D&D 5E Explainable multiclassing

[Greg K]

I've never heard of a DM so permissive it wrecked the campaign.

Really? I've read a lot of online accounts on various boards from 3e DMs talking about how their campaigns got ruined, because they were afraid or otherwise unwilling to tell their players "No!" to level dipping, prestige classes, sourcebooks, etc.

 

[KahlessNestor]

And where does that "somewhere" get it? Is there an infinite regress, or is there actually an original source? And if there's an original source, why can't it be the paladin? In a magical universe, can we really say that one source is more plausible than any other?

It's pretty clear the "somewhere" is a deity. "I believe" magic is more attune to a sorcerer than a paladin/cleric, or maybe a psionicist. I haven't played a 5e paladin yet (though hopefully someday), but it does sound like they've watered them down completely, removing that which really makes them "Paladin-y". If "smite evil" is going to work regardless of a target's alignment, then just call it "smite".

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's actually not called "smite evil" in 5E.

Paladins can worship gods, or gain their power from their Oaths. They can be any alignment, although the flavor certainly encourages them toward good. But in 5E, none of the divine classes automatically lose their powers if they suffer a crisis of faith or change alignment. That's how you can get things like corrupt priests without making it obvious, which can only be a benefit to story/adventure ideas.

Similarly, none of the warlocks lose their powers for turning against their patron.

Now, can you change that at your table? Of course you can. Depending on the setting, I change it at some of mine. But making them mechanically incompatible in a single character? That's a trait of the table, not a problem with multiclassing in and of itself. And it eliminates a lot of really interesting RP potential, IMO.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

"I believe" magic is more attune to a sorcerer than a paladin/cleric, or maybe a psionicist.

Tennyson wrote, "My strength is as the strength of ten, / Because my heart is pure." And in D&D, "I believe" magic has explicitly been within the scope of the divine classes since at least 3rd Edition. Are you willing to say that the way magic spells are stated to work in a fantasy game is somehow incorrect?

If "smite evil" is going to work regardless of a target's alignment, then just call it "smite".

"Divine Smite", actually.

 

[devincutler]

I require explanation and exposition to multiclass, and some classes are easier to get into than others. Telegraphing your desires early is also a requirement.

For example, sorcerers are generally born with their power. And it might be latent, but to me it seems silly that someone is a rogue and one day wakes up and DECIDES to become a sorcerer.

Barbarians derive their class from a heritage. They are born in tribal settings. So having a rogue who has spent his entire life in Waterdeep suddenly become a barbarian is...silly.

Similarly with cleric. A cleric is not someone who wants to cast cleric spells. A cleric is someone who actually desires to serve a deity and its philosophies and who has proven that worth enough to be granted access to divine powers and spellcasting. Not a decision made lightly and not something someone gets to just wake up one morning and decide to do.

Some classes make more sense. Fighter and rogue are pretty easy. I would just require a PC to state that he is practicing with weaponry and sparring with the party's fighter, or as a rogue is practicing opening locks and whatnot.

In most cases, however, if D&D is to be something beyond a paper and pen video game, multiclassing should absolutely require telegraphing, months if not years of training, et cl.

 

[Celtavian]

I let people take barbarian levels if they come up with an interesting reason why they became a raging psychopath. Demon blood or just a horrible temper is enough for me to let them become a barbarian. The barbarian class is the raging psychopath class. I don't think it is necessarily tribal warriors since tribal warriors could be rangers or fighters. The barbarian is the warrior with the temper that casts him into a blind rage.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

For some characters, class is part of their identity. Both the characters I'm playing now fall under that idea - an Abjurer and a Green Knight, both of whom are basically professional members of their classes.

For others, though, classes are a mechanical means of expressing something about the character, and expressing that something requires multiclassing. They were never defined by the classes written in the books, so it's not "multiclassing" to them when they're multiclass - it's just showing who they are. One of my AL characters, a Rashemi female Lore Bard/Dragon Sorc, is one of these - as far as she was concerned, she was never a Bard, and the idea of Sorcerer as an identity would baffle her utterly. She was a Witch of Rashemen, and no other label would describe her.

 

[MoonSong]

I always have paladins as servants of deities.

I never play paladins who serve deities...

For some characters, class is part of their identity. Both the characters I'm playing now fall under that idea - an Abjurer and a Green Knight, both of whom are basically professional members of their classes.

For others, though, classes are a mechanical means of expressing something about the character, and expressing that something requires multiclassing. They were never defined by the classes written in the books, so it's not "multiclassing" to them when they're multiclass - it's just showing who they are. One of my AL characters, a Rashemi female Lore Bard/Dragon Sorc, is one of these - as far as she was concerned, she was never a Bard, and the idea of Sorcerer as an identity would baffle her utterly. She was a Witch of Rashemen, and no other label would describe her.

Curiously I haven't really have any of my sorcerers identify as one. They are always just a farmer, an adventurer, or if they really acknowledge their powers as their identity, they describe themselves as withces..

 

[77IM]

I have. Imagine, if you will, a DM who said "okay" whenever the cleric prayed for direct divine intervention in whatever the problem was. Not just regular cleric spellcasting, mind you, actual deus ex machina stuff.

Me too. I've seen DM's who were so eager to please players that they demolished any sense of actual challenge in the game. DM's are there to make the game as hard as it needs to be but not harder...or easier.

Really? I've read a lot of online accounts on various boards from 3e DMs talking about how their campaigns got ruined, because they were afraid or otherwise unwilling to tell their players "No!" to level dipping, prestige classes, sourcebooks, etc.

I get what you guys are saying, but those all sound like balance issues. If someone showed up to your table and wanted to play a laser-wielding space-monkey, and it was mechanically balanced, would you allow it?

In my current game, set in the Forgotten Realms, one of the PCs is a Roman sailor and priest of Neptune who got displaced into the Realms by some kind of planar portal. He's trying to find his way home, and having a good time acting baffled at the strange customs of the locals, while educating them about proper Roman deities. It's really a lot of fun, but I know a lot of DMs who would not allow a character like that.

To me, multi-classing is no different. Even if a multi-class combo seems sudden and weird and out-of-genre, if it sounds fun to the player and isn't broken, then it's my job to find a way to say "Yes" in a way that makes the game more entertaining for everyone.

 

[Shendorion]

And this is where I think the Oath aspect breaks down. I don't see how one gets crazy supernatural power on sheer "faith" alone. It has to come from somewhere. I notice no official setting actually uses this oath thing.

But I guess we're kind of derailing out of the thread's intention now. :/

Getting crazy supernatural power on sheer "faith" alone is much less plausible than muttering the special explosive gibberish with a side of emphatic hand gesture? What about "my great great grandfather was a dragon and I really want things to catch fire?" Or how about, "I'm really fond of plants," or "the great seal at the bottom of the imaginary sea infuses me?" If the gods are going to micromanage the expenditure of their magical energies, why mess about with human vessels at all?

There's at least one other class in the game that, as written, directs magical energy through force of will. All of the labels and spell names and so forth are contrivances, either outside of the narrative to help define the edges of the rules, or within the narrative in formal organizations (none of whom have a monopoly on any source of power). The standard game setting is one in which you actually can make things happen just by believing them hard enough.

I just don't see holy magic as a game of "Simon Says," or something that's subject to instant, infallible line item audits by some specific, irrefutably accurately defined and completely scrutable entity. Honestly, the distinction between pact magic and priestly magic seems to me to be a matter of scale, the primary difference being who approached whom in the relationship between caster and power source (and even that is subject to change based on the backstory).