Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 7494187" data-attributes="member: 6799649"><p>Whoa, you're conflating very different things here!</p><p></p><p>TotM versus grid: some game rules are toggled 'on' or 'off', and everyone in the same game must use the same rule. For example, while playing on a grid, some tables might run diagonal movement to take an extra square (5ft) for each even diagonal (like 3e), and some tables use 1-for-1 movement, diagonal or not (like 4e). In such a case, it doesn't really matter which the table uses, but it MUST be that ALL creatures, PC or otherwise, use the same rule.</p><p></p><p>Multiclassing: IF the optional rule is allowed in this campaign, but the players are playing single class PCs, then a new player introducing a multiclass PC in no way spoils the other players' fun! They still get to play their own PC in any way that want.</p><p></p><p>The same applies to fluff. Let's say that one player (or DM!) treats character classes as inviolable archetypes; that 'barbarians' are one thing in both game mechanics and in world culture, etc. for every class. Let's say another player (or DM!) uses the game rules to make a RAW PC but uses their own fluff for their own PC, and the game mechanic of 'class' is a metagame construct that has no existence in the game world. Can these players play at the table without either destroying the other's fun by their very presence? Of course!</p><p></p><p>Taking my werewolf-inspired barbarian. In world, my PC doesn't approach the other PCs and say, "Hi! I'm a barbarian, but weirdly I'n not really barbaric, culturally speaking. I'm a special snowflake!"</p><p></p><p>No, my PC introduces himself to the PCs (and anyone else) in game by saying, "Hi, I'm Captain Finn Winter of the Avant Guard!". Finn would <strong>never</strong> think of himself or describe himself as a 'barbarian'. Such a thought would never enter his head! It would be absurd, because our PCs cannot look at their own character sheets! They don't realise that they are made-up avatars for 'real people' to have a bit of fun with their mates once a week (if we're lucky!); they have no knowledge of their own 5e rules 'class'.</p><p></p><p>So, the other party members might want to know what I can do, what I can contribute to the team. Sure, me <em>the player</em> could say that I'm a Bar 3/War 6, focusing on getting the most out of <em>armour of Agathys</em> and Damage Resistance, but my <em>character</em> could never say such a thing because he cannot be aware of the metagame.</p><p></p><p>It would be like a comic superhero being aware that he is a fictional character. When Deadpool does this (with the superpower 'Comic Awareness'!) it just illustrates that this is something that fictional characters <strong>cannot</strong> (usually) do.</p><p></p><p>So, when asked, Finn would say that he is good in hand-to-hand combat, and his military training was that of pathfinder/scout/commando-type stuff, but he <strong>cannot</strong> say that he is a 'barbarian'! The only place that word is mentioned is on the character sheet; it doesn't exist for him in the game world.</p><p></p><p>So what PCs can know about each other is equal for every PC; "I'm good at (x and y)". They <strong>cannot</strong> know if the others are 'single classed' or 'multiclassed', because that is metagame knowledge.</p><p></p><p>Given that, each PC is an individual. (I'm Not! <em>Shut up!</em>) Every PC is their own 'special snowflake' in that sense. Therefore one player's PC cannot spoil the 'fun' of the other players merely on the basis that <em>this</em> PC 'changes the whole world'! They also cannot complain about the metagame, because multiclassing IS allowed in this campaign, but they CHOSE to be single class themselves.</p><p></p><p>Player 1: I'm playing a wizard. What about you?</p><p>Player 2: Cleric.</p><p>Player 1: Cool! What about you?</p><p>Player 3: Rogue.</p><p>Player 1: Cool! You?</p><p>Player 4: Fighter.</p><p>Player 1: Cool! What about you?</p><p>Player 5: Barbarian/Druid.</p><p>Player 1: How DARE you spoil MY fun!</p><p>Player 5: ...what...?</p><p>Player 1: You have to play a single class PC, because if you don't then I won't be able to enjoy myself!</p><p>Player 5: ...but the DM said that multiclassing is allowed...</p><p>Player 1: It's a well known fact that each player gets to veto each other player's PC!</p><p>Player 5: Okay, you can't play a wizard. It will prevent me from having fun.</p><p>Player 1: How DARE you tell me what character I can and cannot play!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arial Black, post: 7494187, member: 6799649"] Whoa, you're conflating very different things here! TotM versus grid: some game rules are toggled 'on' or 'off', and everyone in the same game must use the same rule. For example, while playing on a grid, some tables might run diagonal movement to take an extra square (5ft) for each even diagonal (like 3e), and some tables use 1-for-1 movement, diagonal or not (like 4e). In such a case, it doesn't really matter which the table uses, but it MUST be that ALL creatures, PC or otherwise, use the same rule. Multiclassing: IF the optional rule is allowed in this campaign, but the players are playing single class PCs, then a new player introducing a multiclass PC in no way spoils the other players' fun! They still get to play their own PC in any way that want. The same applies to fluff. Let's say that one player (or DM!) treats character classes as inviolable archetypes; that 'barbarians' are one thing in both game mechanics and in world culture, etc. for every class. Let's say another player (or DM!) uses the game rules to make a RAW PC but uses their own fluff for their own PC, and the game mechanic of 'class' is a metagame construct that has no existence in the game world. Can these players play at the table without either destroying the other's fun by their very presence? Of course! Taking my werewolf-inspired barbarian. In world, my PC doesn't approach the other PCs and say, "Hi! I'm a barbarian, but weirdly I'n not really barbaric, culturally speaking. I'm a special snowflake!" No, my PC introduces himself to the PCs (and anyone else) in game by saying, "Hi, I'm Captain Finn Winter of the Avant Guard!". Finn would [B]never[/B] think of himself or describe himself as a 'barbarian'. Such a thought would never enter his head! It would be absurd, because our PCs cannot look at their own character sheets! They don't realise that they are made-up avatars for 'real people' to have a bit of fun with their mates once a week (if we're lucky!); they have no knowledge of their own 5e rules 'class'. So, the other party members might want to know what I can do, what I can contribute to the team. Sure, me [I]the player[/I] could say that I'm a Bar 3/War 6, focusing on getting the most out of [I]armour of Agathys[/I] and Damage Resistance, but my [I]character[/I] could never say such a thing because he cannot be aware of the metagame. It would be like a comic superhero being aware that he is a fictional character. When Deadpool does this (with the superpower 'Comic Awareness'!) it just illustrates that this is something that fictional characters [B]cannot[/B] (usually) do. So, when asked, Finn would say that he is good in hand-to-hand combat, and his military training was that of pathfinder/scout/commando-type stuff, but he [B]cannot[/B] say that he is a 'barbarian'! The only place that word is mentioned is on the character sheet; it doesn't exist for him in the game world. So what PCs can know about each other is equal for every PC; "I'm good at (x and y)". They [B]cannot[/B] know if the others are 'single classed' or 'multiclassed', because that is metagame knowledge. Given that, each PC is an individual. (I'm Not! [I]Shut up![/I]) Every PC is their own 'special snowflake' in that sense. Therefore one player's PC cannot spoil the 'fun' of the other players merely on the basis that [I]this[/I] PC 'changes the whole world'! They also cannot complain about the metagame, because multiclassing IS allowed in this campaign, but they CHOSE to be single class themselves. Player 1: I'm playing a wizard. What about you? Player 2: Cleric. Player 1: Cool! What about you? Player 3: Rogue. Player 1: Cool! You? Player 4: Fighter. Player 1: Cool! What about you? Player 5: Barbarian/Druid. Player 1: How DARE you spoil MY fun! Player 5: ...what...? Player 1: You have to play a single class PC, because if you don't then I won't be able to enjoy myself! Player 5: ...but the DM said that multiclassing is allowed... Player 1: It's a well known fact that each player gets to veto each other player's PC! Player 5: Okay, you can't play a wizard. It will prevent me from having fun. Player 1: How DARE you tell me what character I can and cannot play! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
Top