Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Warpiglet]

I have seen a number of arguments against multiclassing. I would like to address a few of them and clarify what seems to be the main points of contention.

1. Multiclassing breaks the game or creates a more powerful character

2. The sacred cows must not be butchered...we do NOT like peanut butter in our chocolate

3. People that attempt to have a multi classed character are bad people as demonstrated by their desire to multi class (you know, just 'cause)


OK now for bait and switch.

#1 Was fairly exhaustively discussed recently. For the most part, people were split in their opinion about power but many concluded that single classed characters are NOT underpowered. I will drop that issue.

#3 Yeah. Not worth a discussion. My default assumption is you are partially OK if you play D&D until proven otherwise.


So really I want to look at #2 for a bit. In order to do this, I want to make use of a particular class: cleric. Going back DECADES, the cleric was my favorite class. In 1e AD&D I played a LG cleric of Tyr who liked to fight with a mace and flail (he got one attack!). Later, we experimented with villains and I had a ton of fun with a LE Cleric of (I cannot recall the deity but suspect it was Bane ).

I played and really enjoyed the traditional cleric. They have devotion to a God and it is clear in their behavior, attire and actions. I had a friend who wanted to do something different. He made a wood elf cleric who was in a cult that hated centaurs. I am unsure if there was one deity that they preferred but I know he had a symbol branded on his chest for his cult and they were most assuredly evil. But it was novel! We had appropriate villains to run with him of course and they had hideouts, conquered things, plundered and robbed. But the point is this: his CLASS fluff was not by the book. Even then, we felt empowered to make this kind of thing up.

Later on official game material came out discussing clerics of ideals. Perhaps they did not worship a deity at all! A one time traditionalist, I sort of made a yuck face. Not for me, but whatever. I took a cleric of Pelor instead.

Advance from 3rd to 5th and we have Paladins clearly following ideals and only maybe a deity. Maybe they worship no one. Maybe they are not LG or even G either! The fluff is changing with the rules.

-----------------------
Enter the multi class debate...based on fluff and archetype.

In the days long past, I admit that I cringed at quadruple-dipping prestige classes. "Hi! My character, Lord Waldo is a Divine Champion-Baker Artisan-Mime-Shadowboxer-Debate Champion-Dog Wrestler!

I am smiling as I type that absurdity and realize some (many) people used prestige classes to world build or simply make a compelling character! I was interested in the CG Avenger a the time myself. And it is understood that some people placed some limits that helped their particular world and game and I find no fault with such restriction. There may have been some who did not allow prestige classes at all! (And if you are into bonus stacking and system mastery, I find NO FAULT AT ALL with you. That is merely not my preference).

I recently read an older thread that had me thinking about this again. The particular argument arose about the cleric warlock. But I am getting ahead of myself. On to my questions.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WHAT IF clerics are practitioners of "white magic." And what if they are gain this power through the same means as a magic user or even sorcerer? What are the implications? Further, what if traditional cleric reside alongside these Gandalf wannabes? What happens? Does it break the game?

(Mechanically it should not break the game if nothing from RAW is changed save the fantasy context). Does it break YOUR world? (you pretend one). I am guessing that depends on the assumptions of your world. Mine right now is pretty much monotheistic vs. heretics. But that is just my pretend world, right?

Now back to multiclassing. Let us use the example here of a cleric warlock.

If my world does NOT presuppose all clerics follow jealous gods or even gods necessarily, is there any problem with the cleric warlock? If we think that a combination of abilities will break the game, that is a game issue that can be addressed. But what if it is a fluff issue only?

Why the selectivity with certain classes? It is OK for a Paladin to follow an ideal and depending on edition, it is OK for a cleric to follow a philosophy, but NOT to multiclass a 5th edition cleric with anything that would make a god jealous?

This leads to a follow up question: can we not imagine clerical powers from anything other than a jealous god?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, what is OK to reflavor? If classes are fair game, why object to multi classing in 5th? Mechanically you are not better with all but maybe a few well known instances. Some of the threads got pretty heated and it often revolved around sacred cows of fluff.

And with this in mind, why couldn't the PC be an exception? Where all paladins in your world MUST follow a deity, the PC is a weird exception that is fueled by X? Do exceptions to the typical tear everything down?

 

[5ekyu]

Hmmm... or you know, you could play the game the way you like multiclassing (or not) or chosen divinities (or not) and not worry about convincing others - just having gun.

Almost like say... I dont know... if it were... say... optional?

 

[ccs]

In my games:
Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
Why can't cleric be MC with warlock?
Why aren't there non-LG paladins?
Why can't you play a drow or some other monster?
Etc etc etc?

All these questions and more can be summed up by the following statement: "Because I'm the DM & that's how I'm running things."

*Works calling, so I'll return to this later....

Because

 

[Ganymede81]

I was on the fence before, but now I'm sold: Multiclassers are just bad people.

 

[5ekyu]

In my games:
Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
Why can't cleric be MC with warlock?
Why aren't there non-LG paladins?
Why can't you play a drow or some other monster?
Etc etc etc?

All these questions and more can be summed up by the following statement: "Because I'm the DM & that's how I'm running things."

*Works calling, so I'll return to this later....

Because

In *our games* (as in games i play in) there is a step after the step you describe where players choose whether or not they want to play in that game.

So amazingly we end up with only getting to have actual games where there is enough agreement between both Gm and play that its the game they want to play.

So, guess its more like both sides have their own big swingings and only when they all put theirs away and reach a mutual agreement do we see play - do we actually have an "our game".

guess we are odd that way.

But gotta say - a Gm whose best answer about "why do things work this way in this world" is "because" would not inspire a lot of confidence for my players in terms of there being a world that "makes sense" **enough for my players** who usually like more in-game elements flow from in-game elements kind of feel to them. They are more inclined to like "lore" than "divine whimsy" for instance.

But thats them. it matches my style as well so... it all works out.

But many games have worked with "because" as core foundations too, i am sure.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Enkhidu]

Dude. Relax. Gamers that prefer multiclass are not necessarily bad people, but there is a strong correlation with long posts justifying preferences.

5e can be very flexible. Some people prefer all sorts of variety and multiclassing and view classes as an outdated concept and are looking more for a gestalt. Some people are trying to get more of an OSR feel from it with strict class boundaries.

Nothing is wrong with either approach, or the many approaches in between. Run what you like.

I'm surprised. I thought you'd be firmly against multiclassing given how many times its used specifically to take a few Paladin levels.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[5ekyu]

You can't multiclass with Paladin if there are no Paladins.

Gotta take out the roots of the problem, not the branches and leaves.

I think this is worth spotlighting.

Way too often it seems GM try and nibble around a core issue, replacing "solution" with "inconvenience" to discourage the issue indirectly.

Often the simplest and most successful answer is "remove the problem".

Not endorsing the removal of paladins per se. Applauding the directness.

 

[Warpiglet]

Dude. Relax. Gamers that prefer multiclass are not necessarily bad people, but there is a strong correlation with long posts justifying preferences.

5e can be very flexible. Some people prefer all sorts of variety and multiclassing and view classes as an outdated concept and are looking more for a gestalt. Some people are trying to get more of an OSR feel from it with strict class boundaries.

Nothing is wrong with either approach, or the many approaches in between. Run what you like.

I was excoriated when 5e came out for fantasizing about a game with no feats and no multi classing! (that was another forum, but I digress). I was tired of nonsensical combinations that made me feel sort of icky.

However, back in our 1e heyday, it never occurred to us to be rigid regarding background. It was always a discussion whether magic-user, cleric or whatever. Maybe we were super liberal in that regard, I cannot know how our group compares to the outside world.

I know we fiercely debated what a LG paladin would/could do like many other groups. We did not challenge their LG status. But in my estimation both ranger and paladin had alignment and code restrictions to balance their considerable power (of course specialization attempted to change things as did 'cavalier' paladins...not sure what to say about all of that).

What I do know however is I am not adamant that my monotheistic nation is the right way (hell, I have a PC from a distant land who worships a heathen Norse deity) nor any other restriction.

Reading some of the threads I reference you will see they have a different tenor. It is very adamant, very prescriptive and seemingly not uncommon for a good number of vocal posters.