Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Guest 6801328]

One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story. That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2.

I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1. For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue. Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same. If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.

I think my conception of class is less..."intrinsic"...to the character than it is for others. I see class as a purely metagame concept. My characters wouldn't use words like Paladin and Wizard and Bard, or at least not in a formal sense. They might hear a Paladin with with proficiency in some instrument roll well for Performance, and afterwards refer to the person as a "bard".

Does that make sense?

 

[Ovinomancer]

One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story. That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2.

I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1. For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue. Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same. If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.

I think my conception of class is less..."intrinsic"...to the character than it is for others. I see class as a purely metagame concept. My characters wouldn't use words like Paladin and Wizard and Bard, or at least not in a formal sense. They might hear a Paladin with with proficiency in some instrument roll well for Performance, and afterwards refer to the person as a "bard".

Does that make sense?

Does to me, I do it the same. The class doesn't define the character, just her abilities.

 

[Maxperson]

One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story. That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2.

I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1. For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue. Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same. If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.

I think my conception of class is less..."intrinsic"...to the character than it is for others. I see class as a purely metagame concept. My characters wouldn't use words like Paladin and Wizard and Bard, or at least not in a formal sense. They might hear a Paladin with with proficiency in some instrument roll well for Performance, and afterwards refer to the person as a "bard".

Does that make sense?

It does make sense. The only thing I would add is that if a player's concept involves a fighter(fighter first)/wizard starting at 1st level, then I'd expect to see the roleplay throughout level 1 reflect that. It bugs me when it's not in the backstory, there's no roleplay at all, it's not mentioned to me, and suddenly at 4th level the player says that the PC is going to be fighter 3/wizard 1.

 

[Grognerd]

One thing that has surprised me in this thread is that some posters seem to assume that the order in which the levels are taken is necessarily part of the story. That is, after X levels of class 1, somehow you have to explain how you start adding levels in class 2. ...
I've always played it that whatever multiclass concept I have in mind, that character is already that concept at level 1. For example, say I'm envisioning a Conan type character, and decide on Barbarian/Rogue. Regardless of what class I start leveling, in what order, the character concept stays the same. If he starts with Rogue he still looks and acts like a barbarian, and if he starts with Barbarian he takes Stealth and still acts...rogue-like.

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.

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!

Does that make sense?

It does indeed.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

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!

It does indeed.

That's great and all for people who have planned their 20 level path ahead of time, but most players I've seen allow their character to evolve through actual game play. A character is not just her backstory, IME.

 

[5ekyu]

It does make sense. The only thing I would add is that if a player's concept involves a fighter(fighter first)/wizard starting at 1st level, then I'd expect to see the roleplay throughout level 1 reflect that. It bugs me when it's not in the backstory, there's no roleplay at all, it's not mentioned to me, and suddenly at 4th level the player says that the PC is going to be fighter 3/wizard 1.

i can agree with this.

My most recent PC Sorceress had in her backstory:
The belief that she was sung to in her dreams by what she thought we dragons and some other oddities which sowed the seeds for a potential Warlock MC.

She also had the entertainer background which sowed the seeds for potential bard MC.

it all fit together into a comprehensive life-path and backstory but i felt it important to have those elements included so that *if* the choice was made to MC, it was not something out of the blue.

this has been followed up in actual play - her "rock star" attitude, her launching a concert/wake to raise money for the family of a fallen NPC, her frequent references to what she has heard in her dreams and even a rather bizarre ritual she got her party to cooperate with that had no immediate payoff or any actual in-game required benefits. (Tho later when she gets inspiring leader (aka Dragon's Song of Blessing to her) she will only grant the benefit to those who went along with the ritual - she thinks they are related and would not think it will work on those who did not trust her ritual blessing.)

haven't chosen to MC - may not ever - but these aspects of the character are there and will continue to make for a lot of fun.

In similar news - when a wizard with familiar joined our group for a short time, she bugged him with a lot of questions - (me eyeing maybe taking the magic initiate feat for familiar at one point.)

 

[Hussar]

As for Wesley, The Three Musketeers, Luke Skywalker etc. being Paladins? To each their own.

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

So, why couldn't Luke Skywalker be modeled as a paladin? Makes pretty decent sense. Now, Wesley wasn't dropping spells, and nor were the Three Musketeers, so a 1:1 conversion isn't going to be completely accurate. But, you can certainly get the whole "inspired by" thing going.

This really does tie into the basic theme of the thread that some people get this very fixed image of a class/element in their head and, even though that image isn't actually the only possible image, cannot seem to let go of that image when presented by an alternative view. So, we have urchin backgrounds that cannot be strong, despite surviving by strength being a direct quote in the background. Or a disbelief that these fictional characters could be represented by paladins.

 

[MoonSong]

I wish they'd revive Xena.

I think she would be like a noble barbarian?

 

[Grognerd]

That's great and all for people who have planned their 20 level path ahead of time, but most players I've seen allow their character to evolve through actual game play. A character is not just her backstory, IME.

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.

 

[Grognerd]

I think she would be like a noble barbarian?

IIRC didn't she start out as a foil for Herc? Almost an antagonist? I would have thought her more of a fighter/rogue. But then, I never liked Xena so I didn't watch much of that one, so my opinion in this is to be regarded with much salt.