Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[The Crimson Binome]

I bought the book PHB to use it to run games in *my* or *our* worlds, not to be a one true world. 5e is intended to represent a lot of different worlds, not just one. that seems very clearly ingrained in its design, its mechanics, its options and its so-called "fluff."

By default, the PHB does a pretty good job of representing the Forgotten Realms. It can be adapted to represent a number of other settings, but the expectation is that you actually get in there and change things where necessary.

That was actually one of my favorite parts of the 5E DMG, was the section on how to change the mechanics to represent different settings. It's not that the fluff is meaningless - the fluff reflects how the world is supposed to work - but it's relatively easy to change the mechanics if you want to reflect some different sort of reality.

 

[Warpiglet]

Okay, but why did you buy the book, if you don't care about how the world actually works?

That was my one big problem with 4E, is that all of the fluff was so mutable, there was no way to tell what was really going on there.
One of the things I miss about AD&D was when they described weird corner-case scenarios, like this one. It was probably one of the priest books, or maybe just Deities & Demigods, but it would tell you outright that a god of nature was served by druids (rather than some sort of cleric that could cast nature spells); just as the clergy for a god of magic was made up of wizards (rather than divine spellcasters), and the high priest of the thief god was just a high-level thief.

They didn't feel compelled to invent entire new sets of class abilities to cover obscure situations that would probably never even come up in most worlds.

It is interesting you say this. I think I know where you are coming from...however I just realized something.

In 1e, there was multiclassing and dual classing. It always existed. So did bards! You take levels in fighter, thief and then bard! But more to the point about fluff/ fiction...

A half orc in 1e could be a cleric assassin or a fighter assassin. No one blinked an eye (that I gamed with) or even spoke with. What is more, half orcs are short lived in the old game and not particularly talented in learning, adapting or any mental pursuit. Yet in their short lives they could multiclass...

I don't recall much debate about identity or archetype or lines being blurred.

What I am starting to think and suggest is that some of the sacred cows might be "false memories." And this only just occurred to me today. Now all of this was ostensibly balanced by limited levels (sort of...a half orc in its short life could attain 10th level fighter and 15th assassin!) but the point stands.

The assertion that multiclassing is impure or a challenge to the traditional game's archetypes is off base unless we are talking about something pre AD&D 1e.

Upon reflection, I think multiclassing in 1e is not what needed to be explained--but rather the inability of a human to do so (particularly in light of half orcs, bards and dual classing!).

I have no issue if optional rules in 5e are dropped for taste. I just really disagree that it is fundamental to the identity of the game. The fluff was spuriously immutable from the start. I believe that the restrictions in multiclassing (no humans) and level attainment was a game balance issue first and foremost, however it was rationalized.

I think the current multiclassing and latest edition of the game make this a non issue. I don't think multiclassing is particularly overpowered.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The assertion that multiclassing is impure or a challenge to the traditional game's archetypes is off base unless we are talking about something pre AD&D 1e.

I can't speak for anyone else on the matter, but my argument against multi-classing is based on its own merits, rather than historical precedent. The degree to which I dislike the mechanic is not respective of how long it's been around, or in which editions. It has been around for quite a while, though, especially if you consider the Elf class to be a multi-class Fighter/Wizard.

Upon reflection, I think multiclassing in 1e is not what needed to be explained--but rather the inability of a human to do so (particularly in light of half orcs, bards and dual classing!).

That's much more straight-forward. Gygax wanted to promote humans as being the best and most important characters, so he created rules where only a human could keep adventuring forever to gain unlimited power. Multi-classing existed for non-humans as a means of off-setting their inherent level restrictions, so that you didn't have to retire your half-orc thief after they reached level 4.

I'm not saying that the rules were elegant, or made any sense within the world, but it's easy to understand why they existed as they did. Most weirdness from early editions can be attributed to the designers being pioneers within the field, and thus having no idea what they were doing.

*But also, the priests of a god of magic were actually just wizards, and the priest of a nature god was just a druid. The default pantheons (probably until later in 2E) were still very human-centric, and humans couldn't be multi-class wizard/priests. (And nobody but a human or half-elf could be a druid.)

 

[CleverNickName]

The multiclassing rules have always been allowed in our 5E campaign ever since we switched to the new edition. But nobody has ever rolled up a multiclass character, not even a temporary one for a one-shot game.

I think the archetypes make a lot of multiclassing options obsolete for our group. Your fighter doesn't need to take levels of wizard, or build toward a prestige class...now, just go with Eldritch Knight and keep your fighter's advancement on track.

 

[ad_hoc]

Distinct? In what way? Making every fighter identical to every other fighter? Multiclassing makes for far more 'distinct' individuals than single class PCs in terms of abilities possessed.

Wait, doesn't characterization come from you? Why would the characters be identical just because they are the same in the book if the characterization comes from you?

The opposite is true. Characterisation comes from me not the book! If we all had to play the same 11 classes, our PC would not stand out at all!

If it comes from you then why would the same 11 classes result in characters not standing out? Why would that matter?

If the characterization comes from you why play D&D? Why not just make everything up freeform? Why be restrained by rules at all? If fewer constraints makes for better more memorable characters then the answer is to not have constraints. So have a classless system! Only that would still be constrained by what could be purchased with points and such, so just don't have any rules at all! Allow characters to be whatever the people at the table imagine. That will surely result in memorable and exciting games.

 

[Hussar]

Not really a poke against multi classing, but some things I find odd...

The best smites come from someone who multi classes and takes only a few levels of paladin then go primary spell caster.

If you are a magic user you can increase your potential by dipping into cleric. Because clerics know there entire spell list, one level of cleric delays higher level spells a bit (but not slots) but grants you instant healing and buffs that you can cast.


because you don't loose out on slots, just spells known you end up with wonky things with spell casting...


Personal Experience:
I thought I was being 'nice' to a new DM when I multi classed my 5th level character (concept was originally the healer/priest) because it was his first game of 5e he ran (had not run since 3.0). the only prime spell caster was a blaster warlock, and he told us he planed on running from 5th-17thish level... so I knew high level spells could mess up his idea, I figured I would dip a bit and loose out on high level spells... so at level 5 I was a Paladin 2 Druid 1 Cleric 2. This would mean even though I started with 2nd level slots (and I would go up cleric so next level I would have 3rd level slots) but only knowing 1st level spells...but I knew a TON of 1st level spells... but opps I ended up still being OP in the group.

If Paladin 2/Druid 1/Cleric 2 is the most powerful 5th level character in the group, something is seriously wrong. Good grief, a Druid 5 is far, far more powerful than this character. Better shape change and access to 3rd level spells? A 5th level Land Druid can potentially cast fireball and there's nothing in your character that comes even close to the damage potential of that. Sure, you've got tons of 1st level spell choices, but, losing out on 2nd AND 3rd level spells?

Sorry, not seeing it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The subclass system is an elegant solution to the mess of multiclassing that D&D has been plagued with.

My opinion on the "elegance" of subclass multiclassing has not changed since the last time you sang its praises.

 

[5ekyu]

Wait, doesn't characterization come from you? Why would the characters be identical just because they are the same in the book if the characterization comes from you?



If it comes from you then why would the same 11 classes result in characters not standing out? Why would that matter?

If the characterization comes from you why play D&D? Why not just make everything up freeform? Why be restrained by rules at all? If fewer constraints makes for better more memorable characters then the answer is to not have constraints. So have a classless system! Only that would still be constrained by what could be purchased with points and such, so just don't have any rules at all! Allow characters to be whatever the people at the table imagine. That will surely result in memorable and exciting games.

Look, its the "if a pinch of salt makes supper taste better, adding a pound of salt must make it great" argument.

 

[GameOgre]

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.

Shrug, Most Dm's have house rules and strange setting options or non-options and use or don't use optional rules as they see fit. In my experience players are many and DM's who can run a game are so few that if the game is good the DM gets a full table no matter what his personal add ons or no no's are. If it's no multiclassing or only playing Pathfinder or AD&D or OD&D or fate........players really want to play and will do just about anything for a decent game.

 

[pogre]

If multiclassing makes the game more enjoyable for a player and they can "kind of" justify it from a roleplaying perspective - have at it I say.