D&D 5E Explainable multiclassing

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
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.

Since this is a thing you're currently mulling over, consider the following:

Let's say I've signed up for your campaign, and that you haven't ruled out any specific race or class options--and, if you'll allow it, starting at 4th level (I think it unlikely that I'd want to join a low-level 5e campaign again, it's too meatgrinder-y). I tell you, openly and frankly, that I've had an idea that really struck my fancy, a character that is Proficient in all skills (eventually), but that I'll need to multiclass (and take feats) to do it. The character, we'll call her Rhiannon (one of my favorite female names), grew up as the prodigy daughter of a moderately well-off human family, one that could afford to send her to an actually good school (as much to keep her occupied and out of their hair as to indulge her abilities). So she was educated in all the formal subjects, including music and magic--mechanically, she's a Variant Human Bard, who took up the College of Lore at 3rd level. Variant Human grants 1 bonus skill, plus 2 from whatever her Background is (I'm partial to Academy Graduate, a homebrew BG from the ENWorld forums); Bard naturally gives you any 3 skills, and Lore gives you an additional 3 skills, for a running total of 9 skills, and two of them have Expertise. Variant Human also grants a bonus feat--which, in this case, is Skilled, granting a further 3 skills for a running total of 12 proficient skills at 3rd level.

During or after her formal education, Rhiannon to a realization: she doesn't just hunger for knowledge. She feels a genuine transcendent element to it; she reveres it in some sense. Moved by this epiphanic experience, that Knowledge is an ineffable transcendence rather than just a feature one can possess or lack, she attempts to join the formal clergy of the/a deity of knowledge, and is thus Bard(Lore) 3/Cleric(Knowledge) 1. Though the addition of a little bit more martial skill is welcome (Medium armor and Shields), it is the additional education that she really longs for, giving her an additional 2 languages and 2 skills (probably Religion and Nature, running total 14) plus effectively getting Expertise with them (her proficiency bonus is doubled for those skills). However, she finds the clergy stuffy and rule-obsessed: they really don't care all that much about learning ALL there is to learn, and rather about preserving and documenting and cataloging, which she considers the least interesting aspect of Knowledge--particularly when they turn a blind eye to both useful and fascinating skills like...say...lockpicking!

So she leaves the Church, though not the faith, and strikes out on her own as an adventurer-for-hire (aka, campaign begins). The plan for the character, at that point, is to have her further indulge her hunger for knowledge of a less-savory variety, and thus have her take a level of Rogue at character level 5--dabbling just enough in the shadowy arts to become an expert on the book-learning side of things. (If you've played Morrowind, Oblivion, or Skyrim, think of the character Yana from the Lockpicking skill book The Locked Room--the "professional amateur," who delights in learning all the esoterica of lockpicking for the joy of learning, not the function.) Mechanically, this gives her a skill from the Thief list (probably Stealth; total 15), proficiency with Lockpicks (which, while technically a Tool proficiency, is practically a Skill of its own), and Expertise proper with a further two skills (for a running total of six, or five+Thieves' Tools), plus Thieves' Cant which complements her broad spectrum of known languages (Common, 1 from Human, 1 from BG, 2 from Knowledge Domain).

Should the character last to 6th level or beyond, she would return to the arts she had left: because really, the only secrets left to be revealed are those of a purely magical nature. She lacks only 3 out of the 18 skills; a second application of the Skilled feat solves that problem, though technically the feat doesn't specifically say it can be taken twice. By continuing as a Bard, Rhiannon will gain another four Expertise skills, for a grand total of 8 out of 18 Expertise'd skills. She speaks/writes five languages and Thieves' Cant; she has proficiency with both Thieves' Tools and a single game set (probably a chess-type game, though if "cards" in general is allowed that might work too), as well as three instruments. And, finally, whenever she makes an ability check that doesn't benefit from proficiency--which, now, only means Tools she's not proficient with and any checks that can't normally get proficiency e.g. Initiative--she still gets half proficiency because of Jack of All Trades (as all level 2+ Bards would).

Or, if that was TL;DR:
Narratively start as the precocious daughter of a well-off family who voraciously consumed knowledge in her formal education, found faith in Knowledge itself but disliked the strictures of the formal Church, so she is off to pursue the things she couldn't learn properly in the temple or the library. Once she's drunk her fill of the larcenous lifestyle, the higher mysteries of magic call to her, mysteries spanned through their whole breadth by the disciplines she learned back in school. She'll face every challenge with a wry smile, a sprightly tune...and a polymath's brain.
Mechanically start as Bard(Lore) 3/Cleric(Knowledge) 1; take 1 level Rogue; resume Bard for remainder of levels.

So now the question is: is this me being "powergamey" or in it only for the "overpowered" abilities, or is it me being interested in a solid story about a character with a clear motivation behind her actions? Is it, perhaps, both things? Would you allow me to do this?

---

On a separate subject: don't forget that Paladins are no longer specifically servants of deities. Their power may easily come from conviction alone, from thoroughly believing in an ideal rather than being purely servants-in-shiny-metal (or shiny leather, since Dex is a valid stat for Paladins now). As you've noted, an Oath of the Ancients Paladin can have an explainable link to the Fey; I would similarly argue that the Oath of Vengeance can be linked to either of the other two Warlock Patrons. I mean, it says right in the description that, "To these paladins--sometimes called avengers or dark knights--their own purity is not as important as delivering justice." That bespeaks of a character willing to go to great lengths to see a particular outcome, even if it means sullying themselves with dark deeds and dread consequences, which is very much like what a Fiend Pact could involve. The temptation to make a rash deal for the power to defeat a foe when all seems lost can be perilously great--particularly when your powers do in fact revolve around defeating such foes!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Azurewraith

Explorer
Snip
On a separate subject: don't forget that Paladins are no longer specifically servants of deities. Their power may easily come from conviction alone, from thoroughly believing in an ideal rather than being purely servants-in-shiny-metal (or shiny leather, since Dex is a valid stat for Paladins now). As you've noted, an Oath of the Ancients Paladin can have an explainable link to the Fey; I would similarly argue that the Oath of Vengeance can be linked to either of the other two Warlock Patrons. I mean, it says right in the description that, "To these paladins--sometimes called avengers or dark knights--their own purity is not as important as delivering justice." That bespeaks of a character willing to go to great lengths to see a particular outcome, even if it means sullying themselves with dark deeds and dread consequences, which is very much like what a Fiend Pact could involve. The temptation to make a rash deal for the power to defeat a foe when all seems lost can be perilously great--particularly when your powers do in fact revolve around defeating such foes!

That kind of multi classing is the best way imo it fits the concept of the character from both an RP and mechanics standpoint isnt based on cherry picking the best dpr skills and seems like a natural progression.

The thought of paladins also being infused from the warlock patrons is god dam amazing and as of 30seconds ago is becoming cannon in my campaign for vengeance paladins that their thirst for vengeance and the cause is so strong they are noticed and given their power by a fiend knowing they will do anything for their cause including murdering women and children and other unsavory acts they think their power is divine oh where they wrong.
 

S'mon

Legend
I don't normally allow multiclassing in 5e. If I did I guess I'd be looking for at least 250 days of training, given you need that just to learn a new tool proficiency.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
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?

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

I am not a fan of multiclassing, and I have myself very rarely played multiclassed PCs (unless you count Prestige Classes).

But when I DM, I don't require much explanations. I also don't usually require any training time for anything, I just assume you have already trained during the previous levels.

As for credibility... IMHO credibility is lost when you have the PCs level up many times in the course of weeks, and then top up at 20th level when they're still teenagers, just because the adventures requires to keep leveling (typically even during the course of one single adventure). If I wanted credibility, I would either space the adventures by months or years between them, or alternatively I would dramatically decrease the XP rate down to e.g. 10% the standard. Then it would make sense to start thinking about how to represent training.
 

I use a pretty simple system. !st level in a new class, new skill, new tool, or new language? 250 days and 250 gp.

Of course, only during planned downtimes can these things be learned so they are somewhat regulated. I don't usually have any downtime before the first 5 levels or so. We had a year long break in game time in one campaign recently. Not a single player chose to take a second class.
 

Shendorion

First Post
I could see a few different ways you could narrate a paladin/warlock. Here we go:

- The paladin is a knight of an order that champions a set of ideals that aren't embodied in any one god. They're devout in their calling, so much so that the gods who oversee those portfolios they represent (again, assuming your campaign world has specific, active gods) grant them sufficient divine power to manifest their faith in those ideals in the world. They don't answer to one god, don't put a name on the source of their power, so when they call upon those powers they're not "divine power granted by Sanctimonius the Lawful" and "demonic power granted by Hecubus the Impolite;" they're just the magic of their order.

- The otherworldly power who grants the knight her power is masquerading as an agent of her patron god. Maybe the entity is a deceitful one who fancies itself a corruptor of that god's faithful. Maybe the god and the other entity are locked in a battle for that mortal's soul, and the player's actions during the campaign determine the outcome. Whatever the cause, these two beings are both supplying power to one person, who thinks it's all coming from the same place.

- The holder of the paladin's pact actually is an agent of the god he worships. Sir Ponciface is so purely devout in his faith that his patron god has appointed an angel to attend him. Their souls are bound together, and when Sir Ponciface speaks, the angel's voice sings backup. The paladin's pact is another manifestation of divine magic, PRAISE BE, thankaSanctusamen.

- The paladin's patron diety is of a completely different sort than the standard jealous, no-gods-before-me Judeo-Christian god. The oath of service doesn't have an exclusivity clause. The pact is a tool to be wielded by the knigt, and the patron god blesses the arrangement knowing that the knight will continue to champion the god's causes with all the power he's given, regardless of source.

These are all assuming a game world in which the gods are specific entities with well defined portfolios, who have official churches where they're invoked by name. If your game world diverges from that standard on any point, the possibilities only expand.
 

Dausuul

Legend
It's a lot easier to learn the basics of a new thing than it is to increase your skills in an area where you've already reached an advanced level. So if you're imposing training requirements on multi-classed characters, you should impose equal if not stricter requirements on single-classed ones. It should be at least as hard to go from Wiz8 to Wiz9 as it is to go from Ftr8 to Ftr8/Wiz1.

The truth is that the XP system is grossly unrealistic to begin with. The fact that you can go "from zero to hero" in a few weeks of game time is preposterous. But I don't see anyone calling for a years-long break between adventures to realize your single-class level gains, so why impose them on the multi-class guy?

If you don't like multi-classing, just ban it (requiring a year of training to add a new class would be effectively a ban in any game I've ever played). It's an optional rule. The game is designed to make it easy to excise.
 
Last edited:


KahlessNestor

Adventurer
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. :)

Both thise scenarios seem implausible to me. The first, I think, would demonstrate lack of faith and possibly involve loss of paladin abilities. The second might piss off the warlock patron and lose those powers. Gods are jealous things.
 

Remove ads

Top