Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

So the disconnect that keeps happening in this thread, as in so many others (IMO) is that people just play differently and like different things. I'm using this particular quote as a starting point, acknowledging that you correctly stated "I think[.]"

Some individuals use 5e in a very OSR/1e way, where classes have a strong identity. Where fluff and mechanics are necessarily intertwined.

Some individuals do not- where mechanics are, well, pretty much completely separate from mechanics, and you can re-imagine the mechanics with almost any sort of flavor. Allowing you (especially with MC'ing) to build concepts from the various abilities.

And some people (most?) are somewhere in between.

That's all find and good, but there is no foolish, or better, just ... different playstyles that appeal to different people, or even to the same people at different times.

It's like saying that it's foolish to play with a grid, or with ToTM; neither is foolish, or not foolish, just different ways of choosing to play. And there are ways that you can play different styles well, or poorly. I mean, there are certain techniques that are universal, like good communication, but otherwise ...

And that's why we get to the bizarre arguments. People will advocate very strongly for their own style of play, while other styles of play seem, well, strange to them (or even foolish); but it really is just a matter of preference. I know, for example, that a person can be the most amazing and wonderful tactical DM with intricate combats that have been mapped out carefully ... but I won't have a good time, because that's not what I'm looking for; it doesn't mean s/he's a bad DM, or that it's a bad way to play D&D, just not my preference. Same here- some people like a stronger class identity, some people like intertwined fluff & mechanics, and some don't.

I fall somewhere in the midfle in this way...

I feel some classes have fluff tied to mechanics and others do not.

There is no explicit statement in the PHB that says all classes are the same, so i see them as different.

Some classes come with baggage, some dont. Not all come with the same size baggage.

That will mean certain types of players, knowing that about my games, will tend to certain classes over others while other types might skew the other way.

I am fine with that. It is not my goal to dilute my campaign to the LCD of every class having all the same "flavors".

If you want to play a character with ties inside the class to other NPCs that really matter - cleric, warlock and others and some sub-classes will fit your bill as far as that goes.

If you want less of that there are plenty of other choices too. Fighter doesnt come with that kind of ties, neither does rogue or sorcerer. Others may fit that bill and sub-classes.

Backgrounds, races setting appropriate backstories can also tweak this dial but within parameters that make sense.

As i have said, i would draw the line at taking a class with baggage and just fluffing away the baggage as it creates a pretty big glaring break in the world works this way kind of sense.

So, i am likely not gonna appeal to certain player agency dialed to 11 types and thats just fine with me.

All i know is, the players i have had play the baggage classes/concepts have loved it and others who avoided them under other gms have tried it under me after seeing it in play.

So, i must be keeping my slavering under control.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

Yes, that is true.

Part of the reason I'm posting more aggressively is that this is an interesting topic, where people have real differences of opinions. It's an issue where it's not uncommon to have players with different takes on the topic at the same table. Glossing over it with the usual "Everyone's got a preference, and they need to be allowed to have them" doesn't give me much interesting information as to why people with the opposite take from me identify so strongly with those tropes.

I mean, I'll play any game, with anybody. The main reason I participate in these threads is to widen my exposure to different play styles, so I can go into various games and groups and know enough to recognize their preferences, and not assume they share my own. So if I run into a DM who shoots down my concept for a Noble barbarian (a character concept I've played!), at least I can recognize why they feel that way, despite the fact that not allowing reskinning defeats a lot of the fun of character building to me.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

...
Are you using a dictionary definition of the word "barbarian" and using it to define the D&D Barbarian class? Some other extrinsic source? (I would note that using dictionary definitions to determine what is and is not essential fluff for each class will produce problematic results when you get to the Druid class.)
...

Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them. Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class. These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion. That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different. There are usually abilities that don't fit.

You didn't really answer the question posed by [MENTION=6802765]Xetheral[/MENTION] directly [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]. Where are you getting your definition of barbarian?

Regardless of whether you choose to answer that question or not, is it right to assume that in your game the only true Barbarian is one with the Outlander background? No wiggle room on that?

And to get back to the OP, how would you feel about a multiclass Barbarian/Paladin?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

As for why I feel the way I do? My main table is a pure nostalgia/fun play; after a certain amount of time, it's not about exploring new character concepts, it's about, well, playing the game (for us). Classic archetypes have their advantages.

Nice answer, thanks.

Out of curiosity, what are the advantages of the classic archetypes? Is it primarily nostalgia and familiarity? (Not denigrating that as a preference, I've watched plenty of reboots of '80s shows lately!)

I didn't start playing until 2e, and didn't play a lot until the Skills and Powers era, so using kits or building your own class to me feels normal. It might be why I have trouble identifying with the desire to play familiar archetypes.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them. Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class. These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion. That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different. There are usually abilities that don't fit.

An inability to conceptualize these elements under the umbrella of "street urchin" is not the fault of the concept.

Unarmored defense - whodathunk that a person with no training in wearing armor might develop skills that would make them better at avoiding getting smacked with lumpy metal things. Unless you're insisting that Unarmored Defense somehow actually makes the skin of the barbarian tougher.

Fast Movement - whodathunk that someone who spends most of their time running around the city dodging guards and other dangers might be a bit fleet of foot.

Brutal Critical - Umm, considering that the power actually comes with zero fluff attached to it, you can flavor this however you like. Maybe after years of mugging people, he just got really good at smacking people about the head and shoulders.

Indomitable Might - well, he's tough as nails, he's 18th level, so hardly a street urchin anymore - he's the survivor of masses of bloodshed and danger. Again, the power has zero flavor attached to it, so, how can you complain when the player attaches any flavor to it that the player fancies?

Primal Champion - dude, he's a 20th level character. There's a million and one ways you could easily justify this.
[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], are you seriously going to try to argue that powers that have zero flavor attached to them can never have any flavor attached to them?

 

[Warpiglet]

An inability to conceptualize these elements under the umbrella of "street urchin" is not the fault of the concept.

Unarmored defense - whodathunk that a person with no training in wearing armor might develop skills that would make them better at avoiding getting smacked with lumpy metal things. Unless you're insisting that Unarmored Defense somehow actually makes the skin of the barbarian tougher.

Fast Movement - whodathunk that someone who spends most of their time running around the city dodging guards and other dangers might be a bit fleet of foot.

Brutal Critical - Umm, considering that the power actually comes with zero fluff attached to it, you can flavor this however you like. Maybe after years of mugging people, he just got really good at smacking people about the head and shoulders.

Indomitable Might - well, he's tough as nails, he's 18th level, so hardly a street urchin anymore - he's the survivor of masses of bloodshed and danger. Again, the power has zero flavor attached to it, so, how can you complain when the player attaches any flavor to it that the player fancies?

Primal Champion - dude, he's a 20th level character. There's a million and one ways you could easily justify this.

@Maxperson, are you seriously going to try to argue that powers that have zero flavor attached to them can never have any flavor attached to them?

See this is EXACTLY the reasoning I am talking about. It will not hurt the game, it gives no particular mechanical advantage and hurts no one. Why would we not help a player have more fun?

Will other barbarians be "ripped off?" I could see this character making friends with outlander sorts of barbarians.

 

[TwoSix]

Now, that said, there are other reasons. And a big part of it, for us, is simplicity and desire to play. If you've been playing a long, long, long time (maybe too long?) you eventually get to the point where you zero in and decide why it is that you really want to play. And not everyone has the same answer for that- there are those that still revel in complexity and newness. But I did that; I mean, I had a period of well over two decades of creating settings, towns, worlds, classes, magic items, rules of psionics, incorporating every imaginable alternate rule and/or 3PP, and so on. I'm good! I just want to get together with some friends, grab some dice, and get rolling. For me, the thing I've learned is that I don't really remember cool character builds, but I do remember the stories of what characters did, because that is what matters, and the times I have with friends. It's an emphasis thing for us- and that doesn't mean that other people don't have just as good as (if not better) time doing it differently, but it works for us.

Yea, it's funny how our psychology can prime us to make different aspects of the game matter. Like, I can remember some details and plot points from most of the games I've played, but I can absolutely tell you the character build of every character I've played in the last 20 years, why I built them that way, their generally used tactics, and what sourcebooks I used. For me, half the fun of D&D is the joy of tinkering with its systems. That's why I still get excited for new books and when I discover homebrew that really stretches the system in novel ways.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*