PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Requiring Players to have "Trainers" for Multiclassing - Good or Bad Idea?



Johnathan_Harke
2014-08-14, 10:18 PM
I GM frequently, and a few of my players want to multiclass. I generally approve of multiclassing, but I fail to see how players can mysteriously pick up skills they have no access to. So, I'm wondering if you (players out there) agree - Should players be required to have a "trainer" in order to multiclass? For example, should the bard be able to suddenly multiclass druid, or does he need to find the old hermit in the woods to teach him things about the magic of the earth? Can the fighter simply tap into the arcane power of a wizard, or must he first read tome after musty tome on the arcane arts? Should the rogue apprentice under an apothecary, read formula books, and learn recipes before experimenting with alchemy?

Some combinations feel more acceptable than others. For example, druid/ranger or bard/rogue is fairly easy to understand, but something like barbarian/wizard is hard to explain without some in-game efforts. Do you agree?

Basically, do you think players should be required to have an in-game "trainer" before multiclassing? Please share your thoughts.

Manasam
2014-08-14, 10:34 PM
Well- here's a player's perspective. I have a paladin that's going to be multiclassing now that it's (warforged) hit level two and gained a new feat. From my perspective, why should the other players get to use their fancy new abilities immediately, and not me?

I understand that multiclassing is a bigger deal than some other feats, but what about, say, the jack of all trades feat for the bard? Surely improving every single social skill and area of study should take some time?

The thing is, with normal leveling it's just sort of assumed that the new things are natural outgrowths of a character, or seething they've been working on in down time. As a player, I sort of just expect the DM to want to work out with me where this influence was in my backstory that lead to me being Druidic.

My DM wants us to have mentors, and I'll play along because I'm already pretty relatively optimized with plenty of time to shine, but I don't really like it.

Thinker
2014-08-14, 10:40 PM
I think that it is fine to require training for multiclassing if you set those expectations before the game starts and before everyone has made their characters. It might modify their approach. For example, if you were starting the party at level 3 and someone planned to be a rogue/wizard, but initially wasn't going to take wizard levels until level 5, he might take a level of wizard at character creation. You should also make sure that acceptable trainers are both apparent and frequently available. It isn't very fun for everyone if you only create the rule to limit player choices. I also recommend you allow players to save a level up in this system so that they can pursue whatever multiclassing quests or trainers you have required for them.

AMFV
2014-08-14, 11:33 PM
I GM frequently, and a few of my players want to multiclass. I generally approve of multiclassing, but I fail to see how players can mysteriously pick up skills they have no access to. So, I'm wondering if you (players out there) agree - Should players be required to have a "trainer" in order to multiclass? For example, should the bard be able to suddenly multiclass druid, or does he need to find the old hermit in the woods to teach him things about the magic of the earth? Can the fighter simply tap into the arcane power of a wizard, or must he first read tome after musty tome on the arcane arts? Should the rogue apprentice under an apothecary, read formula books, and learn recipes before experimenting with alchemy?

Some combinations feel more acceptable than others. For example, druid/ranger or bard/rogue is fairly easy to understand, but something like barbarian/wizard is hard to explain without some in-game efforts. Do you agree?

Basically, do you think players should be required to have an in-game "trainer" before multiclassing? Please share your thoughts.

It depends on your game, generally multiclassing isn't seen as as abrupt in game as it appears. One can after all be studying swordplay in one's off time while adventuring, or reading about it. Now I see no real problem with requiring trainers, but do you also require trainers when a player trains a skill from zero ranks to one? I mean it doesn't make sense that they'd just spontaneously develop the skill to survive or in particular knowledge skills. Do you require that players find a trainer for feats? I mean learning how to trip effectively could be a technique that requires extensive study...

The point is that the leveling is already a break with reality in pretty significant respects. So while trainers might be included, they aren't going to make leveling any more realistic than it was. So realism is a bad argument to use for why it should be required. Requiring it because it's flavorful on the other hand is pretty good.

Thrudd
2014-08-15, 12:17 AM
For verisimilitude, it makes complete sense that a trainer and a period of training be required. In fact, not only for multiclassing, but for all leveling. Go back to 1e style, and require a period of some weeks downtime and a trainer in order to gain the next level. Multiclassing into a new class should require more training time than normal leveling, and definitely a teacher. Normal leveling could be allowed without a trainer.
This means that whenever a character gains enough XP to gain a new level, they don't gain new skill points or class abilities, including BAB and saving throws, until they have spent the requisite in-game downtime (you could make an argument for giving them their HP immediately). Of course this should be presented from the beginning of the game, or talk to everyone about it and make sure they are ok with it before making the change.

At the very least, you might require that any intent to multiclass be announced at least one level in advance, implying they are spending that time practicing and learning the new class skills and abilities.