D&D 5E Explainable multiclassing

[FormerlyHemlock]

Do the DMs here make characters explain their multiclass choices, or do you just let them go with it?

Does a new class take years to train in?


Some multiclassing just makes sense to me. The Barbarian, exposed to a more disciplined lifestyle picks up Fighter levels. I can see any character striking any of the pacts to start Warlock levels (why you'd strike the pact would need to be written into the story though). I can see a late bloomer with sorcerous bloodlines, and I can see a deity choosing a Paladin.

IMHO, it takes years to study the ways of wizardry, as well as becoming a Cleric, Bard, Druid, Monk, or Ranger.

I let players pretty much handle their own PCs, but if they asked me for advice, or if I'm playing a PC, or designing an NPC, I'd advise them based on my experience with AD&D multiclassing to plan for it from the get-go and play their character that way. E.g. this Paladin 4 may not have any sorcerer levels, technically, but from a description perspective in character he is already practicing minor magical exercises and has been for years. He's just not good enough to do it on demand under pressure, and won't be until he levels up to Paladin 6/Sorcerer 1, 30,000 XP from now.

Essentially I recommend treating multiplayer combinations as if they were discrete classes that simply happen not to be written up that way in the PHB. A fighter/mage isn't something that just happens, it's what the character was all along.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

I am the same way, if my 5th level thief decides he wants to take a level in sorcerer then guess what, go for it! Want to cast the shield spell? Well then she's a little more dodgey for one round. Want to cast sleep? Well then she figures out how to make a sleep gas pellet. They follow the "rules" for magic but can be reskinned any one of a number of ways.

The mechanics are just tools to tell the story in my games.

Pretty much the way i see it.
Besides, even from a mechanical POV it makes sense to MC. The requirements for MC are generally scores of 13 in 1 or 2 of the relevant stats. That by default assumes a character naturally gifted a good deal beyond the average commoner's 10. It's true, it works better for martial and skill based classes, but i can't see why an above averagely intelligent warrior can't get the basics of spell casting with enough experience, especially if he had always held interest in it.

In my case, i usually MC (when i do) with intent in advance. My current PC has been leveled up on paper up to lvl20 already. Not because i needed to optimize or i expect him to live that long, but because MC was the only way to RP the kind of character i had in mind within the core rules of the system

 

[pdegan2814]

I haven't been a DM in a long time, I'm just a player these days. But for me, I'd want the players to have at least some in-story reasoning for the decision to multiclass, it should be about more than just Frankensteining together the abilities they want. The simple question the player should be required to answer is simply, "Who IS this guy?" I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to require they find a school or a trainer to learn their new class, just some logical basis for the player's/character's choices.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I discourage multiclassing without a good story reason. Classes aren't collections of abilities in my world, they are entire fields of study, sometimes associated with organizations. Level 1 is about equivalent to a bachelor's degree in an exotic subject, including the basic education you got in high school before starting on the degree.

Most of the time, if someone wants take up a new class they need to spend downtime as if they were learning a new language or tool proficiency. That allows a greater measure of believability, though it's still a stretch.

I do make exceptions. I really like the AD&D/hybrid/gestalt multiclassing take, and hope we'll see it soon (I kind of need rules for it). So if someone wants to dual-major like that, it's fine.

Since I don't have any rules like that yet, as an interim rule I'd allow a character who is conceptually supposed to be doing that to start as 1st level in one class and pick up next level in the second class without spending any extra downtime. If someone had a good character concept that involved starting with a single level in one class and then switching to another (like say Rogue 1, then Fighter all the way), and it was role-playing based rather than mechanically based, I'd strongly consider allowing their backstory of the rogue training to become a warrior to remove the downtime requirement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have a multi-classing player whose PC started with 2 levels of rogue, then gained the next 2 levels as a monk, having been imprisoned for an extended period. Her reasoning, which I accepted, was that during the years behind bars, the PC had to learn how to protect herself without weapons (martial arts) and also developed a stoic self-discipline to endure the physical dangers and psychological stresses of surviving there.

She pointed out that every martial arts regime that exists had to begin somewhere; why not in a prison environment among a small coterie of allies?

A perfectly cromulent answer--though I'll note that it involves the assumption of "I spent a goodly amount of time with nothing else to do." That's the sort of assumption I was trying to avoid relying on. The "general case" of MCing may not include such a convenience, and may need to be explained as a relatively "rapid" development of a new skill, or the sudden catalysis of a slow ongoing development into a major flash of insight/growth. It's totally fine to make use of such a plot device when available--much as we wouldn't fault someone for making use of the properties of a right triangle when it just so happens that the triangle in question is a right triangle. But if we're trying to spread the net as wide as practically possible, in terms of acceptable "explainable MCing," then metaphorically faster methods are in order.

I discourage multiclassing without a good story reason. Classes aren't collections of abilities in my world, they are entire fields of study, sometimes associated with organizations. Level 1 is about equivalent to a bachelor's degree in an exotic subject, including the basic education you got in high school before starting on the degree.

Most of the time, if someone wants take up a new class they need to spend downtime as if they were learning a new language or tool proficiency. That allows a greater measure of believability, though it's still a stretch.

I do make exceptions. I really like the AD&D/hybrid/gestalt multiclassing take, and hope we'll see it soon (I kind of need rules for it). So if someone wants to dual-major like that, it's fine.

Since I don't have any rules like that yet, as an interim rule I'd allow a character who is conceptually supposed to be doing that to start as 1st level in one class and pick up next level in the second class without spending any extra downtime. If someone had a good character concept that involved starting with a single level in one class and then switching to another (like say Rogue 1, then Fighter all the way), and it was role-playing based rather than mechanically based, I'd strongly consider allowing their backstory of the rogue training to become a warrior to remove the downtime requirement.

You'd like the 13th Age multiclassing rules, if you've ever got a chance to look a the system. You more or less have the full abilities of two classes (though certain things, like ability scores and IIRC talents, are gained at a fixed rate), but you start out with essentially two "half" levels of each class, and progress as though you were 1 level behind in each of your component classes. So when everyone else is level 2, you're now "truly" level 1 in both classes. It gives a LOT of versatility, at the cost of raw power and a more-difficult start (and, of course, possible MADness).

 

[KahlessNestor]

As a player, I don't multi-class. I really don't like it and there's so much to learn about your single class before wanting to consider multiclassing.

As I'm considering DMing a game, I've been giving this some thought. As with the OP, I dislike multiclassing mostly on story reasons, i.e. most players I've seen using it on various boards don't care about story. They just want some cool/overpowered ability. I admit to being a huge fan of paladins, and the current OP drooling over paladin/warlock sets my teeth on edge. To me (and just about every published setting I've read), a paladin is the epitome of the representative of a god. They WOULDN'T make a pact with another otherworldly power. In my world, if they did, they would lose their paladin abilities (same with clerics). The only exception I might make is the Oath of the Ancient/Feypact.

Now if a player had a good backstory reason to want to multiclass that they have thought out ahead of time, I would probably allow it and work it into the game. If during the game a player just wanted to grab levels in X because Y, then I would require some in-story explanation and possibly training. The only exception might be sorcerer because I consider that kind of like a spontaneous "mutation" (call Professor X!) of magical power.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I admit to being a huge fan of paladins, and the current OP drooling over paladin/warlock sets my teeth on edge. To me (and just about every published setting I've read), a paladin is the epitome of the representative of a god. They WOULDN'T make a pact with another otherworldly power. In my world, if they did, they would lose their paladin abilities (same with clerics). The only exception I might make is the Oath of the Ancient/Feypact.

Just off the top of my head:

1) Paladin finds himself in a situation where he's over his head and makes a pact for an extra boost of power so he can do what he honestly believes, at the time, is the right thing.

2) Character makes a pact for power, comes to see the error of his ways, and dedicates himself to a good god and to justice in hopes of making up for it.

I think both of those paladin/warlock combos could be insanely fun to play, and mechanics have no part of it.

 

[Celtavian]

Do the DMs here make characters explain their multiclass choices, or do you just let them go with it?

Yes. Usually my players plan their characters in advance, so any additional classes they plan to take are woven into the background. For example, if someone was making a sorcerer/monk, they would create an order of monks that practiced sorcery in their background. It would be assumed that they were practicing their skills as they adventured. Given the way D&D does advancement and their use of a class-based system, I believe this is sufficient explanation for multiclassing.

Does a new class take years to train in?

Some do, some don't. A warlock or sorcerer could manifest power at any time. A wizard or monk might take years of training. A fighter or barbarian probably take some time, but are mostly learned through experience. Other classes it depends on how they came by their power. A cleric could be from a church that trains priests or could have received a divine calling at any point in time. You could also create a wizard background implying the individual is a genius savant who found a spellbook and was just able to figure out how to cast magic. The monk is probably the hardest to justify a reason having not much time training.

And I forgot about the bard. I just don't love that class. I don't know what it is. I have hard time picturing bardic powers. Bard powers seem like they should get you killed. You have to make sound to make them work. That's usually not a good thing in small unit combat.

 

[Savevsdeath]

I see no point in preventing a multiclass combo because
1. I consider classes to be meta, not a description of a characters entire background and identity.
2. Even if they are doing it just to get a cool mechanical combo, i'm fine with that if they're having fun with it, and any broken shenanigans can be easily dealt with via a simple 'nope'.
3. It's easy to say that someone had an interest in x, y or z thing for years and never mentioned it, or had an experience that gave them a flash of insight, or just found they have a natural talent for it after seeing someone else do it.

The natural talent explanation is the one I use most as a DM and a player - you need a 13 in a class' prime stats to enter it. That means you have to be a prodigy, which says to me that PC's start off average like everyone else before they ever become a level 1 character and it is training to be a member of that class which pushes them beyond normal limits to the superbeings they eventually become.

That's what works for me, anyway. Rule of cool dictates what happens at my table at all times though, so YMMV.

 

[Azurewraith]

I like my players to have some explanation ahead of time or some at the time such as they got into a fist fight and did surprisingly well and decided to develop their own style for a monk.

Personly i plan in advance and have it accounted for ahead of time