D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E

[Maxperson]

RPG characters and creatures are created. To some extent, your class, feats, special abilities, and so forth represent things you trained, but also things you are naturally good at learning. In real life, we sometimes find we have different strengths and weaknesses, which sometimes align with what we want to be good at, and what we are willing to work towards, and sometimes not. But a character's life and outcomes and powers are always what we pick for them.

Part of the reason heavy multiclassing in unpopular is because it can look, at times, not organic. On the other hand, locking certain traits behind certain class choices or levels can also feel less than organic, if they seem like things that fit the character we have in mind.

My only real issue with multiclassing is that someone, without any practice or training, can become a wizard in a day, because they leveled up in a fight. In my game I require the PCs to work towards multiclassing well before they ever get there, so at least there's some semblance of rationality to the new class. The exceptions are the classes where no training needs to be involved, like Cleric(the god chooses you), sorcerer(innate, natural ability), and warlock(made a deal with the devil for power).

 

[pawsplay]

My only real issue with multiclassing is that someone, without any practice or training, can become a wizard in a day, because they leveled up in a fight. In my game I require the PCs to work towards multiclassing well before they ever get there, so at least there's some semblance of rationality to the new class. The exceptions are the classes where no training needs to be involved, like Cleric(the god chooses you), sorcerer(innate, natural ability), and warlock(made a deal with the devil for power).

Why don't those involve training? Clerics and warlocks become more capable and trained as they level.

Do you have a problem with fighters learning how to make an Extra Attack in a day? A 5th level wizard learning Fireball in a day? I mean, if you want a rationale, that's fine, but I don't see what extra information the player needs to supply that they have been and are intending to multiclass, than just doing it. I'm even fine with multiclassing being "old muscles" the character simply hasn't used in a long time. "I was a sorcerer in my youth, but I lost the spark when my Jenny died" is fine by me.

 

[Maxperson]

Why don't those involve training? Clerics and warlocks become more capable and trained as they level.

Sure, but that training comes with experience, which the newly minted cleric and warlock get on the job. For the initial level, the power is pretty much granted by supernatural entitites.

Do you have a problem with fighters learning how to make an Extra Attack in a day?

They don't. They've been practicing with weapons since before they became 1st level, so by the time they hit 5th level, they've been learning how to be a bit better and faster with each level gained. That last day is when things click and they crest their ability with weapons.

A 5th level wizard learning Fireball in a day? I mean, if you want a rationale, that's fine, but I don't see what extra information the player needs to supply that they have been and are intending to multiclass, than just doing it. I'm even fine with multiclassing being "old muscles" the character simply hasn't used in a long time. "I was a sorcerer in my youth, but I lost the spark when my Jenny died" is fine by me.

See the fighter above. Going from absolutely nothing to wizard with no training, practice or even prior interest is the problem. Not experienced gained with prior levels culminating in a new ability.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

You don't need to reply, because you are done. This is my end to our discussion.

The odds that some NPC fighter out there with all the feats 3e had and all the prestige classes 3e had took the exact same combination as you, is somewhere close to 0. The odds of an NPC fighter out there with max dex and bow specialization in AD&D was guaranteed to exist in spades.

This makes it sound like "fighter" and "feat" are a real thing in-universe, as though they were "plumber" and "vocational qualification" - and I think that's a stretch for most people. Granted, prestige classes can blur the line between a suite of mechanical descriptions and an in-universe clique or society, but even there the identity is not assured.

I don't think NPCs "choose" a class or feat; rather they are assigned by the DM to describe their role. The DM or player may entertain the fancy (in their own mind) that the NPC is an autonomous entity, who is somehow subject to a bizarre sub-reality which is regulated by Byzantine mechanical rules, but that perception exists solely in their head.

Speaking about the "odds" of an NPC having a certain combination of feats doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Hussar]

Talk to WotC. They're the ones that seem allergic to giving us new classes. It's undeniable, though, that the current slate of classes aren't the only classes in the world.

I also don't know where you get that homebrewing makes the game inconsistent and unbelievable. That seems like a silly claim(I assume you're saying someone else claimed it) to make.

Ahh, are you conflating not knowing monster math so newbie DMs would create super unbalanced monsters due to no guidelines, with creating a new class or ability? If so, they are not the same. What's more, even if they had guidelines for monsters, the new monsters would STILL be homebrew, but they'd also be better balanced. Not perfect, but better balanced.

If the monster creation rules thread is why you said homebrewing is inconsistent and unbelievable, you are incorrect in your reading of that discussion.

You are the one insisting that it's impossible to figure out why a, for example, Hobgoblin can do an extra die of damage without a specific ability callout.

But, apparently, we can have entire classes that don't actually exist be a thing that the characters can learn to do, despite the fact that there is no such thing as any of these things in the game.

So, why is it okay for the DM to suddenly add an entire class to the game, with zero guidance as to what that class can actually do, but it's absolutely impossible for a new DM to figure out how a hobgoblin can do an extra die of damage with a weapon and, additionally, it's impossible for the DM to narrate that in the game?

 

[Maxperson]

This makes it sound like "fighter" and "feat" are a real thing in-universe, as though they were "plumber" and "vocational qualification" - and I think that's a stretch for most people. Granted, prestige classes can blur the line between a suite of mechanical descriptions and an in-universe clique or society, but even there the identity is not assured.

I don't think NPCs "choose" a class or feat; rather they are assigned by the DM to describe their role. The DM or player may entertain the fancy (in their own mind) that the NPC is an autonomous entity, who is somehow subject to a bizarre sub-reality which is regulated by Byzantine mechanical rules, but that perception exists solely in their head.

Speaking about the "odds" of an NPC having a certain combination of feats doesn't make sense to me.

We're discussing mechanical representation of concepts or not. Pretending that you have achieved something that the mechanics don't back creates a contradiction within the game. You haven't actually achieved it.

 

[Maxperson]

You are the one insisting that it's impossible to figure out why a, for example, Hobgoblin can do an extra die of damage without a specific ability callout.

But, apparently, we can have entire classes that don't actually exist be a thing that the characters can learn to do, despite the fact that there is no such thing as any of these things in the game.

So, why is it okay for the DM to suddenly add an entire class to the game, with zero guidance as to what that class can actually do, but it's absolutely impossible for a new DM to figure out how a hobgoblin can do an extra die of damage with a weapon and, additionally, it's impossible for the DM to narrate that in the game?

Because no such ability exists to explain the hobgoblins, while the abilities do exist in the game for those classes. And the DM will very rarely have to actually do the creating or adding. The possibility just has to be there. Most players won't want to spend the time and effort in the middle of a campaign that likely won't wait for them, to achieve the new class or ability.

Narrating something that doesn't exist after the fact is weak justification for something that should have a reason already built in. The designers were lazy and put this on the DMs when they shouldn't have.

 

[GobHag]

No, the designers didn't put it in because they didn't need to.

 

[Maxperson]

No, the designers didn't put it in because they didn't need to.

Right. They were lazy and didn't need to, because they could force us to do it for them.

 

[Lanefan]

1. Every edition of D&D has spawned a schism. I was there at the onset of 3e when lots of players who would embrace 3e years later steadfastly refused to move from AD&D (1, 2, or their personal heck).

At the dawn of 3e there weren't all that many players left in any case.

2. 4e's failure was not due to luditeism, nor do I want to litigate that now.

Perhaps, but the 3e-4e split was far bigger than any 2e-3e split might have been; in part because there were more players by then and in part because they butchered the presentation and marketing.

3. The changes made to 5e are minor when it comes to this, mostly used to increase consistent numbers rather than rely on work-arounds. If this whole debate is a sliding scale with 3e on one end and 4e on the other, 5e remains closer to 3e and has just nudge a small step towards 4e. It's no where near as disassociated as 4e.

There's a "yet" missing from the end of the bolded bit...