. But the problem with the background is that background is stuff you don't get to play. It is there, in the past.
I've done flashback games, so that's not entirely true. And, even without flashbacks, the background does inform story going forwards in many games, so its still important, and still informs play.
Now the example given wasn't "Wizard academy reject that turned to something else" as a character concept,
Yes, it was. The example is specifically about leaving the field for a new one. Why else describe it as quitting an engineering job and going into sales?
it was a case of "My character is not entirely conventional and cannot ever stop taking levels in the same class regardless of what happens in game". Let's try with something else, how about a dex paladin with low strength? One played by a thespian that barely ever speaks out of character? Now something happens in game that makes it natural for the paladin to shift paths -maybe the order did something unspeakable, maybe the god was evil all along, maybe someone dear by the paladin had to be sacrificed for grater good- whatever it is, it makes zero sense for the paladin to remain a paladin and keep getting good at being a paladin.
Okay, now I agree that the Strength requirement for paladins is a bit unusual, in that the game is assuming the paladin is a Strength based class, and you won't see Dex-dins. You see it here and there in the rules. I can see arguments for either Dex/Str 13 as well as Cha 13. But there should be some innate melee skill involved here to fulfill that intent. What's being suggested, instead, is something that doesn't even come close to fitting the intent. Not a renegade, not a variation, someone that is very deliberately built to suck at their original class. To use your paladin example, it would be a hardy, highly intelligent, highly observational paladin with no social talent or skill at arms trying to multi-class with wizard.
Also, lets touch on the paladin thing losing touch with their order or god or whatever. Paladins are bound by their Oaths, not an order or a god. Even if the oath is to a god, you can simply find a new god. These Oaths can be entirely personal, so there's nothing to be bonded to. As such, even an Oath of the Crown can continue the same oath while seeking to replace the current tyrants or whatever with "the true ruler." Even failing all that, paladins leaving their Oath is handled by swapping their subclass. Generally to Oathbreaker or a different "fallen paladin" archetype (wasn't there another in the UA articles?), but to other Oaths are also possible.
But lets say that there's a paladin who's Oaths rely on gods like a cleric, and decided to quit all gods. By all rights, the paladin should be losing ALL their auras and smites and everything. But... they're not. The game assumes that they're going to carry on with access to all this stuff they got before. There's no mechanics for losing levels or leaving a class. You're always going to be a paladin, barring house rules.
But what now? It might take 8 levels for the paladin to gain enough strength to be allowed to multiclass out, and the campaign doesn't even lasts that long. Oh but Powergamer mcMunchkin planed a powerful paladin combo from first level up and he can liberally take levels in as many classes as he wants/needs for his toon with zero personality and is always metagamed.
You didn't actually answer my most important point, and the whole reason I find this argument to be trash:
WHY did you make a paladin without any martial ability or charisma? That's the real issue I have with this argument. Why did this paladin exist in the first place? Why would you make a wizard that has practically +0 in their main stat to begin with? That's where I'm extremely suspicious of this entire argument from the word go. Its assuming you have sub-standard ability in a class, whcih to me, is a very strong suggestion that the only reason you have such sub-standard ability is because you planned to have a character with such for power gaming reasons. Admittedly, there is some weirdness with Dex and Str, especially when I consider dex-paladins/barbarians and str-rogues/rangers to be common enough existances. But when the original example I was quoting was a
wizard with a focus on one stat and a lack of reason to ever have a low Int? There's no finesse-weapon flexibility going on at all, unlike Str/Dex.
So, why is there a PC wizard with a Int of 12 and below after all the possible races with an Int boost? I have yet to hear a good answer that doesn't involve "planning on multiclassing" from character creation. As such, this entire argument reeks of after-the-fact justification. People are trying to make arguments for someone that happens to run into another class as part of the natural character progression. I find it very suspicious that a "natural character progression" would have such a dumb wizard in the first place.
And Mephista, do you have any quote from Mearls, Crawford, et al., that supports this thing about Multiclassing in 5e being meant for dips and not for hybrids and path changing? Because traditionally it has been that, dualclassing meant there was no turn back, Ad&D multiclassing was hybridizing , and in 3e monk and paladin were explicitly changing paths without the chance for return.
I don't save links, but there's enough perponderance of evidence around that its enough for casual conversation.
5e multi-classing is based on part of 3e multi-class rules (which included prestige classes); ad&d 's multiclassing was to level two classes up at the same time, which has zero bearing on the current ruleset. As such, you can't just make complete comparisons to previous editions, given that hybridization has been clearly designed into subclasses, given the examples of said hybridized subclasses. Previous edition multiclassing is so vastly different from 5e's, that direct comparisons are meaningless. As well, 5e classes are built upon the idea of achieving certain tiers and milestone abilities - multiclass is designed to delay reaching those milestones and put you beind the projected curve.
Simply put, the game is designed to reach certain powers and abilities at certain levels. If you don't, your character stops being able to face the challenges your party faces. Delaying a level or two doesn't hurt as much, or swapping out after getting milestone abilities and quitting the game before the next milestone works, but in terms of hybridization? Its unviable - an evoker 4/life cleric 4 is going to have a hard time doing anything compared to an arcane cleric 8. The character suffers massively, and for many people, that undermines the fun of the game. This also applies to carreer changes - the abilities of low levels in classes aren't going to provide you with the necessary tools to keep up with the challenges faced by the troupe.
This is just how the game is designed, and the assumptions built in. There's a reason why multi-classing is an optional, advanced feature, because, if done poorly, it can make a character unable to meet with the challenges the game provides and assumes.
