Do you multiclass for raw mechanical power or for character reasons?

[GlassJaw]

The multiclass discussion is so tired. Some people like it, some people hate it. Some DM's ban it, some allow it. Some people do it for role-playing reasons, some do it for optimization.

No one is right and no one is wrong. Might as well discuss politics or religion.

 

[MoonSong]

What it says in the title.

When you're looking at some silly build like the Sorc 5/Warlock 5/Fighter 2, do you try to justify the multiclass in-game, or do you prefer to ignore the fiction and concentrate on eldritch blasting all the things?

Relevant comic.

Neither. I don't care for power or story, what I care about is character. That whatever I choose, it enhances what I want my character to be and what I want her to do so and also doesn't have implications for my character being something I don't want her to be or being able to do something I don't want her to do. I'm also quite nitpicky with flavour. Part of my reasons for disliking wizards, and Pathfinder traits being a nightmare for me.

How does this mesh with multiclassing? In essence more of the same, if it makes sense for my character not to keep getting better at doing something and instead taking up another thing I'll do it. I'll look for a way to make it possible that doesn't contradict my character. As long as it fits my character I'll take one or more levels of whatever it takes in order to allow my character to do what I think she should do. On the other hand if the flavour contradicts what my character should be, I won't multiclass into that class period.

Two good examples, before Xanathar's the only semi-reliable way I could stomach a sorcerer -as draconic sorcerer is just too unsubtle and drowns the character in draconic flavor- was by diluting it with bard levels. On the other hand I've never ever seriously considered running a Warlock/Sorcerer, as I couldn't find a Warlock patron that didn't put me off. Now that Xanathar is up I'm liking the idea of doing it with Celestial Warlock, but that will certainly have to wait.

[Oh and I have an idea for a short strip on this subject, I hope I can draw it soon]

Let me turn this around:



I have never played in a world where the characters are aware that they have classes,what they are, and use them to define themselves and others. Trying to say that class - single or multi - is an in-game construct is patently false.

Now, every character interacts with the narrative, with what's going on. Some of these are free-form, non-mechanical interactions. Some of these are mechanical interactions within the system.

So if my character is brave, what class am I? No information, maaaaaybe we could assume you have a good Wisdom saving throw since that's how the system would support it when/if comes up. If my character can fire a bow well, what class am I? Well, that has some more mechanical expression so we can narrow to one of several classes. Or a combonation of them. Or perhaps them and something else because we haven't gotten a full read on the character. Is that archer woodsman with nature spells a ranger, or maybe a land druid / rogue (scout)? Or maybe a fighter / cleric (nature) with an appropriate background.

Singleclassing and multiclassing are just ways of picking the mechanical expression that best matches how your character interacts with the system part of the narrative. Multiclassing is a great tool when you aren't willing to limit your character vision to a set of pre-defined containers, instead mixing and matchng to better be able to represent in the narrative.

Be willing to play whatever is needed in order to realize the vision you have of your character, and that includes how they interact with the narrative. If you want to play a dashing swashbuckler, make them able to show themselves as both dashing and a swashbuckler - or any other combo. Don't let yourself be pidgeonholed, take the race, background and class(es) that best represent what you are trying to show.

Night and day with you. Yes, class is not an in-game construct, but classes are more than just ability packages. In-game "fighter" is meaningless, as it could include rogues, barbarians or rangers, but on the other hand Wizard clearly is an in-game thing,and a very specific in game thing. Sorcerer is also a clear in-game thing, even if most of them wouldn't even have a word for it, but sorcerers can clearly see they are indeed not wizards, or at least as soon as they cross paths with one. Paladin is another in-game reality, even if in-game avengers, wardens and devotion paladins don't recognize each other as the same thing, they clearly wouldn't confuse themselves with any run of the mill warrior.

 

[Blue]

Night and day with you. Yes, class is not an in-game construct, but classes are more than just ability packages. In-game "fighter" is meaningless, as it could include rogues, barbarians or rangers, but on the other hand Wizard clearly is an in-game thing,and a very specific in game thing. Sorcerer is also a clear in-game thing, even if most of them wouldn't even have a word for it, but sorcerers can clearly see they are indeed not wizards, or at least as soon as they cross paths with one. Paladin is another in-game reality, even if in-game avengers, wardens and devotion paladins don't recognize each other as the same thing, they clearly wouldn't confuse themselves with any run of the mill warrior.

There are plenty of NPC casters who are "wizards" or "sorcerers" or whatever but don't follow PC rules.

Second, "paladin" as an in-game concept would strongly depend on the setting. A blessed champion of a god, sure - but there's plenty of ways to build those. Could a religious monk not consider his abilities to be blessings from the gods? A barbarian (zealot) falling into a holy rage? Maybe that's just how a cleric (war) describes herself. And that's before multiclassing or reskinning.

I've played a character who would be considered a "rogue" or "thief" in world but that was just through background, RP and a good dex - they didn't have any levels of Rogue. Class doesn't define how you present.

One of the best parts of 4e was the explicit permission to reskin. If your barbarian (totem) takes on more aspects of a bear, there's no mechanical reason not to describe getting shaggy with hair and some werebear blood coming to the fore. Same for anything else - classes are bundles of ways to interact with the mechanics of the game, not fetters to insist on how your character must be seen in the game.

 

[cbwjm]

I think I normally multiclass for mechanical reasons because I have an idea for a character but it requires a couple of classes to make it work.

 

[Quartz]

3E was really designed around multi-classing. Take a peasant hero who might start off as a Fighter (Ftr 2), become a squire to a Paladin (Kt 2) before becoming a Paladin herself (Pal 3) and then a Divine Crusader (DC 10). The class line Ftr 2 / Kt 2 / Pal 3 / DC 10 looks a mess but is entirely logical. Similarly you have the street tough (Ftr 4 / Rog 3) who becomes a Herald and gains a taste for magic so gains an otherworldly patron as an Adept.

 

[MoonSong]

There are plenty of NPC casters who are "wizards" or "sorcerers" or whatever but don't follow PC rules.

Yet only one of these kinds will leave a spellbook behind for your wizard to collect.

Second, "paladin" as an in-game concept would strongly depend on the setting. A blessed champion of a god, sure - but there's plenty of ways to build those. Could a religious monk not consider his abilities to be blessings from the gods? A barbarian (zealot) falling into a holy rage? Maybe that's just how a cleric (war) describes herself. And that's before multiclassing or reskinning.

A paladin is a paladin, all of them might be champions of the gods, but only a paladin is a paladin.

I've played a character who would be considered a "rogue" or "thief" in world but that was just through background, RP and a good dex - they didn't have any levels of Rogue. Class doesn't define how you present.

Yet only a true rogue knows Thieves cant. Like I said, not all classes are really reflected as in-game things, but some of them are clearly different things in-universe.

One of the best parts of 4e was the explicit permission to reskin. If your barbarian (totem) takes on more aspects of a bear, there's no mechanical reason not to describe getting shaggy with hair and some werebear blood coming to the fore. Same for anything else - classes are bundles of ways to interact with the mechanics of the game, not fetters to insist on how your character must be seen in the game.

To each their own, to me it was one of the hardest parts to stomach. The problem with refluffing is that eventually communication breaks down. We cannot communicate if one of us randomly decides words start meaning completely different things. Just like in-game reality is a shared reality, you might prefer to ignore default fluff, but that doesn't mean the rest of the group will. Even then, default fluff shapes the new fluff to a certain extent -via mechanics-.

 

[Bitbrain]

My dad LOVES to multiclass for mechanical reasons.

I dislike Multiclassing, but if necessary then I prefer to do it for in-game roleplaying reasons.
Case in point, my old Lizardfolk Light Cleric spent a year in-game as a soldier for this one human empire. To reflect this, I took one level of Fighter.

 

[Blue]

A paladin is a paladin, all of them might be champions of the gods, but only a paladin is a paladin.

Please provide a citation instead of a singsong.

Show me where "paladin" is an in-game term in all settings.

I'll give you a hint, its not. Therefore, your statement can not be true.

Yet only a true rogue knows Thieves cant. Like I said, not all classes are really reflected as in-game things, but some of them are clearly different things in-universe.

Sorry, this is not "I'll make things up and use them as proof" hour. yes, the rogue class gets thieves' cant. As does any NPC I want to.

To each their own, to me it was one of the hardest parts to stomach. The problem with refluffing is that eventually communication breaks down. We cannot communicate if one of us randomly decides words start meaning completely different things. Just like in-game reality is a shared reality, you might prefer to ignore default fluff, but that doesn't mean the rest of the group will. Even then, default fluff shapes the new fluff to a certain extent -via mechanics-.

That's right, we can't communicate when we use words to mean different things.

So if I say "I do 12 bludgeoning damage", what did I communicate?

That my PC did 12 bludgeoning damage.

One of us is pretending that 12 bludgeoning damage also has some other hidden meaning. That there is no way it came from a two handed club because such a thing is not listed on the equipment list (though a maul is).

I find personally would rather focus on the narrative we're creating rather then say that book-fluff is ascendant to our story.

 

[jgsugden]

Just to remind people of the obvious: If the multi-class system does not work for you personally and you're not in an "official" game bound by the rules as published, you can elect to avoid multi-classes entirely and create new sub-classes or new entire classes that create the character concept you'd like to see.

D&D is a creative game. Create.

 

[Keith Lamond]

I'm about to start playing my first multi-class character and I'd say I did it less for mechanical power than just how well I saw the two classes skills meshing together. First, I always felt Warlocks were designed to be multi-classed. Wouldn't you need to be someone adventuring, thieving, or studying the arcane to be in a place to make a bond? I doubt many patrons are interested in a lowly farm hand. Second, some of the Eldritch invocations just screamed rogue to me. I mean disguise self at will anyone?

So I wanted to create a character who could do a set of things, who is built around being able to deceive and charm his way into places he shouldn't be and then slip away unnoticed. He may not have the most fighting damage, but I suspect he'll be a lot of fun to role play.