consider the class/sub-class combos to be too limited and hence punishing. But in my estimation, the class/sub-class combos cover most "normal" MC combo concepts, and are good enough.

I wouldn't advocate this as a universal rule that must be written in the books and applied to all tables, but it is definitely the preference for me at the tables I game with.

Very thoughtful response - thanks for clarifying - can’t really argue with much that is here at all.

I like the the idea of downtime to start with, so that can just be a part of the game required for advancing a level whether MCing or not. This, of course, might run under the assumption that all PCs are leveling at the same rate - which is not currently the leveling mechanic I’m using in our two different campaigns right now. Hmmm... maybe that requires the player to play their back up character at least until their main character is done with down time training. There are definitely ways to make it work in the fiction of the game at most tables.

anyway, thanks for the ideas to mull over - much appreciated!

 

[Arial Black]

Now - and I don't want to be misunderstood - in my experience most players have a general idea of the character they want to play from the beginning. They typically know if they want to be a tough guy, a sneak, a spell-caster, or what-not. Further, they usually know if they want to do a "spellsword" or "magician thief" early on. So -still speaking anecdotally from my own experience- most (though not all) of the people I've seen who "spontaneously" MC in a direction that has no connection to their character's backstory or no direct connection to the adventures they've encountered are just making a grab for new and kewl powerz. While this is obviously not true for every player, this sort of macroevolution does seem to attract that sort of player.

I must admit that this seems strange to me; the idea that IF a player is all about 'grabbing powerz' then they do it spontaneously, on a whim!

In my experience, the TRUE system master who is motivated by 'powerz' will already have worked out their level progression 1-20. And, if they can be bothered or if they think their DM requires justification greater than just the RAW, will write a 15 page backstory that will explain every multiclass along the way. As well as explaining why women adore them and why they are destined to become ruler of the multiverse.

This touches on the Stormwind Fallacy. It is wrong to assume there there are only two types of player: those who care ONLY about the fluff, and those who care ONLY about the crunch. This leads to errors like assuming that those who carefully craft the crunch side of their PC ONLY cares about crunch and therefore CANNOT care about the fluff, therefore I've clocked them as a dirty powergaming munchkin the moment the word 'multiclass' leaves their lips, so I must pre-ban MCing on that basis.

In fact, there are those who care passionately about BOTH fluff AND crunch, and want to execute BOTH with a great deal of thought. You simply cannot tell the difference between someone who likes both and someone who only cares about 'powerz' just by their desire to MC.

 

[Arial Black]

Stormwind Fallacy guide, part 1: The Two Player Types.

Type 1: fluff is all that matters.

Player 1: Hey, DM, I've got a brilliant idea for my next PC. It all started many moons ago, the wind was howling around the moors. A lady in a dark dress, grey, charcoal maybe, maybe just shiny black, I haven't completely worked that out yet....

....and when he was four years old he met the first great love of his life...

...now we get to what happened on his 12th birthday!

(many hours later)

DM: Okay, what's your attack modifier with your 'famous toledo blade'?

Player 1: No idea. But I can describe in detail the history of Toledo Blades, if you want?

DM: No. No I don't.

Type 2: crunch is all that matters.

Player 2: Hey, DM, I've got a brilliant idea for my next PC. It's based on a certain interpretation of the RAW which allows me to combine...

...and that, combined with Polearm Master, my interpretation of mirror image, and this new ability from a 3rd party splatbook...

(many hours later)

DM: Okay, what's your character's name?

Player 2: No idea. But I can tell you what my average damage per round will be when all my abilities are lined up, if you want?

DM: Excuse me for a moment, I need to go and take some acid aspirin....!

 

[Guest 6801328]

So -still speaking anecdotally from my own experience- most (though not all) of the people I've seen who "spontaneously" MC in a direction that has no connection to their character's backstory or no direct connection to the adventures they've encountered are just making a grab for new and kewl powerz.

Ok, let's say that's true. So what? Why does it matter?

If that person's playstyle bothers you, then it really doesn't matter what the rules allow: you just aren't going to enjoy playing together.

 

[Grognerd]

I must admit that this seems strange to me; the idea that IF a player is all about 'grabbing powerz' then they do it spontaneously, on a whim!

In my experience, the TRUE system master who is motivated by 'powerz' will already have worked out their level progression 1-20.

I would agree, the "TRUE system master" would have done that. Again, and this is my experience not a scientific fact, most of the times I've seen this done it wasn't by a system master. It was by someone who saw something that has the kewl and suddenly decided that they wanted it for their character.

In fact...

This touches on the Stormwind Fallacy. It is wrong to assume there there are only two types of player: those who care ONLY about the fluff, and those who care ONLY about the crunch. This leads to errors like assuming that those who carefully craft the crunch side of their PC ONLY cares about crunch and therefore CANNOT care about the fluff, therefore I've clocked them as a dirty powergaming munchkin the moment the word 'multiclass' leaves their lips, so I must pre-ban MCing on that basis.

I fully agree with the Stormwind Fallacy. In fact - still my experience - the above noted "TRUE system master" has (as you noted) usually figured out how to make their crunch work within the fluff, for better or worse. But I don't mind the system masters who are optimizing their characters. I do mind the folks who just have to add all the kewlz to their character so they can be the one, best dude (though in fact it typically results in a haphazard and often less effective character). Versimilitude to justify adding a years-long training to gain a new class and the motive for wanting said class matters more than the mechanical combination of classes with me.

You simply cannot tell the difference between someone who likes both and someone who only cares about 'powerz' just by their desire to MC.

Agreed. But by generally disallowing or discouraging MC, I avoid having to make that judgment call.

 

[Grognerd]

Ok, let's say that's true. So what? Why does it matter?

Because it breaks verisimilitude. Which is fine if that's what people enjoy. I don't enjoy running those games, and rarely enjoy playing in games lacking verisimilitude.

If that person's playstyle bothers you, then it really doesn't matter what the rules allow: you just aren't going to enjoy playing together.

Absolutely correct: I wouldn't enjoy playing with that person. But isn't the point of this discussion to talk about why we would or wouldn't allow/disallow MC and the concurrent differences in playstyles and campaigns? I'm not sure what you are leading to with this?