Reasons to Restrict Multiclassing?

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey guys,

How many of y'all restrict multiclassing?

If y'all do, what reasons do you give (narratively and/or mechanically) for the restrictions?

[Man_Over_Game]

Hey guys,

How many of y'all restrict multiclassing?

If y'all do, what reasons do you give (narratively and/or mechanically) for the restrictions?

I actually open up more multiclassing (as Prestige Options, in the sig).

The only reason I'd block out Multiclassing is for a clear mechanical gain over a narrative one. I'm looking at you, Paladin Sorcerers/Warlocks.


Really, it just boils down to this:


Don't let people get tons of spell slots for Divine Smite.
Don't let people get tons of low level spell slots for Shield.
Don't let casters dip for tons of AC.



Do that, and there's it won't really matter how people multiclass.

[Sparky McDibben]

I've taken a look at the Prestige Options, actually. They look interesting, but it just sort of boils down to a conversation with your DM, right? "Hey, can I have an INT-based Bard?"

But as a DM, what should you do if your Sorcerer goes, "OK, I'd like to do my next 14 levels as Paladin!"

What do you require of that player? What quests would you have them undergo? This assumes no Session Zero conversations, but even then, what boundaries or requirements would you set down?

All of those are restrictions to my mind.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've taken a look at the Prestige Options, actually. They look interesting, but it just sort of boils down to a conversation with your DM, right? "Hey, can I have an INT-based Bard?"

But as a DM, what should you do if your Sorcerer goes, "OK, I'd like to do my next 14 levels as Paladin!"

What do you require of that player? What quests would you have them undergo? This assumes no Session Zero conversations, but even then, what boundaries or requirements would you set down?

All of those are restrictions to my mind.

A simple narrative goal would suffice it enough for me. I might ask to change around how Divine Smite works (to instead include Spell Smites, which I like a lot more than a generic damage spam), but I personally don't have much of a problem with multiclassing. Generally, there's not much of a reason to outside of a few exceptions (EK + Abjurer, Paladin + Warlock/Sorcerer, Monk + Druid), outside of narrative reasons. And 3 or so specific builds aren't enough to be a jerk about it.

In the end, Paladin Sorcerers generally want combat, they want to deal damage, and they like optimization. They usually don't care about events that don't involve combat. And as a DM, it's my job to make sure my players have fun. If I force them to play a game that they don't want to play, then I'm probably not doing a good job.

Although I like the idea that you need to find someone to teach you the Oaths before assuming them yourself, which would make an interesting quest and narrative concept.

----------

As for the Prestige Options, the point is less of "Here's a cool idea", but rather "here's some evidence to support YOUR cool idea". I've refined every single one of those options, and each one is carefully chosen to avoid any overpowered builds. It's basically a way to throw it at your DM and say "well, here's why I SHOULD be able to play an Intelligence Bard".

Of course, I'd be glad to be proven wrong on any of them, so if you (or anyone else) wants to tell me I did something wrong, I'll happily thank you for it.

[Kane0]

The reason I see most often is 'there are people new to the game at the table, let's start things off simple'

A distant second is 'I don't like X + Y multiclass, but don't want to ban just that particular combo so to be fair I'm going to say no multiclassing at all'

I've only participated in one game that altered MCing rules for other reasons, and that was because we were playing a gestalt game.

[Grog Logs]

I start campaigns allowing multiclassing for published classes and subclasses, but banning it for UA classes and subclasses due to UA often being unbalanced. I also ban multiclassing for the purposes of infinite loops (e.g., Coffeelocks).

That being said, I recently allowed a Phoenix Sorcerer to multiclassing into a Hexbade Warlock as it advanced the PC character arc, fits my story, and the Player agreed to not abuse Coffeelock (which is made easier by me already limiting short rests to twice per long rest). So, it really comes down to trusting your Players and your own ability as a DM to talk to the Player in the future if unforseen game balance issues arise.

[Chronos]

My group disallows multiclassing mostly for the sake of simplicity. All of our players have some experience on them now (our first group went all the way from level 1 to 14), but a couple of them still often get confused by a single class's worth of features. And subclasses, backgrounds, and feats (even just within the PHB) between them allow enough narrative space for almost any character concept.

[Imbalance]

I've heard of tying class to level tiers, but I don't think I caught the reasoning, maybe to thwart single dips. The rule was you could only multi after you had five levels of your current class.

[bc56]

So.
I don't like the way multiclassing is set up; I find it needlessly complicated.

But that isn't enough for me to block it.
As a DM, I require a solid explanation of why and how the character multiclasses. This goes double for multiclass options that don't make much lore sense but are mechanically very strong. The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

[JNAProductions]

"So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

Brother-Captain Stern has an answer for that question.

[Eragon123]

It is an optional rule that I feel creates more problems than it solves.

Also while some people will point out that you need to be careful about delaying features, it still feels bad that your concept is either really weak early on or only comes online much later.

Also I hate the mentality of “the last three levels of x don’t offer anything, might as well dip”. That’s a design error of late level features not being impactful enough IMO. (I know that there are reasons for this but still it rubs me the wrong way).

[SirVladamir]

Just starting a game that multi-classing requires taking a feat. When you acquire the feat, you choose the class, the next level must be taken in that class.

The DM wanted to restrict martials dipping everything, and put more of a cost to the warlock/sorcerer, paladin/full caster. Also given the specific timing in taking said levels, reduces the total optimization curve.

Not sure how its going to work out, just working on characters now, going to start at lvl 5 though.

[JNAProductions]

Just starting a game that multi-classing requires taking a feat. When you acquire the feat, you choose the class, the next level must be taken in that class.

The DM wanted to restrict martials dipping everything, and put more of a cost to the warlock/sorcerer, paladin/full caster. Also given the specific timing in taking said levels, reduces the total optimization curve.

Not sure how its going to work out, just working on characters now, going to start at lvl 5 though.

That seems like an unneeded nerf. You're not only restricted, you lose your ASI to do it? So, if I wanted to go, say, Druid/Monk (Kung-Fu Panda!) I'd get my first ASI to actually use at LEVEL 8!

Also, it REALLY screws martial characters, since they really want to hit level 5 for Extra Attack. Meaning the earliest they can multiclass is either after level 8, or they're missing Extra Attack for at least four levels. Either way, not good.

[SirVladamir]

That seems like an unneeded nerf. You're not only restricted, you lose your ASI to do it? So, if I wanted to go, say, Druid/Monk (Kung-Fu Panda!) I'd get my first ASI to actually use at LEVEL 8!

Also, it REALLY screws martial characters, since they really want to hit level 5 for Extra Attack. Meaning the earliest they can multiclass is either after level 8, or they're missing Extra Attack for at least four levels. Either way, not good.

my response as well, but thats what the DM wanted. I'll probably go single class but have been tossing around a few ideas like Fighter 4, rouge 1, fighter to 6 then rest rogue. But the cost seems higher then the return

[Sigreid]

Reasons I could see (even though I don't multi-class)

1. New players and you want to keep things clean for them until they get the hang of it.
2. DM just plain doesn't want to worry about any unforeseen consequences, either good or bad, from the various combos.
3. Table prefers strong single theme characters.
4. Classes are a function of a cast system and you can't arbitrarily switch casts.
5. In the world's cosmology each class has a god of that class and they are jealous gods that would not tolerate the disloyalty of cross training.

I'm sure there's others, but those are the ones I can think of.

[Pharaon]

"So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

While I understand that may be hyperbole, this really isn't how either of those classes work in 5e.

I can easily rectify why a paladin (especially conquest and vengeance, even devotion and ancients) would make some sort of barely-specified deal for power with a sentient weapon to further the goals of their oath. Neither gods nor soul-selling need apply.

[Sigreid]

While I understand that may be hyperbole, this really isn't how either of those classes work in 5e.

I can easily rectify why a paladin (especially conquest and vengeance, even devotion and ancients) would make some sort of barely-specified deal for power with a sentient weapon to further the goals of their oath. Neither gods nor soul-selling need apply.

I considered briefly a paladin/hexblade that formed a pact with the Holy Avenger he would be questing for. Then I took a closer look at paladin and decided it would be better to go all in.

[Particle_Man]

I ban multi-classes and feats and have them use the array for stats and class/background for starting equipment. I don’t want to deal with exploits or complications and I like solidly defined themes. And because there is a dm shortage where I am, I have no problem getting players and they seem to enjoy themselves in any case.

[Laserlight]

I would advise new players to stick to single class, although I wouldn't ban it.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'm working on a setting that functions like a videogame and isekai anime hybrid of sorts.
For now, I have the rule of "no multiclassing", but I might open the ability up to the party after a certain level/story point. As if they've progressed enough to unlock their 'second job' option.

[Pex]

So.
I don't like the way multiclassing is set up; I find it needlessly complicated.

But that isn't enough for me to block it.
As a DM, I require a solid explanation of why and how the character multiclasses. This goes double for multiclass options that don't make much lore sense but are mechanically very strong. The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

He brings light to darkness. He's redeeming a mystical part of the universe to the light by using its power for the cause of all that it holy and proper. Besides, darkness and necrotic energy aren't even inherently evil to be forbidden.

[Yunru]

Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb.

Paladin the class is not Paladin the concept, etc for all the other "classes".

[sithlordnergal]

I've never really seen a reason to restrict multiclassing for any reason. But then again, I'm of the opinion that every class has weaknesses, and its on me to be able to create challenges for those classes. Be it draining resources, hitting their weak points, or forcing them to do stuff they're weak at.

As for all the backstory, I don't fully require it. Sure its nice, and it gives me stuff to work with, but not necessary. Most people can pull out some sort of backstory if they really, really want to try...but I'm fine if they don't.

EDIT: As for all the issues with Paladin multiclasses...I mean I can kinda get the Hexblade...though I see no reason why they can't use a good aligned intelligent blade or smith. As for Sorcerers...Would they need that much backstory? "One day they're swinging a sword, get bonked on the head, and suddenly latent magical power appears and they accidentally toss a firebolt".

Though to be honest, I like my backstory for my Oath of the Ancients/Wild Magic Sorcerer the best. X3 "He gained his sorcerer abilities because his Paladin Aura granted by Rao was corrupted by chaotic magical energies from a temple he had to help clear out. Ever since he has been able to cast spells, though he has no real control over his magic, and will occasionally start sparking. If you see those sparks, a Wild Magic Surge is imminent."

[Trustypeaches]

So.
The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"(A) This makes perfect sense for a conquest or vengeance Paladin to be honest.

(B) Becoming a warlock doesn’t necessarily mean you pledge your soul.

(C) As a DM I’m fine letting anyone change the flavor or narrative elements behind any class or subclass or spell if they can come up with something cool.

[BurgerBeast]

I prefer no multi-classing.

I don’t think about it in terms of “reasons for restricting multi-classing.” Multi-classing is an optional rule. You add optional rules for reasons; you don’t restrict them for reasons. They are “restricted” by default.

As an analogy, we don’t ask people why they restrict the flanking rules or insanity rules from their games.

If you want a reason for not using the optional multi-classing rules, the best explanation I have is that I want players to think about and worry about their builds to the least extent possible. I like players to pick a race, a class, and gear, and get into it. This maximizes the time spent playing the game and minimizes time “wasted” on analysis, theorycrafting, etc.

[Ignimortis]

Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb.

Paladin the class is not Paladin the concept, etc for all the other "classes".

While I agree completely, I also think that it's not the way 5e was designed. I recall the designers talking about strong archetypes and all that.

[Arkhios]

I actually open up more multiclassing (as Prestige Options, in the sig).

The only reason I'd block out Multiclassing is for a clear mechanical gain over a narrative one. I'm looking at you, Paladin Sorcerers/Warlocks.


Really, it just boils down to this:


Don't let people get tons of spell slots for Divine Smite.
Don't let people get tons of low level spell slots for Shield.
Don't let casters dip for tons of AC.



Do that, and there's it won't really matter how people multiclass.

Frankly, I'm a bit amused about this. I have no problem whatsoever if a player wanted to play a Paladin+Sorcerer/Warlock, because if they choose to spend all their resources in one combat, it's their own fault, not mine nor the rest of the group. If majority of the group is capable of continuing after one combat without a short rest, the one who spent all their resources has to learn to deal with it. Period.

Going nova has consequences. Often immediate.

Likewise, Shield lasts only for so long. Burning all your spell slots on it will burn your available resources FAST. Again, it's your choice, therefore your own fault, if you run out of fuel before it's ideal to take a rest.

Tons of AC is good only for so far, if you don't have the hit points to back it up. It doesn't matter if your AC is sky high if you have low amount of hit points, because more often than not, one critical hit can take you out. And critical hit doesn't care about how high your AC is.


That out of the way, I prefer a "golden mean" in regards to restricting multiclasses. As long as it makes sense in narrative, I'm fine with it (both as a DM and a player). However, if it's only because you want to add numbers on top of numbers with little regard if your character concept makes "sense", then we may have a problem. Even so, I'm prepared to sort these problems out with the player (or DM), to reach a narrative that fits the character concept.

[Kalashak]

I've never actually restricted it because I don't want to deal with the whining it would cause, but I always think about doing it. A strong part of the reason I permanently switched to 5th edition was that they put effort into making the classes feel distinct from one another, and soft baked some fictional archetypes into them. I personally like that a lot, and feel like multiclassing weakens it.

[Spiritchaser]

The only reasons I’d restrict multiclass would be if I intentionally wanted to simplify the game or restrict worst case build power disparity. I have never done the latter, but when I first introduced my kids to D&D I more or less did the former indirectly (for their first adventure) by simply not telling them about multiclass or directing them to that section.

[Astofel]

This is purely theoretical since only one person in a game I've run has ever decided to multiclass and that was immediately before they retired the character for story reasons, but my rules on multiclassing are as follows:
1. You can only multiclass with published 5e material, it's well-known that UA is not balanced for multiclassing.
2. To me, classes are not just "bundles of features". If your character sheet says paladin, you have sworn an oath of some description to get those abilities, if it says warlock you have made a pact with an otherworldly being, etc. This means that if you want to multiclass, there must be some kind of in-universe justification for doing this. This does not mean that I'll reject things like the infamous warlock/paladin combo, on the contrary if you come to me at character creation and tell me that you want your character to have levels in both I'll work with you to figure out the fiction behind that, but choosing a class means accepting all the RP baggage that comes with it. This isn't even for balance purposes, I just feel like the fiction and themes of a class should matter.

[DarkKnightJin]

Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb.

Paladin the class is not Paladin the concept, etc for all the other "classes".

I've made 'ghetto Paladin' with 1 level of Fighter and the rest in Cleric. He doesn't do what a Paladin does mechanically.. but he fits the bill thematically. And that's just as important, I think.

[Deox]

Multi-classing is an optional rule. You add optional rules for reasons; you don’t restrict them for reasons. They are “restricted” by default.

Well said. A point that is quite often overlooked.

Follow up. As I am not familiar with AL, is multi-classing allowed in AL games? Additionally, if it is allowed, is a DM fully within their purview to refuse the character?

[Boci]

Well said. A point that is quite often overlooked.

Follow up. As I am not familiar with AL, is multi-classing allowed in AL games? Additionally, if it is allowed, is a DM fully within their purview to refuse the character?

My understanding is no. AL DMs must conform since the idea is you can freely swap characters from one AL DM to another, so if its allowed, its allowed in all games.

[Benny89]

I have nothing against it AS LONG as all players around table understands how to multiclass and how it works (in terms of mechanical advantages).

Then I know that if one player multiclass for power (Sorcadin let's say) and other one multiclass for fun (Druid-Ranger because he feels like it's cool) then I know that Druid player chose not to multi for advantage and he is well aware that Sorcadin is a multiclass powerbuild and he chose not to compete with him but to make his own multiclass and doesn't care that other player multi for power.

However I restrict multiclass when I clearly see that one player is experienced in system (optimized character level 1 with best race to class choice, min-maxed stats, PAM taken if Vuman etc.) than others (making some good builds that they feel like roleplaying them.). Then I know that if I let experienced player multi - he can easly exploit it in a way that other players have no idea about. And at the same time unexperienced players can multiclass and actually make their character worse that way (mechanically) giving power advantage to experienced player even more.

So in this case I have nothing against optimized characters (I encourage that and help new players with it) but multiclass is something I feel should be reserved for experienced groups who fully understand all ups and downs of it.

As for multiclass itself- I love it as it makes more interesting characters and also gives one-dimensional classes (Figher, attack, attack, attack...attack?) a way to make their gameplay more interesting.

[Pex]

The ability, desire, and fun of playing a character with excellent game mechanics synergy has no relation whatsoever to the the ability, desire, and fun of playing a character with excellent dramatic effect. It is quite possible to want both, enjoy both, and everyone has fun experiencing both.

[Particle_Man]

While I agree completely, I also think that it's not the way 5e was designed. I recall the designers talking about strong archetypes and all that.

Agreed. There are point-buy and other games out there (GURPS, etc) for those that only want characters to be bundles of advantages/edges/features, but 5e is not one of them.

[Benny89]

Agreed. There are point-buy and other games out there (GURPS, etc) for those that only want characters to be bundles of advantages/edges/features, but 5e is not one of them.

Disagree. System is what table wants it to be. Designers wouldn't place multiclassing, point-buy and feats as optional rules if they didn't think that vast portion of DnD playerbase loves it. They might have design whole system around idea that those are "not needed" but not around "those are not wanted/recommened" as they wouldn't place them in system in first place.

The main rule of RPG is "you chose how to play, books are only guidance". So no system is "one of them". It's what table makes them.

RAW or designers vision is as valid as table want them to be. Period.

[Danielqueue1]

No more than 3 classes. Not dealing with that.

Other than that, meet the requirements and you're good.

[Keravath]

Well said. A point that is quite often overlooked.

Follow up. As I am not familiar with AL, is multi-classing allowed in AL games? Additionally, if it is allowed, is a DM fully within their purview to refuse the character?

Multiclassing and feats are allowed in AL.

ALPG:
"Advancing Your Character. Your character advances using the race and class options (including the multiclass rules, feats, spells) provided in your PHB+1. When you gain a level, use the fixed hit point value in your class entry; don’t roll your hit points."

Anyone DMing an AL game has to accept AL legal tier appropriate characters that are properly documented.

The DM is free to ask to see the log sheet since misunderstandings can occur. We had someone sign up for a tier 3 game once for their first time playing AL and they had made up a level 11 character for it. They didn't realize that the character had to be played to tier 3 from level 1 to be legal. Everyone else at the table was really nice and we played a tier 1 game instead to accommodate the new player.

Multiclassing hasn't been much of a balance issue in AL. You get a wide range of characters with different levels of optimization but so far, in the games I have played, they have all generally been able to contribute. The few times characters have contributed less has usually been the result of player role playing decisions and not class mechanics ... e.g. a rogue who decides to go off exploring in the middle of a combat encounter.

Some of the classic examples are the paladin/sorcerer. At level 11 a 6 paladin/5 sorcerer has the spell slots of an 8th level caster (4 3 3 2)... a straight 11 paladin has the spell slots of a 6th level caster (4 3 3) and the 11th level paladin has improved divine smite. The paladin/sorcerer has two 4th level spell slots more but loses out on d8 damage on every attack. The sorcerer multiclass also has greater versatility in spell selection since they will likely have shield and absorb elements. However, it isn't staggeringly better than a straight paladin It loses a bit here and gains a bit there ... but it is often cited as one of the most unbalanced.

At level 20, the paladin has (4 3 3 3 2) spell slots and 5th level spells while the 6 paladin/14 sorcerer has an additional one spell slot from levels 6th to 9th and has up to 7th level spells. The paladin has a 30' aura and other paladin goodies from the intermediate levels. Smites cap at 5h level so the 6th to 9th level slots (if used for smiting) represent only 4 additional smites/day and although this is a powerful nova ability .. it is hard to compare that to the 30' party boosting auras from the straight paladin.

Finally, dips can shore up weaknesses in a build, particularly AC or lack of darkvision at the cost of level 20 abilities (which should probably be improved in some cases to make this less tempting :) ). However, in many cases these are casting classes that take the dip and that does slow their spell progression compared to a straight class. A 2 level dip puts the caster an entire level of spells behind which can be noticeable enough that whatever was gained by multiclassing must be very useful.

That is from a balance perspective, however, most multiclassing I run across has often been done from a narrative perspective to build the character that the player was looking for and back up the character concept with some mechanics. e.g dwarven barbarian scout who goes 5 levels of barbarian and then switches to scout rogue. Ideally the character concept might multiclass earlier but the game mechanics tends to discourage that due to the level 5 bump in ability ... though it could be done.

[Deox]

My understanding is no. AL DMs must conform since the idea is you can freely swap characters from one AL DM to another, so if its allowed, its allowed in all games.


Multiclassing and feats are allowed in AL. snip.

Thank you both. I had imagined this to be the case, as long as the PHB+1 was kept intact.


The ability, desire, and fun of playing a character with excellent game mechanics synergy has no relation whatsoever to the the ability, desire, and fun of playing a character with excellent dramatic effect. It is quite possible to want both, enjoy both, and everyone has fun experiencing both.

Bravo.

[Toadkiller]

I made the rule for my current campaign that you can’t dip into a class already in use by someone in the party without their permission. My concern was not having someone dip into a class in play and make someone else’s character less special. Previous game we had a sorcerer dip into warlock and, pretty much, make the warlock character already in play obsolete. Not ideal.

[Daphne]

I don't allow Multiclassing at my table, make things more straightforward.

[Zhorn]

At my table, I don't put a 'mechanical' restriction on multiclassing beyond the baseline 13 in the required stats...
... BUT I do insist on a narrative restriction. Example, the fighter doesn't just take a random level in warlock out of left field. The player tells me ahead of time, so I can introduce into the story things that fit what they are wanting to do (some way of encountering their patron, or a reason for the patron to seek them out)

[Yunru]

To me, classes are not just "bundles of features". If your character sheet says paladin, you have sworn an oath of some description to get those abilities, if it says warlock you have made a pact with an otherworldly being, etc.

Sure, individual features (or even chains or bundles of features) have in game lore associated with them (without refluffing of course). But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing? Why is having a deal with an otherworldly being a Warlock thing? Etc.

[Sparky McDibben]

Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb.

Bro. Not helpful. Please give me something to work with here. Like, a reason you think it's dumb. Or why you treat classes as "bags of features." Come on, man.

As for everyone else, this is super helpful! I especially like the idea of giving a player the devil's bargain: Which one do you want to break more? Your paladin oath or your warlock pact? Conflict! This is wonderful! Thanks, guys!

[Sparky McDibben]

Also, I found this which is amazing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZCIh_3b5K8

Puffin Forest makes me giggle. Don't judge.

[Alucard89]

Some of the classic examples are the paladin/sorcerer. At level 11 a 6 paladin/5 sorcerer has the spell slots of an 8th level caster (4 3 3 2)... a straight 11 paladin has the spell slots of a 6th level caster (4 3 3) and the 11th level paladin has improved divine smite. The paladin/sorcerer has two 4th level spell slots more but loses out on d8 damage on every attack. The sorcerer multiclass also has greater versatility in spell selection since they will likely have shield and absorb elements. However, it isn't staggeringly better than a straight paladin It loses a bit here and gains a bit there ... but it is often cited as one of the most unbalanced.

Sorcadin is actually one of mutliclasses that straight better than Paladin. Divine Smite is 1d8 per attack which is nice, however Sorcadin not only have more slots but also access to: Shield +5 AC on demand, Absorb Elements 50% dmg reduction on demand, Spirit Guardians, AOE 3d8 (at least, upcasted from 4th slots is 4d8 or 2d8) which if you fight at least 2-3 enemies will out dps Improved Divine Smite while keeping them slowed. Sorcadin has access to Shadow Blade, upcasted from level 4th will deal 3d8 dmg + giving you advantage in dim light or darkness. You also have Hypnotic Pattern which is worth more than IDS at if you disable whole group of enemies- that is actually much faster way to finish encounter with your party than little additional dmg. Not to mentioned Quciken Hold person. Bah, from level 11 Quicken Booming Blade will deal additional 2d8 dmg to target. If you have Spirit Guardians going at the same time, that will deal in one turn more than IDS from attacks will and dmg from Spirit Guardians is guarantee, you can't miss it as enemy AC doesn't matter. You also have access to Haste even if you are not Vengeance Paladin. Metamagic also opens more options like Quickening spells + attack with smites. Sorcadin with Extended Magic can provide party with permanent Aid + Death Ward spells on them, which is a huge boost to whole party. On higher level Spirit Guardians from 6th slot will deal AOE minimum of 3d8 unavoidable dmg per turn (6d8 if target fails), which is same damage as from IDS if you hit 3 melee attacks (which is only possible on PAM or Dual Wield for Paladin), while having access to 3 attacks per turn with attached another 1d8-3d8 bonus damage (Booming Blade).

If you actually Play straight Paladin and then Play Sorcadin you will actually noticed that this multiclass is indeed staggeringly better than pure Paladin. 30 ft Aura is nice feature but having access to spell that can end combat in first turn is worth more than that. Also being able to smite your target with 5d8 Shadow Blade + 5d8 Smite + 5d8 + 2d8 + 5d8 quicken Booming Blade is dead boss much faster. No need to invest in GWM on Sorcadin. WHen you need big damage- you simply summon it. You also provide team with permanent Aid + Death Ward everyday due to Extended meta magic.

Bah, you may have Aura for everyone but Counterspell will actually prevent need for save throw in first place. 6/14 Soradin (divine Soul) can quicken Heal + Lay Down on hand to heal in one turn for 105 HP. Level 20 Paladin can have max 100 healing from Hands. And combo is available earlier.

And that is talking about 6/14 Sorcadin. 2/18 Sorcadin will have at 11 level extra attack, more smites and access to level 5th spells. Bah, at 19 level they have Wish, while being able to smite target almost as good (definitely longer and through more encounters) as pure Paladin.

While I agree in most of the time that most multiclass builds are not really better than pure ones- Sorcadin, same as Sorlock are direct upgrades of main classes and that is why those are notorious for being strongest powerbuilds in game. They take best of main frame and upgrade it to different level via multiclass.

Both builds are results of same flaw in class design: Hexblade is being packed in first 3 levels and Paladin is packed in first 2 levels and gets all best stuff at level 6 (7 in case of some Oaths). Leading to easy no-lose scenario for multiclass upgrade.

[Man_Over_Game]

Frankly, I'm a bit amused about this. I have no problem whatsoever if a player wanted to play a Paladin+Sorcerer/Warlock, because if they choose to spend all their resources in one combat, it's their own fault, not mine nor the rest of the group. If majority of the group is capable of continuing after one combat without a short rest, the one who spent all their resources has to learn to deal with it. Period.

Going nova has consequences. Often immediate.

Likewise, Shield lasts only for so long. Burning all your spell slots on it will burn your available resources FAST. Again, it's your choice, therefore your own fault, if you run out of fuel before it's ideal to take a rest.

Tons of AC is good only for so far, if you don't have the hit points to back it up. It doesn't matter if your AC is sky high if you have low amount of hit points, because more often than not, one critical hit can take you out. And critical hit doesn't care about how high your AC is.


That out of the way, I prefer a "golden mean" in regards to restricting multiclasses. As long as it makes sense in narrative, I'm fine with it (both as a DM and a player). However, if it's only because you want to add numbers on top of numbers with little regard if your character concept makes "sense", then we may have a problem. Even so, I'm prepared to sort these problems out with the player (or DM), to reach a narrative that fits the character concept.

I agree. I don't think I mentioned it in the original post, but I wanted to point those out as the ONLY concerns someone should have for multiclassing.

A Fighter, mixing Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, or whatever, is probably not going to be any stronger than a straight Fighter (although it might be more fun). The only multiclassing combination that I've ever seen that actually makes things more powerful (in a decent number of circumstances) were those combinations, (and maybe a couple others I didn't mention).

[Alucard89]

I agree. I don't think I mentioned it in the original post, but I wanted to point those out as the ONLY concerns someone should have for multiclassing.

A Fighter, mixing Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, or whatever, is probably not going to be any stronger than a straight Fighter (although it might be more fun). The only multiclassing combination that I've ever seen that actually makes things more powerful (in a decent number of circumstances) were those combinations, (and maybe a couple others I didn't mention).

Actually there are a lot of multiclass builds that would preform better in their main job. For example straight Barbarian is not as good as Barbarian 17/3 Champion that will out DPR normal Barbarian due to 19-20 crit range with advantage attacks + Action Surge.

Pure Fighter is great, however if you dip 3 levels of Totem Bear Barbarian into him- you suddenly make a guy who can start as Vuman with PAM, GWM, 6, 8 +2 STR and 12 Medium Armor Master + Defense style, who is 19 AC + resistant to all damage + Action Surge, 4 attacks per turn and have access to reckless attacks to offset GWM. On level 20 the only thing pure fighter would have is Extra Attack.

Another example is pure EK vs EK/Wizard. Simillar case to Sorcadin vs Paladin. Or 1 level Figher/19 Wizard vs Pure Wizard. CON saves + Heavy Armor for 1 level delay. That is 18 AC Wizard (at least) with CON Saves (not resilent needed). If they take War Caster- they can also wield Shield and cast spells, giving them 20 AC.

There are many well-put multiclass builds that can out-perform pure builds. Not all, not in all cases, but there are there.

[Mandragola]

My group doesn't allow multiclassing. We think it's mainly done to create more powerful characters, particularly at higher levels. Our experience of multiclassing mostly hasn't been good.

It really feels like there's very little to lose, and huge amounts to gain, by multiclassing past level 11. For a lot of characters there's a real drop off in power increments past lvl 11 or 12. That has to be intentional. So if you can just switch to another class and get a load of tasty abilities, it's clearly the right choice (from a mechanics perspective) to do so.

For example my paladin gains little or nothing on some levels (a single spell slot or something like that) but would gain all kinds of benefits by multiclassing as a fighter. This feels wrong - why would anyone carry on to lvl 20 as a single-class paladin if they didn't have to? My damage would go up hugely with stuff like action surge and battlemaster abilities, and the extra +1 AC would be good news too.

Another member of the party played a valour bard up to lvl 10 or 11, then switched to warlock. Suddenly this guy who'd always been a good support character was blasting away wiht eldritch blasts. He hardly uses his bard abilities now and feels like an entirely different character.

I've got nothing against multiclassing in principle. I'd like to see more options for character creation. In practice I don't think the system has been designed well at all. It's a shame because a good system would allow for more interesting character builds, rather than just more powerful ones.

[Man_Over_Game]

Actually there are a lot of multiclass builds that would preform better in their main job. For example straight Barbarian is not as good as Barbarian 17/3 Champion that will out DPR normal Barbarian due to 19-20 crit range with advantage attacks + Action Surge.

Pure Fighter is great, however if you dip 3 levels of Totem Bear Barbarian into him- you suddenly make a guy who can start as Vuman with PAM, GWM, 6, 8 +2 STR and 12 Medium Armor Master + Defense style, who is 19 AC + resistant to all damage + Action Surge, 4 attacks per turn and have access to reckless attacks to offset GWM. On level 20 the only thing pure fighter would have is Extra Attack.

Another example is pure EK vs EK/Wizard. Simillar case to Sorcadin vs Paladin. Or 1 level Figher/19 Wizard vs Pure Wizard. CON saves + Heavy Armor for 1 level delay. That is 18 AC Wizard (at least) with CON Saves (not resilent needed). If they take War Caster- they can also wield Shield and cast spells, giving them 20 AC.

There are many well-put multiclass builds that can out-perform pure builds. Not all, not in all cases, but there are there.

But in those instances, "outperform" is regarding a specific, shallow niche.

Taking the Barbarian Champion as an example, you do double your crit range (effectively increasing your damage by 10%), but you miss out on:


Unlimited Raging, meaning Advantage on all Strength checks, ever.
+4 to your Strength and Constitution (which is 40 more HP[which should be about 20% of your total HP], +2 AC, +2 to hit, and +2 to damage).
An ASI (potentially being another 20 HP and +1 to AC, or +1 to hit and damage)
Indomitable Might (Strength Checks cannot be less than your Strength Score).


So you can get that, or you can get +10%-15% more damage or so. Damage might be more important in a select few scenarios, but I think sticking with the Barbarian will be a lot more rewarding.

However, a Paladin being able to double his spellcasting for 1-3 levels, when he has one of the most efficient low-cost spell uses in the game, can consistently be better than a Paladin that plans on sticking with it through level 8+. Sure, it's not always better, but what you gain is at least comparable to what you lose by doing so.

[Yunru]

Bro. Not helpful. Please give me something to work with here. Like, a reason you think it's dumb. Or why you treat classes as "bags of features." Come on, man.Sure it's helpful. Once you come around to the realisation that the classes and the character concept are disconnected, you'll realise there are no reasons to restrict it.
It's why for every argument against it, you'll always find someone with a counter-example.

[Xetheral]

I actively encourage multiclassing at my table. I enjoy seeing characters that are defined on their own terms rather than by the archetype of their class. I also enjoy seeing characters that have a very tight correspondence between their mechanical abilities and their concept. Finally, I enjoy seeing realistically-multifaceted characters with diverse skill sets. Multiclassing promotes all of these goals.

[Pex]

I made the rule for my current campaign that you can’t dip into a class already in use by someone in the party without their permission. My concern was not having someone dip into a class in play and make someone else’s character less special. Previous game we had a sorcerer dip into warlock and, pretty much, make the warlock character already in play obsolete. Not ideal.

That's fair. Each class has its own special thing, and it dilutes the specialness if everyone does it. It's not necessarily so, but the potential is there. If everyone is ok with it no problem by obviousness. In one of my games one player is a monk/rogue and another is a ranger/rogue. Neither resents the other having sneak attack. Similarly the warlock/bard does not resent the warlock/paladin casting Hex or Eldritch Blast.

Not even a multiclassing issue, however, when in another game I'm playing a wizard and enjoying having a familiar but feel a bit miffed when a warlock joined who decided to go Chain with his better familiar.

[Willie the Duck]

Sure it's helpful. Once you come around to the realisation that the classes and the character concept are disconnected, you'll realise there are no reasons to restrict it.
It's why for every argument against it, you'll always find someone with a counter-example.

Yet you still aren't making any arguments whatsoever, which was their complaint.

[Particle_Man]

Disagree. System is what table wants it to be. Designers wouldn't place multiclassing, point-buy and feats as optional rules if they didn't think that vast portion of DnD playerbase loves it. They might have design whole system around idea that those are "not needed" but not around "those are not wanted/recommened" as they wouldn't place them in system in first place.

The main rule of RPG is "you chose how to play, books are only guidance". So no system is "one of them". It's what table makes them.

RAW or designers vision is as valid as table want them to be. Period.

But if the assumption of the designers is that those are optional rules then the focus won’t be as tight there. A table can do what it wants but it is easier to see where exploits are with less playtested optional rules and that is more work for the table.

This very thread shows examples of some multi classes being flat out better than a single class (sorcadin vs. paladin).

[ChildofLuthic]

Honestly, my big restriction is that I discourage builds that don't look super optimal. But I have quite a few newbies that don't know what they're doing, so that's part of my problem.

[Yunru]

Yet you still aren't making any arguments whatsoever, which was their complaint.
Sure I did.
"When looked at from this view point, there is no reason."
It's a perfectly valid point.

[Matticusrex]

My group banned it after people wouldn't stop ruining their characters on it. early game multiclassing is pretty damn weak and 3-way multiclassing produces very ineffective characters.

[Thrudd]

I would not allow it because
A.)I want to keep the character options as simple as possible for newer players
B.)many classes are professions with significant training required to even achieve level 1. Narratively it does not make sense that some people require years of apprenticeship to become a lvl 1 wizard or cleric while others can spend a couple weeks of downtime (or none, depending on the DM) to do it.

I would allow it only if the players are experienced, and they would need to declare at level 1 what classes their character has trained in and therefore intends to gain levels in. Or perhaps I would start such a game at level 2 to allow multiclasses (never more than 2 classes - with the variety provided by subclasses I feel that three or more classes is excessive).

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure I did.
"When looked at from this view point, there is no reason."
It's a perfectly valid point.

Reminds me of a Monty Python skit I literally just watched.

Guy goes to a Argument Clinic and pays to have an argument with someone.

M: You just contradicted me!

O: No I didn't!

M: You DID!

O: No no no!

M: You did just then!

O: Nonsense!

M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

O: No it isn't!

M: I came here for a good argument!

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

[Zuras]

I mostly DM Adventurers League games, and thus do multiclassing & feats all day long, but in home games I have restricted Multiclassing.

Nothing major, you can still multiclass PHB classes, but if you want to play an Unearthed Arcana or homebrew class or subclass, no Multiclassing, because I don’t want to worry about balancing playtest material.

[stoutstien]

A list if common multi class combos and easy wats to prevent them from over shadowing single class:
-Paladin smite combo with higher spell slot classes.
Only allow smite with paladin spell slots.
- eldritch blast giving over normal at will damage or super spike with meta magic.
EK is now a warlock class feature that only scales with warlock levels.
-hex blade is too front loaded.
Move the Cha as weapon attack stat to the thirsting blade invocation and change wording to disallow hex curse to work with magic missile (add a line that you need an attack roll to proc it)

- Booming blade.
Add a ST for damage when target moves

What I miss?

[Willie the Duck]

Sure I did.
"When looked at from this view point, there is no reason."
It's a perfectly valid point.

Sigh. Okay, first, this is Sparky McDibben's fight. However, "Restricting it is dumb, and treating classes as anything other than bags of features that follow a general theme is also dumb." is a statement, not an argument (See Man_Over_Game's sendup/takedown). If you don't want to give Sparky anything to work with, don't. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

[Yakmala]

When I'm DM'ing AL, I'm obligated to allow all multi-classes, as long as they conform to PHB+1 and don't use any UA stuff.

Mostly, they are not a problem, with the exception of Sorlocks and Sorcadins. These two have caused me huge problems in the past.

For those not familiar, AL uses a Tier system to determine which characters play together. Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16 and Tier 4 is levels 17-20.

Tier 1 is not really a problem. Even multi-classes are not that strong at this stage. And Tier 4 is fine as well. This is Demi-Gods teaming up to fight world changing enemies.

But Tiers 2 and 3 lead to situations where you might, for example, have a table mostly of fairly new players with level 5-6 single class characters with 1-2 uncommon magic items paired up with 1-2 level 10 characters that are fully optimized Sorlocks/Sorcadins/Hexadins with best in class magic items granted via DM Rewards and/or trading.

This leads to encounters where the majority of the table is lucky to land a hit for 20 damage while the power-gamers are regularly churning out damage in the 50-100 range.

If you are lucky, you'll have friendly power-gamers that adjust their style to the table and hold back on abilities that can one-shot all the encounters so that everyone can shine. But sometimes you'll get a munchkin/murder hobo who takes great pleasure in demonstrating how irrelevant every other character at the table is compared to them. I've had times where I adjusted encounters so that there was a challenging Big Bad for the multi-classing power gamer(s) and some lower level minions for the rest of the party to fight, only to have the power-gamer(s) wipe out the minions on the first round, just because they can.

In a home game, I'd probably be kicking that player, or at least asking them to bring a different character. But in AL, they've technically done nothing wrong.

[darknite]

If the written rules support it and it fits the milieu of the game then I don't see a reason, as a DM, to bad-fun a player's choice.

[stoutstien]

When I'm DM'ing AL, I'm obligated to allow all multi-classes, as long as they conform to PHB+1 and don't use any UA stuff.

Mostly, they are not a problem, with the exception of Sorlocks and Sorcadins. These two have caused me huge problems in the past.

For those not familiar, AL uses a Tier system to determine which characters play together. Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16 and Tier 4 is levels 17-20.

Tier 1 is not really a problem. Even multi-classes are not that strong at this stage. And Tier 4 is fine as well. This is Demi-Gods teaming up to fight world changing enemies.

But Tiers 2 and 3 lead to situations where you might, for example, have a table mostly of fairly new players with level 5-6 single class characters with 1-2 uncommon magic items paired up with 1-2 level 10 characters that are fully optimized Sorlocks/Sorcadins/Hexadins with best in class magic items granted via DM Rewards and/or trading.

This leads to encounters where the majority of the table is lucky to land a hit for 20 damage while the power-gamers are regularly churning out damage in the 50-100 range.

If you are lucky, you'll have friendly power-gamers that adjust their style to the table and hold back on abilities that can one-shot all the encounters so that everyone can shine. But sometimes you'll get a munchkin/murder hobo who takes great pleasure in demonstrating how irrelevant every other character at the table is compared to them. I've had times where I adjusted encounters so that there was a challenging Big Bad for the multi-classing power gamer(s) and some lower level minions for the rest of the party to fight, only to have the power-gamer(s) wipe out the minions on the first round, just because they can.

In a home game, I'd probably be kicking that player, or at least asking them to bring a different character. But in AL, they've technically done nothing wrong.

you cant really blame players from optimizing in AL. you have no idea who you will be playing with so you will tend to want to build to be self sufficient and powerful. killing stuff dead is still teh best debuff in the game.

[Corran]

As a DM, I require a solid explanation of why and how the character multiclasses. This goes double for multiclass options that don't make much lore sense but are mechanically very strong.
I think this is needlessly restrictive. Unless by ''solid explanation'' you mean the sort of thing you would ask from someone playing an arcane trickster, or an eldritch knight.... or a thief rogue or a champion fighter. My interpretation of ''not making much lore sense'' is ''something that is not in accordance to the DM's taste''. I don't disagree if any DM wants to restrict player options because the DM wants to steer the players towards playing character concepts the DM would enjoy more having the game world interact with them. But I wouldn't call it anything else than that. Furthermore, it's not the only and far away from an efficient way to communicate that fact to your players, but sometimes it might work.

------------------------------------
@op: Not permitting multiclassing is equivalent to sth like not allowing point buy (and rolling) and thus defaulting to the standard array. Essentially you restrict player options. The only good reason I can see for doing something like that, would be to protect the players from their own choices. The standard array will not always be the best choice, but it's always better than 13,13,13,12,12,12. And if we were to make an analogy between people's multiclassing choices and point buy options, I'd say that there is more in common with a 13,13,13,12,12,12 option than with a 15,15,13,12,10,8 or sth along these lines.

[Man_Over_Game]

A list if common multi class combos and easy wats to prevent them from over shadowing single class:
-Paladin smite combo with higher spell slot classes.
Only allow smite with paladin spell slots.
- eldritch blast giving over normal at will damage or super spike with meta magic.
EK is now a warlock class feature that only scales with warlock levels.
-hex blade is too front loaded.
Move the Cha as weapon attack stat to the thirsting blade invocation and change wording to disallow hex curse to work with magic missile (add a line that you need an attack roll to proc it)

- Booming blade.
Add a ST for damage when target moves

What I miss?

Hmm...1 level Fighter dips for heavy armor on a Wizard, I guess?

Eldritch Knights using Abjuration Wizard.

That's about most of what I can think of.

[stoutstien]

Hmm...1 level Fighter dips for heavy armor on a Wizard, I guess?

Eldritch Knights using Abjuration Wizard.

That's about most of what I can think of.
with the str requirements for h armor still takes some opportunity cost.

Arcane Ward isn't that good without a bunch of wizard levels. I still think war wizard is a better dip for the long game for a fighter. Neither are so powerful that they potential are better than straight fighter or wizard x before tier 4

[Benny89]

But if the assumption of the designers is that those are optional rules then the focus won’t be as tight there. A table can do what it wants but it is easier to see where exploits are with less playtested optional rules and that is more work for the table.

This very thread shows examples of some multi classes being flat out better than a single class (sorcadin vs. paladin).

That is not the point. Point is that by including it, designers predicted that those are possible mechanics, they made whole mechanic for it, requirements, spell slots counting, proficiencies from multiclass, min. ability scores etc.

You don't make whole chapter and mechanic for something that was not designed to be used. It's optional because "the default setting is simple and easy to follow, only with ASI". Feats and multiclassing is "those are advanced rule that are not simple and introduce a lot of possibilities and outcomes that make system more complicated, therefore for simplicity it's as optional rule. They are not required to make game/combat enjoyable and fair".

The difference is like in video games. You have "normal difficulty" which is default DnD 5e setting, only ASI, not feats, no multiclass, easy CR to follow. Then you have hard difficulty (for both DM and players) that adds additional complexity with feats and multiclasses, which also requires DM to dynamicaly scale CR of combat as normal CR table does not longer work.

So multiclass, point buy and feats are definitely part of 5e system. It's not default setting as default tries to be as simple and friendly to new DMs and players as possible.

However for increase enjoyment/options/roleplaying/building and DM challange you have optional rules that makes everything more complex.

It's part of the system, whenver you like it or not.

[Particle_Man]

Are all of the options in the dmg also part of the system? I think what we have is a verbal disagreement since I could say that the parts of the system that are optional are not as playtested and not as balanced as the parts of the system that are not optional. Whereas GURPS, for example, has advantages and disadvantages at their core and have playtested their relative values over many decades and editions. That systemic design focus of the separate game designers makes a difference to the ease of use for the tables using or adapting those separate games.

And this is not saying one is better. It is saying that designers playtested to a certain set of rules and assumptions more than to the optional parts of the system, and the listed exploits of various multi class options in this thread is proof of that.

[Astofel]

Sure, individual features (or even chains or bundles of features) have in game lore associated with them (without refluffing of course). But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing? Why is having a deal with an otherworldly being a Warlock thing? Etc.

Because that's what's written in the PHB, and also I like it that way. The class fluff was written to be used, after all. At the end of the day this is just my preference, and if you prefer the classes as bundles of features more power to you. Personally if I wanted a character made of bundles of features I'd just play a classless system that lets me pick freely, unlike D&D multiclassing where if you want a 5th level class feature you'll need the other 4 levels of class features to get there, even if they don't fit your character idea.

At my table, putting paladin on your sheet means your character adheres to a set of values, at your table it only means they have the class features listed under the paladin heading in the PHB. That's all fine and dandy, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't go around calling my preferred style of play dumb.

[Pex]

When I'm DM'ing AL, I'm obligated to allow all multi-classes, as long as they conform to PHB+1 and don't use any UA stuff.

Mostly, they are not a problem, with the exception of Sorlocks and Sorcadins. These two have caused me huge problems in the past.

For those not familiar, AL uses a Tier system to determine which characters play together. Tier 1 is levels 1-4, Tier 2 is levels 5-10, Tier 3 is levels 11-16 and Tier 4 is levels 17-20.

Tier 1 is not really a problem. Even multi-classes are not that strong at this stage. And Tier 4 is fine as well. This is Demi-Gods teaming up to fight world changing enemies.

But Tiers 2 and 3 lead to situations where you might, for example, have a table mostly of fairly new players with level 5-6 single class characters with 1-2 uncommon magic items paired up with 1-2 level 10 characters that are fully optimized Sorlocks/Sorcadins/Hexadins with best in class magic items granted via DM Rewards and/or trading.

This leads to encounters where the majority of the table is lucky to land a hit for 20 damage while the power-gamers are regularly churning out damage in the 50-100 range.

If you are lucky, you'll have friendly power-gamers that adjust their style to the table and hold back on abilities that can one-shot all the encounters so that everyone can shine. But sometimes you'll get a munchkin/murder hobo who takes great pleasure in demonstrating how irrelevant every other character at the table is compared to them. I've had times where I adjusted encounters so that there was a challenging Big Bad for the multi-classing power gamer(s) and some lower level minions for the rest of the party to fight, only to have the power-gamer(s) wipe out the minions on the first round, just because they can.

In a home game, I'd probably be kicking that player, or at least asking them to bring a different character. But in AL, they've technically done nothing wrong.

The problem is not multiclassing or powergamers (There is absolutely nothing wrong with power gamers to need "friendly" as a qualifier) but having level 5 characters adventuring with level 10 characters.

[Yunru]

At my table, putting paladin on your sheet means your character adheres to a set of values, at your table it only means they have the class features listed under the paladin heading in the PHB. That's all fine and dandy, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't go around calling my preferred style of play dumb.

Did you... somehow miss the part (that you quoted) where I said:
"But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing?"

Putting Paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values, yes. It doesn't, however, make your character a Paladin narratively.

[Particle_Man]

It does in games I DM!

[Potato_Priest]

I don't allow multiclassing for one major reason.

Namely, some of my players are optimizers, but when their only tools for optimizing are feats, they manage to build thematically consistent characters almost 100 percent of the time. I am not confident that they would do so if they had the option of multiclassing.

[2D8HP]

Sure, individual features (or even chains or bundles of features) have in game lore associated with them (without refluffing of course). But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing? Why is having a deal with an otherworldly being a Warlock thing? Etc.


Some of us like the "fluff" and "lore" that go with the mechanics.

I started D&D with 0e + the Monster Manual and the idea of a "powers only" Paladins would be pretty outlandish back then, and a "lore-less" game even today doesn't inspire my imagination, sounds like it would just be rules based battle tactics only, and thus pretty boring to me.

NO THANKS!

Anyway, when I last offered to put the DM hat on I wanted (for the adventures I had in mind) all the PC's to come from the same village and start as the crew of a Viking longship, and I specified that PC's could take levels in Barbarian (Frenzy), Fighter (Champion), and Rogue (Swashbuckler and Thief), and the first two levels of Paladin and Ranger only, for thematic reasons as well as that making it easier for me to handle rules adjudication.

No takers, and now I have an almost 3 year-old son who keeps me too busy, so I want be DM'ing again for years, if every again.

[Yunru]

Some of us like the "fluff" and "lore" that go with the mechanics.

Yes but you can have all that and still not have the "fluff" and "lore" or the class (of which there isn't any boundaries on anyway, just examples of various ways to play it). You can be a ranger like Aragon and be a "Paladin" on your sheet. You can be a powerful sorcerer drawing on the power of your family's blood and be a "Warlock" on your sheet. You can be a cleric who quotes scriptures and tends to the sick and be a "Bard" (or even a "Rogue") on your sheet. You can be a fighter who's earned great renown for their martial prowess and code of conduit, and be a "Paladin" on your sheet.
Etc.

[Astofel]

Did you... somehow miss the part (that you quoted) where I said:
"But why is having a set of values you adhere to a Paladin thing?"

Putting Paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values, yes. It doesn't, however, make your character a Paladin narratively.

I didn't miss anything, in fact as far as I was concerned I answered that very question.

Because that's what's written in the PHB, and also I like it that way.
See? Although now seeing your other post, I think I understand what you might be getting at. If you want to be a fighter who follows a strict code of conduct but doesn't have paladin on their sheet, then sure. If you want to play a bard who is a devout follower of a god but doesn't have cleric on their sheet, that's fine too. The fluff of a class is just a jumping off point, as far as I'm concerned you're free to add whatever other traits onto it that you'd like so long as you don't tamper with the core identity of the class (paladins and oaths, warlocks and patrons, etc.).

If I may ask, though, if putting paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values and acting in accordance with them, but that does not in turn make your character a paladin narratively, then what does?

[Yunru]

If I may ask, though, if putting paladin on your sheet means adhering to a set of values and acting in accordance with them, but that does not in turn make your character a paladin narratively, then what does?

Well that depends what a Paladin is in the narrative.
In a historical setting, being a soldier of faith.
In base DnD... being a soldier of faith, is what I would of said right up until 5e.

As a default I tend to match the "most common" version of a class with it's in world identity, so for a 5e Paladin, they're soldiers that serve a cause, but they also draw power from that cause in order to perform miracles. The switching to oaths instead of gods actually makes for a less cohesive stereotype.

Let's take a Cleric, in narrative a Cleric is someone who follows one or more faiths, who performs miracles in their name. Now this is a perfect fit for your typical Cleric class, but a Cleric class doesn't have to follow this stereotype, and other classes aren't barred from being it.

[Particle_Man]

For me that could be covered by the background. So one could have a cleric with the entertainer background or a bard with the acolyte background.

[Yunru]

For me that could be covered by the background. So one could have a cleric with the entertainer background or a bard with the acolyte background.

Right, and once you're okay with a Bard as a "Cleric", what's wrong with a Bard/Sorcerer as a "Cleric", etc.

[Particle_Man]

Right, and once you're okay with a Bard as a "Cleric", what's wrong with a Bard/Sorcerer as a "Cleric", etc.

The slash between bard and sorcerer. I still like my archetypes and backgrounds are for me a fine stopping point for mixing things up without getting into less designer-play-tested and more exploitable combos, as shown in this and so many other threads. There are other classless systems that work for those that want them, and their designers have put their primary focus on play testing those. So if I were going that route I would simply switch systems.

[Great Dragon]

For me, I say that Multi-classing must make sense for the Character: From their PoV.

Like Grog Logs, I discourage obvious abuse of the Game's mechanics, and have the "two Short Rests per Long Rest" rule. UA and Homebrew is also usually limited to single classing.

A great example that was pointed out to me in another thread, is the Fighter 2 Sorcerer 5 combo - for being able to cast spells in Heavy Armor as well as going: Fireball - Action Surge - Fireball
Especially if the Player has no IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the Character did this class combo.

But then, I also know that they are exchanging the higher level 'power' of their Prime Class for the low-level abilities of the Secondary Class. (In this case Prime is the Highest level Class, regardless of when taken)

For example: the above Fighter/Sorcerer gave up 4th level spells and most likely their ASI for War Caster to keep their shield bonus.


The big one I take issue with is Hexblade, especially combined with paladin. "So why, pray tell, is your holy oathbound champion of the gods pledging his soul to a magical weapon forged from darkness and necrotic energy?"

I could see an Oathbreaker, Vengeance or Conquest Paladin going for this, but yeah the other Oaths (even w/o gods) don't make as much sense. Evil Paladins, and Clerics of Evil Gods, do Necrotic damage, instead of Radiant.

I suppose that a Player that came to me with the Hexblade/Paladin but was bonded with a Legendary Sword (Holy Avenger) at Character Creation with a solid RP; I would be more likely to work with them.
But, just for raw power? Not so much.

[stoutstien]

I had a player with a Paladin/ warlock multi-class. the character was literally had multiple souls sharing a body day to day. Did that player make this just for the mechanical advantages? Who knows.

[Yunru]

I could see an Oathbreaker, Vengeance or Conquest Paladin going for this, but yeah the other Oaths (even w/o gods) don't make as much sense. Evil Paladins, and Clerics of Evil Gods, do Necrotic damage, instead of Radiant.

What?
1. All oaths don't have gods.
2. The hexblade is a completely alignment neutral patron.
3. Nowhere is the cost of the pact discussed. "Selling your soul" is just setting up one specific example in an attempt to ignore other case, because they contain examples that logically work.
4. Let's say the Paladin does worship a god, and gets to interact with them:

Random god: I see you have offered your services to the blade in exchange for power?
Paladin: Well yeah, it didn't have any goals that don't align with mine, and the most it's asked of me is to kill undead when I see them which is what I already do.
/Conversation

[Boci]

A great example that was pointed out to me in another thread, is the Fighter 2 Sorcerer 5 combo - for being able to cast spells in Heavy Armor as well as going: Fireball - Action Surge - Fireball
Especially if the Player has no IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the Character did this class combo.

What sort of IC explanation are you looking for there? If we go with the bloodline interpretation of a sorceror, a fairly popular one, then your IC explanation probably isn't much more than "a distant ancestor had hot sex with a red dragon", and fighter can often explained as "I fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, and joined a mercenary group after the war".

So would you accept a wordier version of: "A distant ancestor had hot sex with a red dragon. Generations later I was born. I fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, and joined a mercenary group after the war" for a sorceror fighter?

[Corran]

A great example that was pointed out to me in another thread, is the Fighter 2 Sorcerer 5 combo - for being able to cast spells in Heavy Armor as well as going: Fireball - Action Surge - Fireball
Especially if the Player has no IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the Character did this class combo.
(bolded for emphasis)

That's where the issue is. You are thinking of characters as classes and not as persons. Do you also require IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the sorcerer hit level 3 and can now quicken spells? What if it does not satisfy you? Do they not get the level?

[Great Dragon]

@Boci - what you gave is an IC Explaination.


That's where the issue is. You are thinking of characters as classes and not as persons. Do you also require IC Explaination, Background, or History for why the sorcerer hit level 3 and can now quicken spells? What if it does not satisfy you? Do they not get the level?

Actually, I was trying for the reverse.
Where the Explanation, Background, and History was used for how the Character became that Class/es.

But, to answer your question, no - while I encourage 'training' to gain new Class abilities and powers; but most of the time it's not really required.

[Corran]

Actually, I was trying for the reverse.
Where the Explanation, Background, and History was used for how the Character became that Class/es.

But, to answer your question, no - while I encourage 'training' to gain new Class abilities and powers; but most of the time it's not really required.
So would you require more justification from a player wanting to go with a battlemaster/transmuter, than from a player who wants to go with an EK? If yes, why?

I am not sold that multiclassing creates more concepts for players to choose from. It certainly allows for refining these concepts to suit the players' wants for their concept, assuming their wants are specific enough. And it certainly allows more creativity in character building, concept aside. What puzzles me is why multiclassing is a taboo for some DM's. This is not 3e.

[Arkhios]

Sorcerer is one of the easiest classes to justify through IC explanation, because the class represents an inherent magical ability — obtainable by various means, though the most common is "it's in their blood".

There's no one universal and "correct" way to do it, however. Each class has their own baggage to consider, and while sorcerer can be applied to just about any concept "by heritage", something like druid may be far more difficult, if you think about it. Druids are rather isolationist and even secretive group. That they normally won't teach Druidic language to anyone who is not a druid should alone be a proof of that.

[Boci]

There's no one universally appropriate way to do it, however. Each class has their own baggage to consider, and while sorcerer can be applied to just about any concept by heritage, something like druid is far more difficult, if you think about it. Druids are rather isolationist and even secretive group. That they normally won't teach Druidic language to anyone who is not a druid should alone be a proof of that.

The druid needs to end up joining the party, so they cannot be that isolationist. And even then, you can start as a druide and then go into the second class. "I was raised in a small clan of the Taupi forests, offered to a druid circle at a young age due to my ability to channel and invoke the powers of nature. I left there after joining the moon circle, but in civilization a lot of the truth I had been taught started to buckle. The cities infringe upon the ancient laws of nature, and to move in this world I needed to learn, to adapt, so I started to study the way of the city, with its currents and lifeweb."

[Angelalex242]

I personally play single class characters because I like toying with high end abilities at higher tiers.

A sorcadin may be mechanically better, but it's just fun to break out that level 20 Paladin Capstone (Eldritch Champion, from Oath of the Ancients) and say, "I go super Saiyan!"

Even better, I was playing with a guy who was a ridiculously twinked out Diviner Wizard. (like, 12 portents twinked out. This was Adventure League by the way)

What'd he do?

Feed me crits. Feed me lots of crits. Enemies died quickly.

The other less twinked out Diviner also spent his time feeding me crits.

[Thrudd]

Yes but you can have all that and still not have the "fluff" and "lore" or the class (of which there isn't any boundaries on anyway, just examples of various ways to play it). You can be a ranger like Aragon and be a "Paladin" on your sheet. You can be a powerful sorcerer drawing on the power of your family's blood and be a "Warlock" on your sheet. You can be a cleric who quotes scriptures and tends to the sick and be a "Bard" (or even a "Rogue") on your sheet. You can be a fighter who's earned great renown for their martial prowess and code of conduit, and be a "Paladin" on your sheet.
Etc.
This is all setting and DM dependent. If Paladin powers in my setting derive from a deity, then a character that doesn't follow the deity wouldn't have Paladin powers. You don't just get to "refluff". The degree of flexibility with the classes you are suggesting is not something that should be expected from all DMs and settings. I like to have most classes tied to specific traditions and professions in-world, or at least have an established manner and time frame in which those abilities are normally taught and acquired. IE, gaining the proficiencies required to be a fighter takes years of combat training with various weapons and armor. People don't just suddenly become proficient with every weapon and armor that exists. Becoming a wizard or cleric takes years of apprenticeship. Even mastering one's innate sorcerous powers to the point that you have level 1 abilities takes years of practice.

Gaining new class features and spells is different, many of those can be justified by on-the-job training and the advances made by someone who is already proficient in their profession. Some features do imply some training time, and that is why leveling up should require some downtime, imo, a couple weeks at least.

[Lance Tankmen]

I don't allow multi-classing for a couple reasons

1)I honestly don't like it. I figure I should put that as one.

2)90% of the time its a power move, to the people asking for narrative before multi-classing, most people are capable of that, its not hard to be a paladin but during the night hear a voice , you think its your god and you agree , boom warlock. Sorcerer is even easier, oh I woke up and boom latent magic, its not rocket science to come up with a story to min-max. the other 10% is honest good folk who either have no idea they are gimping themselves or honestly do it for role play purposes.

3)I feel single class + feats can generally get you what you want to play, of course someone can hard left field this one and say they want to play some off the wall thing but for the most part there's an archtype + feats/races to get you what you want.

4)The argument that the level 20 single class beats you is subjective to tables, my games generally went from 1-10ish due to moving(former military).

5)I do 4d6 drop lowest, that further unbalances multi-classing, as you may not need ASI or feats (Vhuman also) . And my stance on rolling is its not a variant option while multi-classing is.

[Pex]

So would you require more justification from a player wanting to go with a battlemaster/transmuter, than from a player who wants to go with an EK? If yes, why?

I am not sold that multiclassing creates more concepts for players to choose from. It certainly allows for refining these concepts to suit the players' wants for their concept, assuming their wants are specific enough. And it certainly allows more creativity in character building, concept aside. What puzzles me is why multiclassing is a taboo for some DM's. This is not 3e.

Cynical answer.

Because some DMs are afraid of PCs getting away with something. They don't like PCs getting power for free or the illusion of free. They have a knee jerk reaction against a PC doing something awesome. With 5E making multiclassing optional, they grab onto it as the game giving them permission to deny power to players.

[Corran]

Cynical answer.

Because some DMs are afraid of PCs getting away with something. They don't like PCs getting power for free or the illusion of free. They have a knee jerk reaction against a PC doing something awesome. With 5E making multiclassing optional, they grab onto it as the game giving them permission to deny power to players.
Well, I cannot read minds, but that's what I would put my money on. The funny thing is, at least how I see it, they are not denying power. They are denying options. It's not any different, at least the way I see it, to restricting half the archetypes in the phb.

[suplee215]

I do so because I prefer narritive. I prefer my multiclass players to have a reason behind it and not be trying to break the game. The only multiclass I have at my table is a Wizard/warlock who found a book with a very powerful entity inside of it.

[Boci]

I do so because I prefer narritive. I prefer my multiclass players to have a reason behind it and not be trying to break the game. The only multiclass I have at my table is a Wizard/warlock who found a book with a very powerful entity inside of it.

How big a reason do you need? Would longer versions of the following backstories be permissible in your games:

1. "My character's ancestor was a dragon, whilst he fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, so I am running him as a sorceror/fighter if that's okay,"

2. "My character was an assassin who became obsessed with the idea of using animals forms to catch his mark offguard. Using his skill at disguise he infiltrated a druid circle and gained there trust, then fled once they had learned what he needed. If its okay I want him to be a moon druid 2 / rogue (assassin) x"

3. "My character was a noble and as traditional attended the Academy of Our Radient lady in the capital, however he was one of the few who then joined the army, becoming a war wizard. Since the enemy had taken to targetting wizards, he also studied weapon training and how to wear armour. If its okay I'd run him as a wizard/fighter"

4. "My character was a foundling riase in the temple as a cleric rarely leaving the compound until his 16th birthday. Once out in the real world however the teachings he had grown up with started to seem a little trite. As he explored the land and got a feel for everyday life he diversified his talents, picking up singing, and a new form of magic. If its okay, I'd run him as a cleric/bard,"

[Corran]

I do so because I prefer narritive. I prefer my multiclass players to have a reason behind it and not be trying to break the game. The only multiclass I have at my table is a Wizard/warlock who found a book with a very powerful entity inside of it.
You prefer narrative to what? What's the competition here?
If I was worried that my players were trying to break the game, I would probably restrict gameplay till the mid levels or I would ban fullcasters. Or better yet, certain spells. Or even better yet, certain spell interactions.
If one of my players told me that he will break the game because of multiclassing, I would smile.

[Tanarii]

I object! DMs don't restrict multiclassing. They graciously permit it, should they so choose!

My primary campaign, I do not include the optional multiclassing or feats rules. My reasons, in priority order:
- I wanted a more oldschool feal to the campaign, and 3e-style multiclassing and feats don't fit
- it's open table, I don't care to spend the time necessary to police it, nor deal with players asking why this combo or feat is okay but that one isn't.
- I wanted it to be different from AL. If you want those rules, there is AL table playing right now over there *wave hand to next table *
- Over a decade of running and playing official play, my experience is hybrid/multiclassing is primarily, although not exclusively, used by cheesers. This is mostly icing on the cake though.

I've run plenty of side-games in which I allow it though. Its not inherently busted.

[JNAProductions]

I don't allow multi-classing for a couple reasons

1)I honestly don't like it. I figure I should put that as one.

And you know what? That is totally fine. No different from a DM saying "I don't like running for evil PCs, so play Neutral at worst, please."

So long as you're upfront about no multiclassing, then they can either play a single class or find another table.

I disagree with your opinion, but it's a perfectly valid one.

[Corran]

And you know what? That is totally fine. No different from a DM saying "I don't like running for evil PCs, so play Neutral at worst, please."

So long as you're upfront about no multiclassing, then they can either play a single class or find another table.

I disagree with your opinion, but it's a perfectly valid one.
I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.

[Boci]

I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.

Sure it is, as long as you are upfront about it. Some players may not like it, but there's other groups for them. Monk is one of the more common classes to ban of the core set, because unlike the others it distinctly eastern in its flavour.

Besides, designing a low magic game, or a court intriege setting is "force your preferences onto others". Its kinda the Dm's job.

[JNAProductions]

I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.

I suppose a difference there is that Monks are a core part of the system, while multiclassing is an optional (if commonly used) rule.

But, I bolded the key word there. "Force." If you're actually FORCING people to play D&D with your houserules, then yeah, that's awful, but generally people play D&D because they WANT to.

Now, I suppose Lance could be the only DM for 1,000 miles and thus the only option if their players want to play D&D, but even then, they're not being FORCED to play D&D. They're choosing to.

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey all, Original Poster here.

So this has been a very productive conversation. I've seen a lot of reasons to restrict multi-classing:

1) Game balance (people who multi-class as a power move)
2) System mastery (when players are inexperienced)
3) Table priorities (the DM and other players prioritize narrative over story, and multi-classing does not make sense)
4) Setting reasons (DM determines that in the setting, multi-classing does not make sense)

The main arguments for multi-classing:
1) It expands player agency, allowing them more options to achieve a certain concept
2) Player agency is a self-evident good (the "don't yuck my yum" defense)

I think, after listening to this, here's where I'll land:

I'll allow multi-classing at my table. Even if you're obviously doing it because you want to optimize a character, I'll allow it. However, you will be required to RP through multi-class training, because why would I waste a perfectly good adventure hook? As such, you will need to tell me at least one level ahead of your dip what you want to dip, why, and how it fits into your character. Second, you should be aware that your enemies after a bit will realize you are very optimized for a specific situation, and that they will adjust their tactics accordingly. Third, you should expect there to be conflict between your two classes, either narratively, mechanically, or ideally, both.

Example 1: The Rogue/Druid

Someone in one of these posts made kind of an interesting character idea - a rogue that wanted to learn wild shape to murder people better. OK, that's interesting. So you now have to RP through fooling a bunch of druids (with their high Insight scores), and gaining a couple levels in this class. And when you leave, you take the secrets those same druids swore to defend with their very lives (ideally, we'd RP a scene just before the druids induct you where they explain how freakishly important to them these secrets are). And now, we have conflict! :)

Example 2: The Fighter/Wizard

Someone else mentioned multi-classing between Fighter and Wizard. So now you have some mechanical conflict between what your ideal action options are - cast or slash? For this I would probably disallow EK as a Fighter sub-class; presumably if you wanted to make a gish you would have gone that route. Meanwhile, your NPC contacts are pressuring you to pick a side between the pit fighters and the Mage's Guild. Conflict!

Example 3: The Paladin/Warlock
For this, you should expect there to be some severe issues. For one thing, you have now sworn two binding oaths to two very different powers. And while you might not see a problem now, that doesn't mean there won't be one. Thus, as a DM, I should be trying to force this player onto the horns of a dilemma - which oath do you break? This is one of those where I would want the player to spell out very specifically what each of these pacts does, and the consequences for breaking them. After all, maybe you can't lose your powers. But you can damn sure be dragged off to Mechanus by a marut for playing fast and loose with them. And thusly, conflict!

The common thread here should be obvious - how do I use multi-classing to drive conflict in the game, up tension and stakes for the player, and allow you to play your ridiculously OP build without you feeling like you're either playing on easy mode or getting away with something. I don't like to nerf, but I do like to let my players get in over their heads by acting in character.

And anyone who cries foul, or says that I'm restricting player agency, or being a hypocrite, allow me to simply say:

I don't care.

[JNAProductions]

So, let's say I go Druid into Ranger.

What's the conflict there?

Or I go Sorcerer into Bard.

Where's that conflict?

Or Cleric into Paladin.

Point is, while I'd say it's totally fine to have conflict based on character decisions, don't FORCE it. If my Cleric of Helm decides to pick up a more martial bent and start smiting foes as a Paladin, I don't see any reason to add conflict to that.

[Boci]

Someone else mentioned multi-classing between Fighter and Wizard. So now you have some mechanical conflict between what your ideal action options are - cast or slash? For this I would probably disallow EK as a Fighter sub-class; presumably if you wanted to make a gish you would have gone that route. Meanwhile, your NPC contacts are pressuring you to pick a side between the pit fighters and the Mage's Guild. Conflict!

I'm with JNAProductions on this. The conflict for the druid/rogue and warlock/paladin work, but this just seems forced. Pitfighters are at best borderline criminals who hang out in seedier taverns and hambling halls with little inherant unity between them whilst the mage guild would be a more united place of learning. Complelty diferent people and different social groups. How did they end up in a conflict, and it seems like this is one the pit fighters lose badly, since they are scum of society whilst the mage guild is presumable at least somewhat respected. And why does my character care? They weren't a pitfighter, they were an actual war fighter, and besides, this seems like city politics, which I became an adventurer to avoid.

[Corran]

I suppose a difference there is that Monks are a core part of the system, while multiclassing is an optional (if commonly used) rule.

But, I bolded the key word there. "Force." If you're actually FORCING people to play D&D with your houserules, then yeah, that's awful, but generally people play D&D because they WANT to.

Now, I suppose Lance could be the only DM for 1,000 miles and thus the only option if their players want to play D&D, but even then, they're not being FORCED to play D&D. They're choosing to.
JNAProductions, at this point we are talking about completely different things. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. What I am saying, and I will phrase it a lot more generally, is this. If someone is put in a position where allowed to make decisions that influence others as well, and the reason behind the decision making process is 'personal preference while at the same time disregarding everyone else's preferences', then that's problematic in my eyes. The reasoning behind the decision making process is invalid (nevermind if the decision is actually good or bad).

[Boci]

JNAProductions, at this point we are talking about completely different things. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. What I am saying, and I will phrase it a lot more generally, is this. If someone is put in a position where allowed to make decisions that influence others as well, and the reason behind the decision making process is 'personal preference while at the same time disregarding everyone else's preferences', then that's problematic in my eyes. The reasoning behind the decision making process is invalid (nevermind if the decision is actually good or bad).

So a low magic setting where full casters aren't allowed or a primtive one were full metal armour is removed and the weapon system reworked are both bad if the DM's doing it for a personal preferance? Why?

[Corran]

So a low magic setting where full casters aren't allowed or a primtive one were full metal armour is removed and the weapon system reworked are both bad if the DM's doing it for a personal preferance? Why?
No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did. I wont explain why.

[JNAProductions]

No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did.

And I can agree to that.

Can you agree that there's a difference between banning a basic weapon choice and not allowing an optional rule?

Especially since more reasons that just "I don't like it" were given. That's just one I felt needed to be addressed more.

[Boci]

No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did.

So then it can be okay for a DM to do something based on personal preference, just not always. As for multiclassing, it does effect the feel of the game, so a personal preference for the single-class only feel sound valid, plus as mentioned, its technically that the DM has to allow it, as a varient rule its not presumed default by the system.

Edit: Whilst I've never heard of a DM ban the greataxe, there was a single weapon in 3.5 that was sometimes banned by DMs: the spiked chain. It was largely done for personal preference by the DM (it didn't fit the aethetics of the largerly western D&D game, nor did it make too much sense for a spike chain to be the best weapon in the game. Move aside sword and glaives, the adult weapon has arrieved). Was that bad?

[Sparky McDibben]

I'm with JNAProductions on this. The conflict for the druid/rogue and warlock/paladin work, but this just seems forced.

Fair. More on your questions below, but here's the heart of the matter: I understand not everyone wants conflict to drive character, but it does. Even something thematically consistent like JNA's cleric/paladin dip has hooks, though they may be internal. For example, if you want to adopt a more militant expression of your faith, cool! But now your dreams are haunted by vague visions, and you receive troublingly inconsistent omens. What does your god want you to be: a knight or a priest? How can you know? One way: go out into the world and find out for yourself.

As to your questions my friend, in my setting the magi are not academics, but are a powerful political faction (I draw a lot of inspiration from Sapkowski's work in this regard). And the pit fighters are not rabble, but a skilled class of professionals who duel for sport and hire themselves out as contractors. :)

[Corran]

And I can agree to that.

Can you agree that there's a difference between banning a basic weapon choice and not allowing an optional rule?

Especially since more reasons that just "I don't like it" were given. That's just one I felt needed to be addressed more.
Yes, there is certainly a difference between taking away or rewriting basic rules and not including optional rules. Essentially what is optional and what is not, shapes to some extent my expectations of a dnd campaign. But it does not define them. And I will always react to changes based on my expectations (which in the end they might even be unreasonable, but they are what they are). In the subject of multiclassing, honestly, if a DM said that they want to avoid it (or not to include it if you prefer) because they want a simpler game, I wouldn't even have a reaction. If a DM said they don't want to include it (no explanation offered), I wouldn't have any reaction (meaning I would probably nod and play the game). If a DM said they would not include it because they don't like playing multiclass characters though, I'd probably say that I do and I would discuss it. I would explain that I don't like to have my preferences ignored. Assuming I didn't know very well the DM, this discussion would tell me a lot about if I would want to play with them (honestly, I'd probably still play unless I got a really bad impression for the DM). I'd still find the reasoning inadequate though.

Edit:

So then it can be okay for a DM to do something based on personal preference, just not always.
Yeah. IMO you have to factor in the preferences of the other players too. Assuming it's sth that concerns and affects them.

[Boci]

As to your questions my friend, in my setting the magi are not academics, but are a powerful political faction (I draw a lot of inspiration from Sapkowski's work in this regard). And the pit fighters are not rabble, but a skilled class of professionals who duel for sport and hire themselves out as contractors. :)

So professional atheletes vs. politicians? Still seems like the mages have the upperhand. And those are still two rather different groups, how did they end up fighting as factions? I'm not saying they can't fight, just that it sounds unlikely that it could be anything too serious. Plus, why can't my character distance himself from both sides? "Sure I know magic, but you don't see me at the town hall, and I'm not a contracted pitfighter. I'm a former solider and a monster hunter. Know any monsters that need killing?"

[JNAProductions]

I'd discuss with your players, about conflicting them.

See what they'd find fun-obviously your own fun matters too, but find something that works for everyone at your table.

Best of luck, Sparky!

[Potato_Priest]

No. But if you banned greataxes and your reason is that you just don't like them, then IMO that's not a good reason for doing what you did. I wont explain why.

And if your reason is that you don't like them because they don't match the aesthetic of your campaign?

[Corran]

And if your reason is that you don't like them because they don't match the aesthetic of your campaign?
Let's agree where the line that seperates 'things I don't like as a player' and 'things I don't like dming for' is, and then we can argue for hours. If sth is not making the DM's job more difficult than it already is, let the players have their fun. It's also ok if some people at the table enjoy aspects of the game that other people at the game don't. So long as this does not create any real issues.

[Zuras]

The problem is not multiclassing or powergamers (There is absolutely nothing wrong with power gamers to need "friendly" as a qualifier) but having level 5 characters adventuring with level 10 characters.

Level imbalance is often an issue in AL, but the difference between heavily optimized characters run by experienced players and unoptimized characters played by casual players is a very real issue.

It usually isn’t, because most players are considerate, and nobody really cares if you aren’t stepping on someone else’s toes, but I have personally played quite a few AL games where I quickly realized I needed to tone it down so other players could contribute, usually with a multiclassed PC with SS or GWM.

[Arkhios]

The thing I find troublesome in players' (apparently fairly common) way of thinking is that many seem to think that DM is a role that has to somehow be readily compliant to players' every whimsical wants and needs.

Just. No. DM is just as much a player in this game. DM may be pulling the strings of what happens in the "background", but that's part of how DM interacts with the game, thus playing it just as much as the people on the other side of the proverbial (if not actual) DM screen.

DM sets the scene. DM is the final arbiter of what works or doesn't in their table. It's fully within DM's rights to limit what players have access to, if it makes it easier to handle or more fitting to their vision of the game they are running. Players have to understand that they can't force someone to DM for them, in a way they want. Without someone being a DM, there's no game.

[JNAProductions]

The thing I find troublesome in players' (apparently fairly common) way of thinking is that many seem to think that DM is a role that has to somehow be readily compliant to players' every whimsical wants and needs.

Just. No. DM is just as much a player in this game. DM may be pulling the strings of what happens in the "background", but that's part of how DM interacts with the game, thus playing it just as much as the people on the other side of the proverbial (if not actual) DM screen.

DM sets the scene. DM is the final arbiter of what works or doesn't in their table. It's fully within DM's rights to limit what players have access to, if it makes it easier to handle or more fitting to their vision of the game they are running. Players have to understand that they can't force someone to DM for them, in a way they want. Without someone being a DM, there's no game.

The reverse is also true. A DM with no players is, at best, an author.

But, considering the DM has a higher workload, players should generally be amiable to a DM's preferences. Obviously don't play in a game you don't like, but don't kick up a fuss if the DM has a difference in style. Accept the difference and enjoy the game, or, if you can't, just don't play.

[2D8HP]

I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them.

Wanting/needing to try to force your preferences onto others is not a valid reason for doing so.


Sure it is.


..The DM is just as much a player in this game....


The reverse is also true. A DM with no players is, at best, an author....


Yes.

Look, a bit over a couple of decades ago I really wanted to play or DM D&D again, or to play or GM King Arthur Pendragon (where all the PC's are Knights), a couple of people who I gamed with wanted Ars Magica (where every PC is a magician) which wasn't what I wanted, and between that and their vicious ferret I didn't game with them anymore.

At every other table I could find everyone else wanted modern-ish settings with guns, and I did GM some games with that to give the players what they wanted, and I was a player in some of those games - and I really didn't like it at all so I walked away from RPG's for decades.

I have a pretty good idea of what settings I enjoy, and the amount of rules complexity and quantity I can master - I know my limits, plus I'm really not interested in handling and watching the adventures of high power "gishes" and it's just not worth it to me to try.

I'll compromise some, but no I won't run what would be popular - some anime/comic book/shoot'em up thing, 'cuz that's just not fun enough for me, I did it before and didn't like it, and I'd rather take my kid to a playground, read a book, or go for a bicycle ride these days.

I wish it were otherwise but I've accepted that what I'm willing to DM/GM doesn't have willing players, and what would have willing players would be too much of a chore for me.

[Tanarii]

If someone is put in a position where allowed to make decisions that influence others as well, and the reason behind the decision making process is 'personal preference while at the same time disregarding everyone else's preferences', then that's problematic in my eyes. The reasoning behind the decision making process is invalid (nevermind if the decision is actually good or bad).
That's just like, your opinion, man.

Joking aside, it pretty much depends on how the table comes together.

If the DM is putting together a campaign and soliciting players, they can set the initial rules whatever reasons they like, including personal preferences, and it's valid reasoning. They may not get many players depending on how much those players don't like the initial rules of course.

Alternately if it's a bunch of friends getting together and choosing someone to DM, choosing the initial rules should probably be collaborative.

In fact, any situation in which the DM solicits players first, then puts together the initial rules second, probably needs to take into account the individual players involved opinions. If it's the other way around, the DM merely needs to consider if the rules will impact number and kind of players they will attract.

[Great Dragon]

So would you require more justification from a player wanting to go with a battlemaster/transmuter, than from a player who wants to go with an EK? If yes, why?

Answer: A little.
Transmuter is an interesting choice with F/BM.

First, I would ask the Player OoC what are they trying to accomplish with the Ftr/Wiz

If their idea can be done with EK, then I'll suggest that.

Let's say they like the EK, but not the limit to 4th level spells, so are mainly focused on Wizard over Fighter. And can accept the loss of spell slots of three levels higher, at least one ASI, plus the Wizard's 18th level Spell Mastery and 20th level Signiture Spell capstones.

If they are going for that double Fireball combo (once per encounter) with heavy armor, fine. The EK doing the spell - action surge - spell and sticking to targeting Mooks at range or being spell-attack based. Without looking: Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade; or Scorching Ray(?).

The only real difference here would be that the Evoker can control his evocation AoEs to not hit other PCs in melee with foes. The player stating this up front would be great. (I'd ask that only one player in the Party did this; other players optimizing with other Subclass combos, is fine) I'd most likely suggest BM/Evoker for that, and offer help and ideas for IC Explaination, Background, and History to support it.

But, I also accept that not everyone will want to play in my games.

Edit - If I missed someone, sorry.
I'm tired - and couldn't read every post.
I'll try again, when I can.

[Xetheral]

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Joking aside, it pretty much depends on how the table comes together.

If the DM is putting together a campaign and soliciting players, they can set the initial rules whatever reasons they like, including personal preferences, and it's valid reasoning. They may not get many players depending on how much those players don't like the initial rules of course.

Alternately if it's a bunch of friends getting together and choosing someone to DM, choosing the initial rules should probably be collaborative.

In fact, any situation in which the DM solicits players first, then puts together the initial rules second, probably needs to take into account the individual players involved opinions. If it's the other way around, the DM merely needs to consider if the rules will impact number and kind of players they will attract.

I agree with this. Soliciting players to play in a specific game is different than making a game to play with specific players.

[Particle_Man]

I guess it is a bit of supply and demand. Where I am there is a dm shortage so a DM can almost always find players but players can’t always find DMs and this frankly gives the DM more power to say what game they will play because they know they can get some players for it regardless. Players have fewer options so either accept one of the few available DMs, with that DM’s conditions, or become a DMthemselves.

[Pex]

The thing I find troublesome in players' (apparently fairly common) way of thinking is that many seem to think that DM is a role that has to somehow be readily compliant to players' every whimsical wants and needs.

Just. No. DM is just as much a player in this game. DM may be pulling the strings of what happens in the "background", but that's part of how DM interacts with the game, thus playing it just as much as the people on the other side of the proverbial (if not actual) DM screen.

DM sets the scene. DM is the final arbiter of what works or doesn't in their table. It's fully within DM's rights to limit what players have access to, if it makes it easier to handle or more fitting to their vision of the game they are running. Players have to understand that they can't force someone to DM for them, in a way they want. Without someone being a DM, there's no game.

What the DM says goes. If he says enough unreasonable stuff, the players go too.

[Corran]

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Joking aside, it pretty much depends on how the table comes together.

If the DM is putting together a campaign and soliciting players, they can set the initial rules whatever reasons they like, including personal preferences, and it's valid reasoning. They may not get many players depending on how much those players don't like the initial rules of course.

Alternately if it's a bunch of friends getting together and choosing someone to DM, choosing the initial rules should probably be collaborative.

In fact, any situation in which the DM solicits players first, then puts together the initial rules second, probably needs to take into account the individual players involved opinions. If it's the other way around, the DM merely needs to consider if the rules will impact number and kind of players they will attract.

I agree with this. Soliciting players to play in a specific game is different than making a game to play with specific players.
I agree with this too.


Answer: A little.
Transmuter is an interesting choice with F/BM.

First, I would ask the Player OoC what are they trying to accomplish with the Ftr/Wiz

If their idea can be done with EK, then I'll suggest that.

I might actually do the same for certain players. Though I suspect we have different reasoning for this. I will not mention my reasoning, because I think it goes very off topic, but if you really want to read my rambling I will edit a spoiler. (Edit: Basically it comes down to if I am afraid that the player is building a gimmicky charater of which they'll get bored of quickly, and I want to avoid players getting bored of the characters if I can help it.) I don't know your reasoning, I wouldn't like to guess, and that's what I am interested in hearing about and discussing.

[Yunru]

Level imbalance is often an issue in AL, but the difference between heavily optimized characters run by experienced players and unoptimized characters played by casual players is a very real issue.

That's not a problem with the characters, rather it's a problem with the experience gap (and I'm not talking about the number on the sheet).

[Great Dragon]

How big a reason do you need? Would longer versions of the following backstories be permissible in your games:
At least you came up with an idea of why.


1. "My character's ancestor was a dragon, whilst he fought in the Ritmarsh campaign, so I am running him as a sorceror/fighter if that's okay,"
No real problem here.
Now, Ftr at lv 1 and 2 just to get Heavy Armor and Action Surge to go with Gold/Red Dragon Sorcerer for Fireball nuking, is a bit more of a problem. But, with this PC starting out in the War, and discovering his magical powers during the battles - ok.


2. "My character was an assassin who became obsessed with the idea of using animals forms to catch his mark offguard. Using his skill at disguise he infiltrated a druid circle and gained there trust, then fled once they had learned what he needed. If its okay I want him to be a moon druid 2 / rogue (assassin) x"
Um, I'm wondering why you (the PC) chose Moon Druid, since their real power comes in at 18th level, with CR 6 beasts.

Now, if the Rogue (Assassin) PC did not know what Circle it was and it just happened to be Moon, sure.

But, if you're just trying to get CR 1 beasts to stack with your PC's Sneak Attack, not so much.


3. "My character was a noble and as traditional attended the Academy of Our Radient lady in the capital, however he was one of the few who then joined the army, becoming a war wizard. Since the enemy had taken to targetting wizards, he also studied weapon training and how to wear armour. If its okay I'd run him as a wizard/fighter"
A much more acceptable way to get the F-BM/Evoker.


4. "My character was a foundling riase in the temple as a cleric rarely leaving the compound until his 16th birthday. Once out in the real world however the teachings he had grown up with started to seem a little trite. As he explored the land and got a feel for everyday life he diversified his talents, picking up singing, and a new form of magic. If its okay, I'd run him as a cleric/bard,"
Again, no real problem.


I might actually do the same for certain players. Though I suspect we have different reasoning for this. I will not mention my reasoning, because I think it goes very off topic, but if you really want to read my rambling I will edit a spoiler. (Edit: Basically it comes down to if I am afraid that the player is building a gimmicky charater of which they'll get bored of quickly, and I want to avoid players getting bored of the characters if I can help it.)
I don't know your reasoning, I wouldn't like to guess, and that's what I am interested in hearing about and discussing.

Some of the reasons are listed above.

But, in addition to the reason you gave (bolded), I'm also against one player making a Power Character when no one else is and/or trying to dominate the game by 'solving' every problem with their Mary Sue.
Be a part of the team, please.

[Boci]

Um, I'm wondering why you (the PC) chose Moon Druid, since their real power comes in at 18th level, with CR 6 beasts.

Now, if the Rogue (Assassin) PC did not know what Circle it was and it just happened to be Moon, sure.

But, if you're just trying to get CR 1 beasts to stack with your PC's Sneak Attack, not so much.

Its not to get SA in animal form (which I don't think works by RAW), but to use animal form to sneak up on targets and catch them offguard. He likes the idea, and wants it to become part of his calling card.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's both amusing and sad how quickly these discussions devolve into disputes about who is "in charge", who has "power", whose enjoyment is "legitimate" vs whose enjoyment is "silly", etc.

I guess it's true that the smaller the pie, the pettier the stakes, the more vicious the fight.

[Arkhios]

It's both amusing and sad how quickly these discussions devolve into disputes about who is "in charge", who has "power", whose enjoyment is "legitimate" vs whose enjoyment is "silly", etc.

I guess it's true that the smaller the pie, the pettier the stakes, the more vicious the fight.

It is legitimate concern though. Belittling it doesn't make the issue disappear.

[Great Dragon]

Its not to get SA in animal form (which I don't think works by RAW), but to use animal form to sneak up on targets and catch them offguard. He likes the idea, and wants it to become part of his calling card.


I do know that Druids can access Class abilities while shifted. (Barbarian Rage Resistances, including Bear Totem, for example.)
“You retain the benefit of any features from your Class, Race (except Darkvision, unless the form has it), or other sources so long as the form is physically capable of performing them.”
You also gain the physical stats, movement types, and abilities (Blindsight, etc) of that beast, but not multi-attack.
Druids can't cast spells while Shifted, until 18th level.

If sneaking in is all you want, any Druid Circle can work.

So, again - why Moon? If you are going for the Bonus Action Shifting, you might as well use Brown Bear with SA by having at least one friend in melee with you.


However, you will be required to RP through multi-class training, because why would I waste a perfectly good adventure hook? As such, you will need to tell me at least one level ahead of your dip what you want to dip, why, and how it fits into your character.

Like Sparky McDibben, I run a World where each Class has History, and the members are proud of being part of it.

I also tend to use conflict (some would say Drama) even with straight Classes. Something like Rivalry between Subclasses of the same Class. "Friendly competition" between other Classes/Subclasses.

Multiclass Characters are almost always Solo acts, and are usually treated poorly by full members of both their Classes. The NPCs will either think that they are exploiting the combo for power, or the NPCs will try to use them - either as a Guild, or for personal gain.

Also, convincing someone to teach you their class when they know that you are already a member of another Class is tricky, but can be done.
Decieving them is possible, but you better hope they never find out.

"Adventuring" People (NPCs) tend to band together to cover as many bases as possible, and rarely have more than one of the same Class in the party.

So, yeah. You could get the Rogue/Druid combo.
But you're most likely hiding Druid from everyone, lest you become targeted by other members of both Classes/Subclasses.
Plus, the mystery of exactly how your PC gets access to the target could enhance his reputation. But, once it is known that he's a Druid, people take precautions against it.
And, the higher level of target, the more chance of getting caught.

[Boci]

I do know that Druids can access Class abilities while shifted. (Barbarian Rage Resistances, including Bear Totem, for example.)
“You retain the benefit of any features from your Class, Race (except Darkvision, unless the form has it), or other sources so long as the form is physically capable of performing them.”
You also gain the physical stats, movement types, and abilities (Blindsight, etc) of that beast, but not multi-attack.
Druids can't cast spells while Shifted, until 18th level.

If sneaking in is all you want, any Druid Circle can work.

So, again - why Moon? If you are going for the Bonus Action Shifting, you might as well use Brown Bear with SA by having at least one friend in melee with you.

Because the character wanted to become a druid because of wildshape, the whole natural magic is cool enough but its not what drew him to the idea, and moon is the best at wildshaping.

As for SA whilst wildshaped, natural attacks are not melee weapon with the finerssable quality, so it won't work.


So, yeah. You could get the Rogue/Druid combo.
But you're most likely hiding this from everyone, lest you become targeted by other members of both Classes/Subclasses.

He'd hide it even if classes didn't have proud histories, because he doesn't anyone copying his style.

[Great Dragon]

Because the character wanted to become a druid because of wildshape, the whole natural magic is cool enough but its not what drew him to the idea, and moon is the best at wildshaping.
Ok. But wouldn't you rather go Moon Druid 17/Assassin Rogue 3 to get more powerful beasts? Up to CR 5.

Or was he going more for Assassin 18/Moon Druid 2? Get in with tiny beast, 9d6 SA target + Assassin abilities, BA shift to tiny beast again and escape? Assuming no one has the ability to detect shapechangers.


As for SA whilst wildshaped, natural attacks are not melee weapon with the finerssable quality, so it won't work.
Aha! Good point.


He'd hide it even if classes didn't have proud histories, because he doesn't anyone copying his style.
I see. It's a shame that we are most likely never to meet in person; I'd like to see how far you can take this Character.

This is an interesting Character idea.
Thanks for the debate, and the Idea for a Villain for my game!😁

[Boci]

Or was he going more for Assassin 18/Moon Druid 2? Get in with tiny beast, 9d6 SA target + Assassin abilities, BA shift to tiny beast again and escape? Assuming no one has the ability to detect shapechangers.

Yeah, that's what he's aiming for. Wildshape to set up strike and/or escape, assassin abilities to actually take down the target.


I see. It's a shame that we are most likely never to meet in person; I'd like to see how far you can take this Character.

This is an interesting Character idea.
Thanks for the debate, and the Idea for a Villain for my game!😁

No problem, I'm glad you like the character concept. Let me know how he performs if you end up using him.

[Corran]

But, in addition to the reason you gave (bolded), I'm also against one player making a Power Character when no one else is and/or trying to dominate the game by 'solving' every problem with their Mary Sue.
Be a part of the team, please.
I'll tell you something. I have very specific opinions about how dnd should be played. To hear me talking about it and it might even sound like preaching. In truth, I am very easy going when actually playing the game. If I like the people and I am having a good time at the table, I'll play no matter if my ''axioms'' (using the word a bit self sarcastically) are satisfied or not. There is one exception to that though. It has to do with xp and how they should be awarded. If a player does not agree, they are out. If a DM does not agree to have it go my way, I am out. That simple. This is because of two reasons. One of the reasons is because I dont want to facilitate imbalance between the players' characters. It's the lesser of the two reasons, granted, but it shows that I feel strongly about it. That's why I also dont like for the players to individually roll their stats as well, or for bringing back the fallen to carry xp penalties.

There is a limit to that though. And that limit is exactly where player agency begins. I wont go out of my way to instruct players how to allocate stats or how to pick their characters' powers. If someone was to modify their character sheet in such a way that their character will be good at thing X or generally in combat/exploration/social, that's their choice. If someone wants to do the exact opposite, that's their choice as well.

If I thought multiclassing is part of the problem, I'd be happy to ban it (or see a DM ban it in the games I play). But I have no clue as to how anyone could actually support the opinion that multiclassing is anything other than character customization and also something completely distinct from optimization.

But the above is not even the issue. I dont want to speak about you, both because I dont know you and because it would be impolite, so I'll speak about others in general. The heart of the issue for me, is that the majority of DM's that ban multiclassing (and this is my guess), do it because they want to punish/prevent optimization. I am not sympathetic to this view because I cannot understand it. One of the ways with which the DM's try to achieve this, is by taking a dump on character customization, such as by preventing multiclassing. I am even more unsympathetic to this (assuming the reasoning is what I described), firstly because I dont agree with the intent, and secondly because this does nothing to solve the supposed issue.

Hope I didn't tire you too much.



Like Sparky McDibben, I run a World where each Class has History, and the members are proud of being part of it.

This is purely preference so I cannot even dare utter words like 'right' or 'wrong', but I'll say this. I dont like this idea, because it leads (at least for me) to immersion breaking due to silliness. That is because I think that player characters should identify with their class(es) only a tiny bit more than actual people with their horoscope (or whatever that's called). Otherwise the player characters are not believable as human beings and the game world is not believable as an actual world (even a fantasy one). What is a class? A collection of features. Do you see player character identifying so much with these features? Do fighters have conversations about how many weeks they trained so that they can second wind, and that is something that bonds them? Do they test if the can action surge by bringing a wizard who is smart enough to find a way to count the seconds needed for the fighter to attack two times reliably? Caution, they should bring in a wizard to do this, not a sorcerer or a warlock. That's because wizards are the one casting with intelligence so they are the smart ones. And assuming we are playing in a game where pc's do in fact identify that much with their class features, doesn't that make multiclassing even more necessary so that we can have more distinct characters? Or do you think it is a good thing for pc's to have the personality of a character from an arcade game? I dont. But I am guessing that if the pc's have less of a personality it might be easier for a DM to narrate a story...

Edit: To be fair, from a player's perspective, this whole structure seems to me like a cheap way to disguise meta knowledge as IC knowledge.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is purely preference so I cannot even dare utter words like 'right' or 'wrong', but I'll say this. I dont like this idea, because it leads (at least for me) to immersion breaking due to silliness. That is because I think that player characters should identify with their class(es) only a tiny bit more than actual people with their horoscope (or whatever that's called). Otherwise the player characters are not believable as human beings and the game world is not believable as an actual world (even a fantasy one). What is a class? A collection of features. Do you see player character identifying so much with these features? Do fighters have conversations about how many weeks they trained so that they can second wind, and that is something that bonds them? Do they test if the can action surge by bringing a wizard who is smart enough to find a way to count the seconds needed for the fighter to attack two times reliably? Caution, they should bring in a wizard to do this, not a sorcerer or a warlock. That's because wizards are the one casting with intelligence so they are the smart ones. And assuming we are playing in a game where pc's do in fact identify that much with their class features, doesn't that make multiclassing even more necessary so that we can have more distinct characters? Or do you think it is a good thing for pc's to have the personality of a character from an arcade game? I dont. But I am guessing that if the pc's have less of a personality it might be easier for a DM to narrate a story...


"...player characters should identify with their class(es) only a tiny bit more than actual people with their horoscope..." might be the best line I've ever seen to sum up how silly the whole "I'm a Level 5 Fighter!" thing is to me.

That's pretty much my opinion on the thing, as well. Classes, etc, are just a set of tools (and kinda clunky ones at that) for translating a character into the rules of the game, nothing more, as far as I'm concerned.

I have no interest in creating characters to fulfill a trope/cliche/stereotype/archetype.

[HamsterKun]

When I DM, triple-classing is hard-banned and the infamous Paladin/Sorcerer is soft-banned.

[JNAProductions]

When I DM, triple-classing is hard-banned and the infamous Paladin/Sorcerer is soft-banned.

What do you mean by "Soft-banned"?

[HamsterKun]

What do you mean by "Soft-banned"?

Not prohibited outright, but discouraged.

I personally hate Sorcadins because of one campaign where a munchkin made one and made her an obnoxious AF Mary Sue (she was also a gender-swapped self-insert of the player). I ended up having to kill her with a lightning bolt from the heavens to shut her up.

[JNAProductions]

Not prohibited outright, but discouraged.

I personally hate Sorcadins because of one campaign where a munchkin made one and made her an obnoxious AF Mary Sue (she was also a gender-swapped self-insert of the player). I ended up having to kill her with a lightning bolt from the heavens to shut her up.

That's never a good answer.

OOC problems need OOC solutions.

[HamsterKun]

That's never a good answer.

OOC problems need OOC solutions.

Like what?

[stoutstien]

Like what?
Tell the player in question that they are causing you and probably the other players to have less fun. this isn't a problem with multi-class. She could be a pure pally and still have the same issue

Using the rocks fall you die button is why players feel they need to build min/max build because now it's a GM vs other player state of mind.

[Yuroch Kern]

Hey guys,

How many of y'all restrict multiclassing?

If y'all do, what reasons do you give (narratively and/or mechanically) for the restrictions?

I usually talk with the player during creation. A desire to multi should be planned somewhat. Even if it's for mechanical gain, I won't be surprised when it happens. It helps if the player also knows the probable end level the game will reasonably go to. That alone tends to shut down really wacky multiclasses.

[Kalashak]

Tell the player in question that they are causing you and probably the other players to have less fun. this isn't a problem with multi-class. She could be a pure pally and still have the same issue

Using the rocks fall you die button is why players feel they need to build min/max build because now it's a GM vs other player state of mind.
Alternatively, don't play with people who annoy you

[Lyracian]

Really, it just boils down to this

Don't let casters dip for tons of AC.

.
Amusingly one of the main reasons I see too Multiclass is extra Armour.

The classic First Edition Fighter/Mage wants a level or two as Fighter to get Heavy Armour and weapon use. Probably end up as Fighter 11 Wizard 9 for 3 attack’s and level 5 spells.

A Wizard dip is also nice to expand an Arcane Tricsters spell options.

There are certainly some characters that work without multiple classes and I actually prefer single class in 5th ed at least until Tier 3 but there are other concepts that work better with Feats and Multi-class.

In the game I run we only use PHB and XGtE in the two I play in we only use PHB options. We have a mix of pure class characters and those with a small dip.

[Great Dragon]

I'll tell you something. I have very specific opinions about how dnd should be played. To hear me talking about it and it might even sound like preaching. In truth, I am very easy going when actually playing the game. If I like the people and I am having a good time at the table, I'll play no matter if my ''axioms'' (using the word a bit self sarcastically) are satisfied or not.
I suppose that I must seem to be 'preaching'.
But, I'm like you. Easy going, and dedicated to having Fun.

Do I prefer to have the Character be more than just a bunch of Numbers and Feats and Class Features on a page?
Yes.

As for Exp, I tend (as a DM) to use this over Milestone Leveling, both because using Milestones seems to be Railroading; and it's easier to track; I also use Exp as an incentive to show up to the game. However, for those Players that have RL interrupt, I allow them to write up a story about their PC to 'catch up'. Is this a requirement?
No.


I wont go out of my way to instruct players how to allocate stats or how to pick their characters' powers. If someone was to modify their character sheet in such a way that their character will be good at thing X or generally in combat/exploration/social, that's their choice. If someone wants to do the exact opposite, that's their choice as well.
Same here. I might ask “are you sure?” or offer suggestions, but ultimately - it's their PC.


Hope I didn't tire you too much.
Nope.


This is purely preference so I cannot even dare utter words like 'right' or 'wrong', but I'll say this. I dont like this idea, because it leads (at least for me) to immersion breaking due to silliness.
To me, silliness is part of the game.
If someone is taking it too seriously, it's time to take a break.


That is because I think that player characters should identify with their class(es) only a tiny bit more than actual people with their horoscope (or whatever that's called). Otherwise the player characters are not believable as human beings and the game world is not believable as an actual world (even a fantasy one). What is a class? A collection of features. Do you see player character identifying so much with these features? Do fighters have conversations about how many weeks they trained so that they can second wind, and that is something that bonds them?
I tend to look at it like so: Characters view Classes in the same way that RL people see various jobs.
We don't have a RL version of “Levels”, I mean what level would a 90-year-old person be?

Non-adventuring NPCs tend to not really understand Classes/Subclasses - in the same way that Vets have with someone that has never been in the military.


And assuming we are playing in a game where pc's do in fact identify that much with their class features, doesn't that make multiclassing even more necessary so that we can have more distinct characters? Or do you think it is a good thing for pc's to have the personality of a character from an arcade game? I dont. But I am guessing that if the pc's have less of a personality it might be easier for a DM to narrate a story…

IDK - to me, NPCs see multiclassing as either a means to power, or a career change from necessity.


Edit: To be fair, from a player's perspective, this whole structure seems to me like a cheap way to disguise meta knowledge as IC knowledge.
I think we have different opinions about Meta.
To me:
Some things a Character can understand:

AC: Something that makes hurting someone harder. Physical armor is obvious, but people know that certain types of magic can also do this.

HP: Some monsters, and a more experienced person, are tougher. Now, exact numbers would be Meta.

Class Levels are called Ranks.
“I'm a Rank 5 Battlemaster.”
This would tell an NPC that they are a type of Fighter, and higher than a 4th "Rank" but lower than a 6th. So, the NPC would know that they are pretty tough, and that they can attack twice - where lower Ranks can only attack once. NPCs most likely would not know what all a Battlemaster can do, but would know that the Battlemaster has tricks, and a Champion tends to hurt foes more often.

Maybe someone that is a Druid isn't considered one until they join a Circle.

It's up to the Group to determine how each class/subclass is viewed.
I'd advise that Experienced DMs should determine this in advance, and show it from Session Zero.
------
Things like Race are usually obvious to an NPC.
-----
I'm not sure about 5e, but 3x had a way for PCs to know about the abilities, resistances, vulnerabilities, and magical powers of monsters.
I still tend to use this to allow for Player-to-Character related knowledge.

Now, just pulling out one of the MMs and reading it so that you can adjust tactics - without asking, or any kind of Knowledge Roll - is Meta.
Or something like: "Don't worry, guys! It's only an X, and it's got AC 12 and 23 HP!"
Is Meta.

But then, I've got 30+ years of experience, and tend to change what's in the books...

@Max_Killjoy: Given your signature, I'm surprised.

@Yuroch Kern: Right. Please don't 'suprise’ me.

******
Now, the OP has stated what they are doing.

If my comments gave some information on what to watch out - and plan - for: then I have achieved my goal.

[Max_Killjoy]

Do I prefer to have the Character be more than just a bunch of Numbers and Feats and Class Features on a page?
Yes.


And... that's exactly how I see the "your class is your identity and your destiny" approach of strict NO-multi-classing. It reduces the character to a Class first, and a "person" a distant second.




“I'm a Rank 5 Battlemaster.”


I just can't help seeing that sort of thing as inherently silly, there's no way around it for me.




@Max_Killjoy: Given your signature, I'm surprised.


Why?

I want a character to be a "person who could be real" first, and a set of mechanics second, with the mechanics used to map the characters into the system/rules.

Limiting the character to a single class, and making that class an actual in-setting thing as opposed a tool in a kit, flips those priorities.

[Particle_Man]

That has not been the experience of the players of the single classes characters in my campaign.

[Pharaon]

When I DM, triple-classing is hard-banned and the infamous Paladin/Sorcerer is soft-banned.

This makes me a little sad because my favorite character ever was a bear barbarian 3/paladin 2/moon druid 2 I created for a one shot (that turned into a 4 session mini campaign because everyone had so much fun).

Running around as a deinonychus, raging for effectively double HP, and smiting on any of three - possibly four with Pounce - attacks per turn was amazingly entertaining.

[Great Dragon]

And... that's exactly how I see the "your class is your identity and your destiny" approach of strict NO-multi-classing. It reduces the character to a Class first, and a "person" a distant second.

I tend to see it as “class is a part of your Identity” but not destiny.



I just can't help seeing that sort of thing as inherently silly, there's no way around it for me.
How is it any less “silly” for the Player to constantly have their Character say: “I'm a devout champion dedicated (or sworn an Oath) to seeking out those who have done evil, and making sure they pay for their misdeeds.”

Instead of simply stating that they are a Vengeance Paladin?
With Rank/Level only being something to indicate how 'skilled’ they are at it.


In a world that does not have the classes integrated:
To the average Noble NPC - How would you have the Paladin PC be noticeably different from, say, the Fighter that is personally dedicated to doing something similar?
Both are standing side-by-side and are wearing Plate Armor wielding a Longsword with Shield.
Anyone can buy and wear Holy Symbols, so no clues there.



Why?

I want a character to be a "person who could be real" first, and a set of mechanics second, with the mechanics used to map the characters into the system/rules.
I suppose that we might have different opinions on Verisimilitude.

For me it changes to fit the medium:
Movies: visual effects that make the Character's interactions with the environment plausible.

I'm not counting comic books, since if you got those - you already know what to expect.

Novels: remaining Constant with both the Character(s) and the World.

TtRPGs: The Players are responsible for bringing their Character to life, where the DM has the World being consistent. (Like suddenly changing from Faerun to Darksun without any Explaination.)

Individuals (including monsters) encountered can still be different.


Limiting the character to a single class, and making that class an actual in-setting thing as opposed a tool in a kit, flips those priorities.


I'm not sure how. I mean, if the Player planned on multiclassing from Creation - they can inform me and we can work together to get that.

If there is an event in game that causes the Player to want to become multiclassed, that also works for me.

Now, the NPCs tend to be single classed, and might encourage others to do the same.
-------
To me, saying that Classes are simply tools in a kit makes the players tend to stay OoC.


****
For me, 5e is much easier to have PC Classes understood IC than all the other editions that I've played. (I skipped 4e).

Old and AD&D NPCs were Mooks, easily overwhelmed by PCs over 3rd level.
I saw a lot of DMs homebrew these just to prevent Murder-hobos from dominating their world.

3x D&D had NPC classes, but I never could wrap my head around a 20th level Commoner (Farmer).
Expert was a little easier, and Aristocrat for Nobles.
Adept? A really lame Cleric or Shaman?


This makes me a little sad because my favorite character ever was a bear barbarian 3/paladin 2/moon druid 2 I created for a one shot (that turned into a 4 session mini campaign because everyone had so much fun).

Running around as a deinonychus, raging for effectively double HP, and smiting on any of three - possibly four with Pounce - attacks per turn was amazingly entertaining.

I'd actually love to see the History for this character in my game.

[Boci]

How is it any less “silly” for the Player to constantly have their Character say: “I'm a devout champion dedicated (or sworn an Oath) to seeking out those who have done evil, and making sure they pay for their misdeeds.”

Instead of simply stating that they are a Vengeance Paladin?

Because why would every paladin identify themselves by a one word description of an oath they took? Wouldn't you expect a more mixed introduction from 3 different oath of vengance paladins:

"I am a blade of Tyr, of justice. A blade with a particular warlord in mind, I will find him, and I will defeat him, and I will drag him back temple where he will answer for his crimes,"

"I am a temple knight of Tyr, in the Order of the Radient Lion,"

"I am sworn to Tyr, I fight for him, and ensure his justice reaches those who need it,"

[HamsterKun]

This makes me a little sad because my favorite character ever was a bear barbarian 3/paladin 2/moon druid 2 I created for a one shot (that turned into a 4 session mini campaign because everyone had so much fun).

Don't worry, I permit homebrew classes so long as they're balanced. If you want to make a true jack-of-all-trades class, I suggest this class I made: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JktrVLqzPyp0mE8fXbjr17JIJQftlaiboIfZMlZ8gY

[Max_Killjoy]

Because why would every paladin identify themselves by a one word description of an oath they took? Wouldn't you expect a more mixed introduction from 3 different oath of vengance paladins:

"I am a blade of Tyr, of justice. A blade with a particular warlord in mind, I will find him, and I will defeat him, and I will drag him back temple where he will answer for his crimes,"

"I am a temple knight of Tyr, in the Order of the Radient Lion,"

"I am sworn to Tyr, I fight for him, and ensure his justice reaches those who need it,"

Honestly, I wouldn't expect those sorts of declarations in-character as a regular thing regardless of how they were phrased.

Do you know anyone who goes around randomly declaring "I'm an inventory clerk!" or "I'm a middle manager!"

[deljzc]

I'm old school from the 1980's and back then there were significant restrictions on multi-classing.

So far, in 5e, I'm not a big fan of multi-classing. Its too much in my opinion and encourages the hyper-optimization and DPR talk that I really hate (that's video game stuff, not D&D to me).

Currently, D&D does not just have "classes" anymore because the sub classes are so specific and different from each other that it opens up plenty of options that "feel" like multi-classing already. Fighters are very different from each other in 5e. Spellcasters are too. Rogues have a ton of variety in their different subsets. Every class does.

The use of multi-classes now is more to abuse and finding tricks in the RAW than theatrical and storytelling, which to me is what roll-playing is about. This is not a computer game. If you want that type of optimization and worry that much about how much damage per round you can do because of a combination of abilities, go play WOW or something on-line.

That might not be popular with the newer generation of players, but that's my opinion.

[Boci]

Honestly, I wouldn't expect those sorts of declarations in-character as a regular thing regardless of how they were phrased.

Do you know anyone who goes around randomly declaring "I'm an inventory clerk!" or "I'm a middle manager!"

Sure, I assume the context here is someone said "That's a lot armour and a mighty big weapon you carrying there, you ain't no trader," immediatly before, not that they just randomly announced that.

[Max_Killjoy]

I tend to see it as “class is a part of your Identity” but not destiny.

How is it any less “silly” for the Player to constantly have their Character say: “I'm a devout champion dedicated (or sworn an Oath) to seeking out those who have done evil, and making sure they pay for their misdeeds.”

Instead of simply stating that they are a Vengeance Paladin?
With Rank/Level only being something to indicate how 'skilled’ they are at it.


As noted, I find both about equally as silly.




In a world that does not have the classes integrated:
To the average Noble NPC - How would you have the Paladin PC be noticeably different from, say, the Fighter that is personally dedicated to doing something similar?
Both are standing side-by-side and are wearing Plate Armor wielding a Longsword with Shield.
Anyone can buy and wear Holy Symbols, so no clues there.


They don't. And it doesn't matter. Why should any other character be able to tell the two apart by character class on sight?

If they're both members of the "Order of Righteous Retribution", both dedicated to the same cause, both driven by the same beliefs, the only difference is that one's a bit better with his sword and the other has some magic. What other characters (PCs or NPCs) are going to see are the heraldry and colors of the Order, the holy symbol they both wear, the conduct that the Order expects of them, etc.




I suppose that we might have different opinions on Verisimilitude.

For me it changes to fit the medium:
Movies: visual effects that make the Character's interactions with the environment plausible.

I'm not counting comic books, since if you got those - you already know what to expect.

Novels: remaining Constant with both the Character(s) and the World.

TtRPGs: The Players are responsible for bringing their Character to life, where the DM has the World being consistent. (Like suddenly changing from Faerun to Darksun without any Explaination.)

Individuals (including monsters) encountered can still be different.


OK.

Not sure how any of that connects with the ideas of "class as identity" and "class as visually identifiable".




To me, saying that Classes are simply tools in a kit makes the players tend to stay OoC.


Only if they're playing a 2d archetype -- that is, the Class -- rather than a character.

[Pharaon]

In a world that does not have the classes integrated:
To the average Noble NPC - How would you have the Paladin PC be noticeably different from, say, the Fighter that is personally dedicated to doing something similar?
Both are standing side-by-side and are wearing Plate Armor wielding a Longsword with Shield.
Anyone can buy and wear Holy Symbols, so no clues there.

Not to step in the middle of someone else's discussion, but what reason would the NPC have to know the difference in the absence of more information? Even if the paladin declares a holy oath to pursue vengeance, the fighter could have made a similar oath (either purely RP or through a background bond).

The real difference would be in combat, where the paladin might drop a divine smite or channel divinity while a fighter might show superior tactical skills through combat maneuvers. Or maybe the fighter is an Eldritch Knight, further obfuscating the difference between the two to the casual in-world observer.

[KorvinStarmast]

I prefer no multi-classing.

I don’t think about it in terms of “reasons for restricting multi-classing.” Multi-classing is an optional rule. You add optional rules for reasons; you don’t restrict them for reasons. They are “restricted” by default.

As an analogy, we don’t ask people why they restrict the flanking rules or insanity rules from their games.
Agree.
I object! DMs don't restrict multiclassing. They graciously permit it, should they so choose! That too. Our first campaign, began in 2014, DM said "no multiclassing. Somehow, we had fun.
I don't like playing monks. Never did. Not sure why, but I don't. So in my next campaign I'll ban them. OK. There are 11 other classes to play.
If someone is put in a position where allowed to make decisions that influence others as well, and the reason behind the decision making process is 'personal preference while at the same time disregarding everyone else's preferences', then that's problematic in my eyes. You aren't, it seems to me, taking into account that the tone of a campaign is set by the DM. (Caveat: discussions about campain tone need to be session zero stuff, and pre char/pre roll up understandings.

And if your reason is that you don't like them because they don't match the aesthetic of your campaign? That's a great reason.
The thing I find troublesome in players' (apparently fairly common) way of thinking is that many seem to think that DM is a role that has to somehow be readily compliant to players' every whimsical wants and needs.

Just. No. DM is just as much a player in this game.

DM sets the scene. DM is the final arbiter of what works or doesn't in their table. It's fully within DM's rights to limit what players have access to, if it makes it easier to handle or more fitting to their vision of the game they are running. Players have to understand that they can't force someone to DM for them, in a way they want. Without someone being a DM, there's no game.Yes.

I wish it were otherwise but I've accepted that what I'm willing to DM/GM doesn't have willing players, and what would have willing players would be too much of a chore for me. And you have chosen well.

My DM perspective on Multi Classing: put in the effort to weave it into who the character is, and how the back story and character's journey so far in the adventure fits this change in focus. As with backgrounds, character development is a collaborative effort. If it makes sense, and if it fits "the story so far" and "who this character is" well ... heck yes! Also, give me a heads up that you intend to do it, so I can be prepared to help the world make sense for that PC decision.

Personal Anecdote: My nephew is doing a great job at this in our current campaign. He started his wood elf rogue with the explicit intention of multiclassing into Ranger as the story progressed, given his outlander background. It was discussed before rolling for stats. He is currently Rogue 3/ Ranger 2, with the Rogue Scout archetype. The whole thing has been very organic to both the adventure and who this character is. (It helps that he's been a DM for a number of games in both 3.5e and 5e, so he understands the DM side of this). His other multiclass is in a dormant campaign, but it once again began with character concept, started with Monk, and then the clerical MC arrived based on his back story, all coordinated with the DM on how it fit into the whole campaign.

[Yunru]

In a world that does not have the classes integrated:
To the average Noble NPC - How would you have the Paladin PC be noticeably different from, say, the Fighter that is personally dedicated to doing something similar?
Both are standing side-by-side and are wearing Plate Armor wielding a Longsword with Shield.
Anyone can buy and wear Holy Symbols, so no clues there.

Umm... why would they? That's exactly the point. They're a real character that chooses to be a knight. Not a "knight because my class is X."

[Great Dragon]

@KorvinStarmast - Nicely put.
----
IDK, I've never been a fan of "Guess my Class" games in D&D. The game has these defined Archetypes, and having it where they are part of the World simply seems more 'believable' to me.

I've always seen each (base) Class as being distinct. Some quality about them that stood out.

Like for that Noble, maybe the Paladin made them feel 'safe', the Fighter made them think that trouble better beware; and a Cleric might make them feel 'calm'. Even though they all look the same.

A Wizard would not want to look like a Sorcerer. Perhaps the classic "Gandolf" look for the Wizard, with an "Arcane" symbol to indicate School.

The Sorcerer might have the "Jedi" look.

An "open" Warlock might have something that respects their Patron, but not in the same way as a Cleric.

Monks not in the uniform of their Dojo, can be tricky for the casual observer.

Bards tend to flaunt their skills/College.

Barbarians have a 'fierce' appearance.

Druids usually make people feel a little closer to their natural surroundings.

Rangers seem like nature's fury.

Rogues not showing Guild badges, tend to also be tricky - since almost anyone can wear studded leather.

I might have to think about how the various Subclasses distinguish between each other.
----
With 5e having Knight as a Background, anyone can be that. Again, how this looks for each Class (and Race) can be different.
--
I guess that for me, each Class wants to stand out.

If everyone is the same, how do the PCs stand out as Heroes?
For my games, the majority of NPCs (including 'adventering NPCs') get the Base abilities of their chosen class/es, but don't have any Subclass abilities - regardless of level.
---
But, it looks like I'm in the minority, here.

[Boci]

A Wizard would not want to look like a Sorcerer. Perhaps the classic "Gandolf" look for the Wizard, with an "Arcane" symbol to indicate School.

And that's not a bit wierd for you? Every necromancer dresses similarly enough to be recognized as one? Across every racial, social and political line, that dress code sticks?

And if it is a setting-wide trend, surely smart people would exploit that, by dressing wrong? Can I make an illusionist who dresses like a necromancer, and then smirks to himself whenever someone uses anti-undead stuff on his illusions?

[Great Dragon]

And that's not a bit wierd for you? Every necromancer dresses similarly enough to be recognized as one? Across every racial, social and political line, that dress code sticks?
Remember that there is still allowances for small individualistic changes. Because PCs just can't conform. 😸


And if it is a setting-wide trend, surely smart people would exploit that, by dressing wrong? Can I make an illusionist who dresses like a necromancer, and then smirks to himself whenever someone uses anti-undead stuff on his illusions?

Actually, yes! Would be most interesting to see how long he can keep it up, before a real Necromancer shows up...

[Max_Killjoy]

IDK, I've never been a fan of "Guess my Class" games in D&D.


I've never been a fan caring what someone's Class is.

When the first things that matter about a character are Class, Race, Background or whatever, and Level, it makes me wonder if the player seems that character as a "person who could be real", or as a plastic playing piece in an elaborate boardgame.




With 5e having Knight as a Background, anyone can be that. Again, how this looks for each Class (and Race) can be different.


Knight is also typically representative of a social standing and position of some sort, and matters in the context of the setting and the culture/society therein. To me, the fact that a character is a "knight" or similar is far more important that which "building blocks" when into translating them into the game's mechanics.




I guess that for me, each Class wants to stand out.

If everyone is the same, how do the PCs stand out as Heroes?


Do you want the Class to stand out, or do you want the Character to stand out?

To me, the Class being the thing that stands out contributes to "everyone is the same" within that Class.

[Boci]

Remember that there is still allowances for small individualistic changes. Because PCs just can't conform. 😸

Even with small allowances for PC being indeviduals, that still means all NPCs of all civilized races, so elves, dwarves, human, halfling, rich and poor, east coast to west coast, all agree on how to dress based on just class but archetype?


Actually, yes! Would be most interesting to see how long he can keep it up, before a real Necromancer shows up...

And how will they know I'm an illusionist casting the occasional necromantic spell and not a necromancer casting the occsional illusionist spell?

[Corran]

I tend to look at it like so: Characters view Classes in the same way that RL people see various jobs.

This is where we disagree. To me, being an adventurer is the job. Job description is killing monsters, saving the day and all the heroic and crazy things that pc's do. Backgrounds can relate to professions very well. Soldier, noble, bounty hunter, spy, etc. Of course, once the adventure begins, the ''background jobs'' probably fall out of the spotlight, possibly kept on the side as part time for one more source of income. But classes as jobs? I don't see it. A rogue can be a burglar, a scout for an army, a bodyguard for a noble, a paid hitman, etc. I don't see anything in common between these rogues, and I find it hard to believe that if these characters were actual people would find more than less in common between them. That's just my opinion though.



My DM perspective on Multi Classing: put in the effort to weave it into who the character is, and how the back story and character's journey so far in the adventure fits this change in focus.
Multiclassing is not a de facto change in focus. It can be a change in focus, but it's not one necessarily.

Edit:

Amusingly one of the main reasons I see too Multiclass is extra Armour.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I was recently thinking of a character. An elf transmution wizard. Both race and class are fitting very well what I have in mind. Problem is, when I tried to picture this character, I wanted a metal armor and a sword to be in the picture. The easiest way to do it (and more importantly, to have it from the get go), was to start with 1 level in fighter. Mechanically it's not an easy choice (I'd say it's a bad one, cause mage armor will already give me same AC), but this way I do get to have my breastplate and my shortsword. One of the alternatives was to fluff mage armor as manifesting an actual breastplate armor out of thin air, but refluffing didn't really satisfy me. So, the reason this makes sense to me, is because when you are envisioning the character once you make the basic decisions thatw satisfy concept (like race and class), armor and weapon might appear out of nowhere, and if it does, perhaps the easiest way to satisfy this is to dip one level in a class that gives said proficiencies assuming you don't already have them.

[Pharaon]

If everyone is the same, how do the PCs stand out as Heroes?

By their deeds and actions.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is where we disagree. To me, being an adventurer is the job. Job description is killing monsters, saving the day and all the heroic and crazy things that pc's do. Backgrounds can relate to professions very well. Soldier, noble, bounty hunter, spy, etc. Of course, once the adventure begins, the ''background jobs'' probably fall out of the spotlight, possibly kept on the side as part time for one more source of income. But classes as jobs? I don't see it. A rogue can be a burglar, a scout for an army, a bodyguard for a noble, a paid hitman, etc. I don't see anything in common between these rogues, and I find it hard to believe that if these characters were actual people would find more than less in common between them. That's just my opinion though.


Yeah, maybe it's the idea of a profession as what was trained in and spends their entire working life doing, and equating Class to the character's "profession". A trained electrician or plumber or draftsman or whatever.

Whereas I think we (you, I, some others) are looking at a Class as a set of abilities, skills, and aptitudes, that encompass what the character is capable of, but separate from their job. So someone with good computer programming skills and aptitude, who might be a video game developer, or security consultant, or the head of a GIS department, or own a computer repair shop, or whatever.


I've got these characters on the brain from what I'm working on, but... what 5e Class is someone whose self-employed "job" randomly involves stealing rare rare books and scrolls and then replacing them with copies, suppressing the leakage of the "science" that gives her people their edge against hostile neighbors, recovering artifacts from dangerous mages, fomenting revolutions to undermine hostile powers, putting the fear of oblivion into demigods and avatars, and generally engaging in freelance troubleshooting and making a nuisance of herself?




Multiclassing is not a de facto change in focus. It can be a change in focus, but it's not one necessarily.


Agreed.

[Pex]

Sometimes a player wants to multiclass just because he wants to enjoy the game mechanics synergy that develops, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The roleplaying is a separate thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is where we disagree. To me, being an adventurer is the job. Job description is killing monsters, saving the day and all the heroic and crazy things that pc's do. Backgrounds can relate to professions very well. Soldier, noble, bounty hunter, spy, etc. Of course, once the adventure begins, the ''background jobs'' probably fall out of the spotlight, possibly kept on the side as part time for one more source of income. But classes as jobs? I don't see it. A rogue can be a burglar, a scout for an army, a bodyguard for a noble, a paid hitman, etc. I don't see anything in common between these rogues, and I find it hard to believe that if these characters were actual people would find more than less in common between them. That's just my opinion though.


For me and my setting, this is the case as well. Every PC is a Sanctioned Adventurer (caps intentional)--a member of an international treaty group trained and designated as roving troubleshooters, explorers, and <gulp> diplomats of last resort. How they do it is separate.

Unless a particular individual belongs to an in-universe organization, they wouldn't be known by their class. Some classes don't have specific organizations; some organizations act like they're single-class (Orders for paladins, for example), but really the people in them may not fit those archetypes at all. And if they do belong to such an organization, they'd go by that name instead of by the class name.

Barbarians--usually no affiliation. They're from all walks of life.

Bards--there is a Bardic college, but not all bards belong to it (or even know of it). The "college" archetypes are much less formal. Many "shamans" (normally associated with druids) are actually practitioners of bardic magics.

Clerics--in one country they're often part of an official religion, but many are called from the laity. There are a lot of regions where there are basically no clerics around--those roles are filled by celestial warlocks and divine-soul sorcerers (or their analogues).

Druids--one of the more likely to go by that title, at least in one nation. In the others, they might be called shamans, wise ones, herb (wo)men, etc. Rightly or wrongly--lots of the wise ones don't have any special powers or may even use bardic magic.

Fighters--yeah, no.

Monks--they will usually identify as having been trained in one of the great Monasteries, or they might not answer at all. Some are trained by wandering gurus, some learn it on their own. But only the wandering peacekeeping monks of Byssia go by that title.

Paladins--conventionally associated with Orders, and they do go by that title. In one nation at least, the well-known Order is, well, considered a bit of an issue for their harsh enforcement of Law. But many members of those orders, despite using that rank, are not paladins by power. They've taken oaths, but they haven't taken Oaths.

Rangers--Nope.

Rogues--there are some "Thieves Guild"-like groups, but they'd never identify as such.

Sorcerers--to the common folk, they're just another name for wizard (and vice versa). To the one big wizard college, they're lesser types.

Warlocks--not by that name, but the Pacted are pretty darn common. Most "clergy" in two nations gain powers from a pact with an Ascended Hero, not from a god.

Wizards--these actually go by that name, at least in one nation. Wizardry is one of the 4 major Arts, along with Spirit-talking (druidic magic), Divine Empowerment (clerical magic), and the Harmonies (bardic magic). There is an official wizard school, and it really irks that school that Adventurers are allowed to be wizards without also being graduates of the Granite-Flame Academy. So they get annoyed when PCs who aren't graduates go around calling themselves wizards. Which makes them do it even more, but...

[Max_Killjoy]

Sometimes a player wants to multiclass just because he wants to enjoy the game mechanics synergy that develops, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The roleplaying is a separate thing.

There's that too... but I'm arguing against what feels like a claim that mutliclassing is somehow anti-roleplaying.

[Pex]

There's that too... but I'm arguing against what feels like a claim that mutliclassing is somehow anti-roleplaying.

I'm with you there.

[BurgerBeast]

You can ban multi-classing while fully understanding that there’s nothing wrong with multi-classing.

The problem with discussions like this is that it all comes down to degree, which is a matter of taste.

There are the Core rules, and if a DM wants, he can even restrict Core options. For example, no Dwarves, or no Bards. Someone who plays Core may find that restrictive. Or you could play Core-only, meaning no optional races (drow, Dragonborn, gnomes) or feats or multi-classing*. Someone who plays with those options will find Core restrictive.. And then there is a suite of optional rules. Someone who plays with all of those finds “feats and multi-classing only” too restrictive. Some DMs ban splatbooks. People who use them find that restrictive.

Then there’s the monstrous races... then UA... then homebrew... then Gestalt...

The point is, everyone has a limit at some point, and there’s no better or worse answers. You might as well argue over whether pickles or tomatoes taste better, because it’s simply a matter of taste.

* undoubtedly someone will argue that this not what Core means. It doesn’t matter - I don’t care what you want to call Core, as long as I know what you mean by it - my point remains.

[Great Dragon]

@Corran: “classes as jobs? I don't see it. A rogue can be a burglar, a scout for an army, a bodyguard for a noble, a paid hitman, etc.”

Sure, but some Rogue Subclasses would be a little better at one of those then another.
Like the Thief is better at being a burglar, but is not restricted to only being that.

I'm not trying to say that a Player can't use the 'tools' of classes to get the Character they want, or multiclass. But, that's only used at Character Creation, afterwards - the numbers and such are for determining Roll outcomes, and are not really something the Character really thinks about. The class abilities are viewed like the skills of a RL electrician/plumber/etc.
Like the Fighter doesn't think about their Action Surge ability, but most folks know about it.

@PhoenixPhyre: That's an interesting world.
I'd make (friendly) comparisons with my world, but not only does doing so seem kinda pointless, it would be very much off topic.
If you're interested, please PM me.


There's that too... but I'm arguing against what feels like a claim that mutliclassing is somehow anti-roleplaying.

So, asking for the Player to come up with a story for how their Character became those classes, is anti-roleplaying? Or being anti-player?

[Max_Killjoy]

So, asking for the Player to come up with a story for how their Character became those classes, is anti-roleplaying? Or being anti-player?


I have seen in your posts some aspersions as to the motives of players who multiclass, such as "power characters" and "Mary Sues" *, and assertions that multiclassing strains verisimilitude, and that characters all end up the same if multiclassing is allowed, and so on.

But I went looking for where I thought you'd actually said you don't allow it at all, because it's usually just a power grab and you just don't like it... and now see that it was someone else with the same avatar you use.


* And the sooner that bullcrap meme about characters who have the "gall" to be something more than one-trick-ponies or useless mewling twits dies, the better.

[Lance Tankmen]

I have seen in your posts some aspersions as to the motives of players who multiclass, such as "power characters" and "Mary Sues" *, and assertions that multiclassing strains verisimilitude, and that characters all end up the same if multiclassing is allowed, and so on.

But I went looking for where I thought you'd actually said you don't allow it at all, because it's usually just a power grab and you just don't like it... and now see that it was someone else with the same avatar you use.


* And the sooner that bullcrap meme about characters who have the "gall" to be something more than one-trick-ponies or useless mewling twits dies, the better.

that was me, my bad, big fan of dragons

[Max_Killjoy]

that was me, my bad, big fan of dragons

Not your fault, just me not paying enough attention.

[Great Dragon]

I have seen in your posts some aspersions as to the motives of players who multiclass, such as "power characters" and "Mary Sues" *, and assertions that multiclassing strains verisimilitude, and that characters all end up the same if multiclassing is allowed, and so on.
Umm. Ok. I try to not guess their motives, but maybe I project a little at times. Eh, the drawbacks of being a (minor) Grognard.

Yes, I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to someone making an obvious (to me) "Power Character". Min/Max, best Race pick, etc. Multiclassing kinda adds to that. Especially if they just crunched the numbers (or copycatted), and present the PC with everything else about the PC as a blank sheet. Sure, the Player put a Background on their page, but only because it gave an obvious bonus (I'm looking at you, Outlander Rangers), or had synergy for at least one Class - and skipped the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

The "Mary Sue" PCs tend to be based on a high Cha and some Social Skills (that are more Roll-play, the Roleplay), with so-so combat abilities. But they expect everyone to just automatically love them, despite the fact that they are trying to hog the spotlight in every situation.

But, this is because I've seen these kind of PCs so many times over the last 30+ years, they tend to stand out to me.
---
Now, getting good Rolls for stats, and putting them where it helps the PC be the best they can, is fine. But, choosing a Race just for bumping the biggest number rolled/bought to get their Prime Stat as close to 20 at first level as possible, not so much.

Mostly it's the lack of putting in the effort to come up with History for the PC, that irks me.
----
But then, I've gotten to the point where I will actually make an un-oppomized Character, just for the fun of it.

Some examples are:
(Name: TBD) Rock Gnome Berserker Barbarian having a Criminal Background: because he lost his temper and accidently killed his provoker in a (you guessed it) bar brawl; with a 14 Str, 16 Con, 12 Dex, 16 Int, 15 Wis, and 10 Cha.

Hyrt Umer - Hobgoblin Enchanter Wizard having Noble Background (he's the second child of one of the Ruling Families in the Hobgoblin City) 13 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 17 Int, 11 Wis, 12 Cha.
(I'm too tired right now to type in his History)

I actually like making Histories for Characters.


But I went looking for where I thought you'd actually said you don't allow it at all, because it's usually just a power grab and you just don't like it... and now see that it was someone else with the same avatar you use.

I see. Well, these things happen.

@Lance Tankmen: I'm also a huge (long term) fan of Dragons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Multiclassing is not a de facto change in focus. It can be a change in focus, but it's not one necessarily. It has to be organic to who the character is; I don't DM games where a player is a bag of stats. Thus, in response to your point, in my campaign world, yes it is; it is very much a change in focus or a new direction the character takes since their previous profession, and progress in that profession, had a certain path to personal growth woven into it.

You mention that "adventuring is a job" and I disagree (though I appreciate the point you are going after there).

I see adventuring as a calling, and a profession. There is a non trivial difference between a job and a profession. (Well, that's how I was raised). It is also a narrative device. If an adventure wasn't needed to be undertaken, the character would do whatever his background has him or her doing: sail, entertain, be a criminal or spy, a soldier, a sage, etcetera.

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.

[Pex]

You can ban multi-classing while fully understanding that there’s nothing wrong with multi-classing.

The problem with discussions like this is that it all comes down to degree, which is a matter of taste.

There are the Core rules, and if a DM wants, he can even restrict Core options. For example, no Dwarves, or no Bards. Someone who plays Core may find that restrictive. Or you could play Core-only, meaning no optional races (drow, Dragonborn, gnomes) or feats or multi-classing*. Someone who plays with those options will find Core restrictive.. And then there is a suite of optional rules. Someone who plays with all of those finds “feats and multi-classing only” too restrictive. Some DMs ban splatbooks. People who use them find that restrictive.

Then there’s the monstrous races... then UA... then homebrew... then Gestalt...

The point is, everyone has a limit at some point, and there’s no better or worse answers. You might as well argue over whether pickles or tomatoes taste better, because it’s simply a matter of taste.

* undoubtedly someone will argue that this not what Core means. It doesn’t matter - I don’t care what you want to call Core, as long as I know what you mean by it - my point remains.

What the DM says goes. If he says enough unreasonable stuff the players go too.

Yes, of course the DM can ban anything he wants for any reason. Being allowed to doesn't mean it was a good idea. A player can choose to accept the bans and play the game. He can also choose to say that's male bovine feces and not play. If we're to be that basic then there's no point in having a discussion about anything. It's not enough to say the DM can do something. It's equally important to know why the DM does something. The discussion is about people's opinions about the why.

[Max_Killjoy]

It has to be organic to who the character is; I don't DM games where a player is a bag of stats. Thus, in response to your point, in my campaign world, yes it is; it is very much a change in focus or a new direction the character takes since their previous profession, and progress in that profession, had a certain path to personal growth woven into it.

You mention that "adventuring is a job" and I disagree (though I appreciate the point you are going after there).

I see adventuring as a calling, and a profession. There is a non trivial difference between a job and a profession. (Well, that's how I was raised). It is also a narrative device. If an adventure wasn't needed to be undertaken, the character would do whatever his background has him or her doing: sail, entertain, be a criminal or spy, a soldier, a sage, etcetera.

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.

Race, then Background, then Class, should have been the order of entries in the PHB for 5e. Race comes at birth, Background comes during youth, Class comes last.

But me... I'm choosing the small-B background, the history, the personality, the ideal set of capabilities, etc, etc, etc... and then looking for how that can be translated / mapped into the game's mechanics.

As far as I'm concerned, restriction to a single Class, and treating that Class as anything more than one tool in a kit, is what reduces the character to a bag of stats, putting the Class ahead of the character. The character is not the stuff on the paper, the character is the "person who could be real" who lives in the "world that could be real" of the game's setting.

With Class shoved to the forefront and made an in-setting thing, and no multiclassing, the character is a Fighter, and that's that, for the rest of his life, no atter what happens. He's just a mechanical contrivance with some fluff tacked on for show.

He's not, as one quick example, Robert Whitesmith, son of a mildly successful silver dealer, who studied swordplay in the local "gymnasium" on days he wasn't learning to do the books and read letters... until it was discovered he had a talent for magic and they shifted his studies to academic magery, which might get mapped into the game with Human, the Sage or Guild Background, and one level each of Fighter and Wizard.

[Tanarii]

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.When I was playing AL I usually went Race, Background, Class*. For some characters, that feels like the natural order, for others it feels back to front. For example a Noble or Outlander ("lifestyle" backgrounds) are probably inherent to who you are and where you grew up, so they'll almost certainly have been who you were for a long time.

It's important to remember that most 5e 1st level characters, while clearly a cut above the average commoner and destined for greatness (if they live), are still relative babes-in-the-woods in terms of their class. Most of them have probably only very recently either been invested with power (warlocks, clerics, sorcerers) or completing a fairly short apprenticeship (fighters, rogues, rangers), or both (druids, paladins).

*I also made and played more than a few characters by randomly dicing these things. Lets just say it's interesting to play a Dragonborn Wizard Soldier who staffs things more than cast spells. Interesting and pretty quickly fatal. :smallamused:

[Corran]

It has to be organic to who the character is; I don't DM games where a player is a bag of stats. Thus, in response to your point, in my campaign world, yes it is; it is very much a change in focus or a new direction the character takes since their previous profession, and progress in that profession, had a certain path to personal growth woven into it.

You mention that "adventuring is a job" and I disagree (though I appreciate the point you are going after there).

I see adventuring as a calling, and a profession. There is a non trivial difference between a job and a profession. (Well, that's how I was raised). It is also a narrative device. If an adventure wasn't needed to be undertaken, the character would do whatever his background has him or her doing: sail, entertain, be a criminal or spy, a soldier, a sage, etcetera.

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.
About two months ago I was thinking of a character. Ended up creating him so I can play him some time in the future. Now, this character was loosely based on an existing fictional character, so I had a good base idea for what I was going. Before long, I had figured out most of what I wanted of the character. I know why he is out adventuring. I know his motivations, hopes and dreams. I know his fears. I know how he reacts when he is happy, scared, angered. I know when he will lie and when he'll speak his mind. I know what kind of people he likes and hates. I know if he is generous or greedy, selfish or altruistic, compassionate or cruel. I even write down a few phrases I want him to use in certain occasions. A class will tell me little to nothing about these things, that is, about the character of my character.

Choosing a background comes naturally. I have not even started thinking of the class yet. I think of the character once again (I think about the fictional character that served as inspiration too). What do I know? That he is most definitely a spellcaster. More specifically, I want my character to definitely have 3 specific abilities. Thankfully, there are 3 dnd spells that imitate these abilities fairly well. Let's call them spell 1, spell 2 and spell 3. I do a quick search. I find out that there are 4 classes (in two cases I must lock the archetype as well) that give me access to spell 1, 2 and 3. Bard, druid, warlock and wizard. I skip bard, because the prospect of roleplaying one intimidates me somewhat, so I will avoid playing one for a long campaign (I know it sounds silly but it's true). After thinking it for a while, I decide that he will be a warlock, so now I know my class. Each class would fit. Each class would just give a slightly different spin to a character that for the most part was already defined. The fact I chose warlock was not because it fitted best, but because it was slightly less of an obstacle. If I had to multiclass in order to get access to the 3 spells, that's what I would do, because it's important to me to have the mechanical tools that bestow my character a small part of his identity (or rather, that facilitate justifying his identity).

Bottom line, mechanics exist to serve my inspiration, not to limit it. And what's organic and what's not, is purely subjective. What feels organic to you might not feel to me, and vice versa. Is it more important that a character feels organic to the one playing them, or to the one dm'ing them? Or is it that you can only dm for characters that you would like to play yourself?

[Max_Killjoy]

Bottom line, mechanics exist to serve my inspiration, not to limit it.


Exactly.

As long as the character actually fits the setting, the mechanics should facilitate, not dictate.

And if the mechanics keep facilitating things that don't fit the setting, then there's a bigger dissonance that is far more important to address than a single character being a "setting mismatch".

[Corran]

Exactly.

As long as the character actually fits the setting, the mechanics should facilitate, not dictate.

And if the mechanics keep facilitating things that don't fit the setting, then there's a bigger dissonance that is far more important to address than a single character being a "setting mismatch".
Yes. They must fit the setting, their motivation must allow them to pursue the main story if there is one, they must play well with the other characters. Generally, I am assuming a non-disruptive player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's important to remember that most 5e 1st level characters, while clearly a cut above the average commoner and destined for greatness (if they live), are still relative babes-in-the-woods in terms of their class. Most of them have probably only very recently either been invested with power (warlocks, clerics, sorcerers) or completing a fairly short apprenticeship (fighters, rogues, rangers), or both (druids, paladins).

This is true. I find that too often, having a clear micro-concept for the character (beyond the very broad brush-strokes) entails having too full a backstory for a level 1 character.

Example backstories that work (mechanical bits in bold):

Human Folk Hero Fighter (SnB): Bob is a farm-boy who dreamed of becoming a swordsman one day and chafed at the boringness of farm life. After his chores he practiced with the local militia, and became quite good. After a militia encounter with some bandits in which he played a noble role, he set off looking for adventure with his reward for the deed--a battered but functional sword, shield, and suit of chain.
Personality: open and naive.
Ideal: Protect the weak.
Bond: I'm going to be a big hero some day!
Flaw: Easily lured by promises of valor or by fake cries for help.

Human Noble Fighter (ranged/dex): Jane grew up in a border-noble's extended household, the 3rd daughter of a collateral branch. Like all border-marchers, weapons and warplay were part of every-day life. She rode and hunted with the men, shot arrows with the guards, and studied tactics and diplomacy by night as much as needlework or poetry. With no grand inheritance waiting for her when she came of age, she decided to strike out and make her own fortune and name.
Personality: bold and forceful.
Ideal: Noblesse oblige.
Bond: My family is important to me.
Flaw: Stubborn to a fault.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes. They must fit the setting, their motivation must allow them to pursue the main story if there is one, they must play well with the other characters. Generally, I am assuming a non-disruptive player.


Of course. There are "meta requirements" for a PC, and you list three important ones.

They are however orthogonal to single vs multi class builds -- I've seen them happen regardless of system.

(The one that bugs me the most, I think, is the character who fits the setting but is intentionally built to be inept, particularly regarding the most common activities of the campaign. See, the guy who builds a VTM vampire character, and then intentionally lowballs the Attributes and Abilities that determine the die pools for all his Disciplines, and those that would are almost demanded by his backstory and concept, even where they overlap... and then makes noises about it being bad to "rollplay instead of roleplay", and about "realistic characters", when asked about it... :furious: Thank you, lit-fic, for aggrandizing the inept do-nothing character as "the most realistic" and "best characterized".)

[Pex]

Of course. There are "meta requirements" for a PC, and you list three important ones.

They are however orthogonal to single vs multi class builds -- I've seen them happen regardless of system.

(The one that bugs me the most, I think, is the character who fits the setting but is intentionally built to be inept, particularly regarding the most common activities of the campaign. See, the guy who builds a VTM vampire character, and then intentionally lowballs the Attributes and Abilities that determine the die pools for all his Disciplines, and those that would are almost demanded by his backstory and concept, even where they overlap... and then makes noises about it being bad to "rollplay instead of roleplay", and about "realistic characters", when asked about it... :furious: Thank you, lit-fic, for aggrandizing the inept do-nothing character as "the most realistic" and "best characterized".)

I dislike those types of players a lot. It can get worse. Some of them then get upset the rules won't let them do what they want to do. It's not about failing a task because they have a low plus number for the d20 roll. In the heat of the moment of play they spontaneously think of something so appropriately in character to do, but they can't do it by the rules. The character doesn't have the ability, they're too low a level for the ability, the result they want doesn't happen the way the game rules say they happen, or some reason it doesn't work. They get upset and have a hissy fit. They want free form play. They don't want any rules.

[Great Dragon]

@Max_Killjoy and Pex.
Right. It should not be a requirement for the PC to shoot themselves in the foot to be considered a "valid" Character.
Both extremes are bad.

These are the main reasons I normally avoid PbP.

[KorvinStarmast]

Race, then Background, then Class, should have been the order of entries in the PHB for 5e. Race comes at birth, Background comes during youth, Class comes last. Yeah, that's my thought for some of the chargen process. But, that requires the DM to have a bit of the world already presented to the players so that they get a feel for how and where they fit into the world. Not all DMs do that.

But me... I'm choosing the small-B background, the history, the personality, the ideal set of capabilities, etc, etc, etc... and then looking for how that can be translated / mapped into the game's mechanics.
As far as I'm concerned, restriction to a single Class, and treating that Class as anything more than one tool in a kit, is what reduces the character to a bag of stats, putting the Class ahead of the character. The character is not the stuff on the paper, the character is the "person who could be real" who lives in the "world that could be real" of the game's setting. Class is a piece of this game, and has been since 1974. I see no point in fighting that structural piece. There are enough games without it that one can choose that game when one wants a classless PC experience.

FWIW, one of the more successful dungeon crawl games ever (Diablo, the original game, late 1990's) was during its original design phase intended to work with a classless character concept; the player build came from choices as they leveled up. They ended up using classes. The game was a great success and Had Great Replay Value. (They learned among other things that the min max would be even worse with a classless character concept). Class is a useful tool, structurally, in adding variety to the gaming experience. It isn't the only way to do that, but it is a way to do that.

@Corran: thanks for your dissertation. There isn't or wasn't infinite design space in this, nor most, games. (Though one wonders of GURPS represents something approaching that). I'll stop there after pointing out that if you are spending too much time fighting the mechanics, or being frustrated by them, it might be time to move to another game. We are very fortunate in the present time: over 5000 RPGs are available for play. (Back when this all started, that kind of variety simply didn't exist).

[Astofel]

I'm of the opinion that, at least for 5e, you should be designing a character with the system in mind, rather than imagining a character and then trying to squeeze them into the system. The latter tends to lead to frustration when the abilities you imagine come from three different classes across 9 levels, so your character can't have all of them until very high level, if ever, and they come with a whole host of other abilities you never wanted, and which might not fit the character you had in mind at all.

That's part of the reason I want class fluff to matter in my games. It helps players approach the game in terms of "I want to play a rogue with this type of personality" rather than "I want to play a character with this specific personality and who has x, y, and z abilities". Nothing wrong with the latter, but if that's what you want out of an RPG that's not the experience that 5e offers.

But all of the above has nothing to do with how I restrict multiclassing, which I more or less don't. As an example of how I view multiclassing, a hypothetical conversation between me and a player who wants to make a multiclass character.
Them: I imagine my character being able to shoot magic lasers from their fingers and fire from their hands, and also being martially proficient and able to imbue their weapon strikes with power, so I've decided to make a warlock/paladin.
Me: Sounds neat, but I'll need a bit more than that. How did they become a warlock, and how did they become a paladin? In my game the classes are more than just a set of powers, they detail the means by which you obtained them.
Them: Oh, I hadn't really thought about that.
Me: That's okay, I'll work through it with you. How about...

And then some time passes, and at the end of it we have a character who made a pact with a devil for power, but then did some things they regretted and swore an oath to redeem both themself and others, but the devil patron still lurks over their shoulder, tempting them with an offer of more power for just a little favour, surely the power I offer could be used in your crusade for good. NPCs in a game with this character wouldn't point at them and say "this person has more than one class," or even "this person is a warlock/this person is a paladin." Those who are knowledgeable about certain types of powers would be able to say "this person has powers that are obtained through a pact with a fiend, and also powers arising from dedication to an oath of redemption," but that's the extent to which NPCs in my games think of class.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm of the opinion that, at least for 5e, you should be designing a character with the system in mind, rather than imagining a character and then trying to squeeze them into the system. The latter tends to lead to frustration when the abilities you imagine come from three different classes across 9 levels, so your character can't have all of them until very high level, if ever, and they come with a whole host of other abilities you never wanted, and which might not fit the character you had in mind at all. well said, and more concisely putting into words what I was thinking. *tips cap*

[Man_Over_Game]

Bottom line, mechanics exist to serve my inspiration, not to limit it. And what's organic and what's not, is purely subjective. What feels organic to you might not feel to me, and vice versa. Is it more important that a character feels organic to the one playing them, or to the one dm'ing them? Or is it that you can only dm for characters that you would like to play yourself?

In the end, though, the mechanics are what are going to determine what your character is capable of doing. Your personality, background, race, all of those things may dictate how you do things, or what your preference is, but there is little preference with the mechanics that you have.

It does not matter how smart your Barbarian is or how high his Wisdom is. He cannot cast spells while he Rages. A Paladin doesn't have much support as a ranged character. Just because you have the idea of a Sorcerer using magic to deflect attacks while he hits people in melee combat with his mind does not mean that the game is able to let that work.

In the end, the mechanics are the limiting factor. Of course, you could make a character concept, choosing the class last, but you'll almost always find yourself disappointed about an ability you want but can't have, or a concept that you'll never see come to fruition.

Personally, I think people should recognize how they want to play the game first, then make everything work around that. Because, at the end of the day, your tragic backstory and heroic upbringing won't be nearly as relevant as your Cleric levels in determining how you play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

well said, and more concisely putting into words what I was thinking. *tips cap*

I agree with this. Thumbs up Astofel. Let the archetypes speak, and then build that way instead of trying to shoehorn a character into an archetype.

[Boci]

And then some time passes, and at the end of it we have a character who made a pact with a devil for power, but then did some things they regretted and swore an oath to redeem both themself and others, but the devil patron still lurks over their shoulder, tempting them with an offer of more power for just a little favour, surely the power I offer could be used in your crusade for good. NPCs in a game with this character wouldn't point at them and say "this person has more than one class," or even "this person is a warlock/this person is a paladin." Those who are knowledgeable about certain types of powers would be able to say "this person has powers that are obtained through a pact with a fiend, and also powers arising from dedication to an oath of redemption," but that's the extent to which NPCs in my games think of class.

And would you allow a warlock/paladin without conflict between the two sides? Celestial patron/oath of devotion? Fey patron/oath of the ancient? Fiend patron/oath of tyranny?

[Yunru]

It does not matter how smart your Barbarian is or how high his Wisdom is. He cannot cast spells while he Rages. A Paladin doesn't have much support as a ranged character. Just because you have the idea of a Sorcerer using magic to deflect attacks while he hits people in melee combat with his mind does not mean that the game is able to let that work.

One of these is correct, one of these isn't the point you're trying to reinforce, and the last implies something that's incorrect.
You're better than this man.

[Great Dragon]

And would you allow a warlock/paladin without conflict between the two sides? Celestial patron/oath of devotion? Fey patron/oath of the ancient? Fiend patron/oath of tyranny?

For me, yes. Even the idea that Astofel had, where they started out Fiend Patron and then went Devotion Paladin. But, like Astofel said, the Fiend would watch to see how often the PC used the Pact powers, and try to temp them with more. Now, because Paladins are not overseen by a Deity, using the Pact powers won't cause them to fall, but using those dark powers might cause Subtle changes. (Working with the Player on what these changes are, and not forcing them on the PC).

Maybe the Paladin seeks out a new Patron to increase their Warlock abilities and powers, and this can change their Pact (Subclass).

A later Plot Hook for the Paladin could be that their old Friend Patron claims their soul on a technicality, and the rest of the party now needs to go to the rescue. While the the Pally's player uses a new PC.

If either the Player or the Party aren't interested, then so be it.

[Astofel]

And would you allow a warlock/paladin without conflict between the two sides? Celestial patron/oath of devotion? Fey patron/oath of the ancient? Fiend patron/oath of tyranny?

Of course. I just chose a particularly infamous example of an "inherently conflicting" multiclass to show that things like that won't stop me from helping the player to figure out how to make it work.

[FaerieGodfather]

One of my absolute favorite characters of all time-- and one of the few Paladins I will play under any circumstances-- is an Ancient Paladin/GOOlock with no specific conflict between his patrons for both classes because they are, in fact, the same being.

A terrible, alien deity of love, beauty, and extreme body modification. It is beyond any sense of human morality, of course, but its servitor is a committed Neutral Good.

[Xetheral]

I'm of the opinion that, at least for 5e, you should be designing a character with the system in mind, rather than imagining a character and then trying to squeeze them into the system. The latter tends to lead to frustration when the abilities you imagine come from three different classes across 9 levels, so your character can't have all of them until very high level, if ever, and they come with a whole host of other abilities you never wanted, and which might not fit the character you had in mind at all.

That's part of the reason I want class fluff to matter in my games. It helps players approach the game in terms of "I want to play a rogue with this type of personality" rather than "I want to play a character with this specific personality and who has x, y, and z abilities". Nothing wrong with the latter, but if that's what you want out of an RPG that's not the experience that 5e offers.

I don't know if it was your intent, but your final claim above comes across to me as the equivalent of "my way or the highway". I think that's being unnecessarily exclusionary. In this thread multiple posters have expressed that they use 5e for exactly the experience you claim it doesn't offer. I think that's strong evidence that 5e offers a wider range of experiences than you're giving it credit for.

I think it's beautiful that the game we love can be used to bring enjoyment in so many different ways. I see no purpose in implying that 5e is only suited to your particular approach to character building.


In the end, though, the mechanics are what are going to determine what your character is capable of doing. Your personality, background, race, all of those things may dictate how you do things, or what your preference is, but there is little preference with the mechanics that you have.

At my table I would argue that a character's goals and motives are more important than that character's abilities in determining what the character accomplishes during the campaign. For example, the entire shape of my campaign can depend on whether the characters opt to work with a local ruler, skip town, or actively work to overthrow them. The characters' abilities determine the means at their disposal, which may influence their decision, but the goals and motives matter much, much more.

So, exactly contrary to your assertion, I would argue that in my experience goals and motives (i.e. personality and backstory) determine what a character does, with the available mechanics influencing how they do things. For example, a character of any class can decide to work to overthrow a local ruler. The characters' class(es) is/are only involved in determining the means at their disposal.

Admittedly, I tend to run games that are closer to the sandbox end of the spectrum, where the characters' strategic choices determine the course of play. Because tactical choices tend to be more mechanical in nature, at a table where tactical decisions determine the course of play I can understand how the choice of class(es) takes on a relatively more prominent role.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At my table I would argue that a character's goals and motives are more important than that character's abilities in determining what the character accomplishes during the campaign.

I agree with this. Mechanics don't drive narratives, personalities and choices do. If needed, you can hire or find someone to handle the mechanics unless you're hopelessly outclassed. Who you are matters much more than what mechanical buttons you can push.

[Shuruke]

My only issue with multi classing os
(Atleast in my experience)
There is to many people wanting to be min maxed or etc and hyper focusing on the paper and pen part of the game.

Most of my players know

Don't worry about optimization just take what makes sense for your character and their story.

And even saying that , and carefully crafting campaign so everyone can shine and etc. Theirs still people worried about being the tankiest tank
Or having insane a.c
For sake of the stats. Not the narrative or story of character and dont want any kind of narrative or story having to do with the class (ie Warlocks wanting to hand wave pacts etc)


In the end I don't care either way to be honest. As long as they are having fun with it and dont complain when things don't go their way even when % wise it was in their favor.



Note: I don't dm cuz I like it, for long time I dreaded it. However the part of dming I enjoy is when the players are thinking in character or stating what their character is thinking or reacting. And the fun memories made along way.

[KorvinStarmast]

One of my absolute favorite characters of all time-- and one of the few Paladins I will play under any circumstances-- is an Ancient Paladin/GOOlock with no specific conflict between his patrons for both classes because they are, in fact, the same being.

A terrible, alien deity of love, beauty, and extreme body modification. It is beyond any sense of human morality, of course, but its servitor is a committed Neutral Good.
I love where you went with this.
(Ever read Waking Beauty? It has an interesting take on beauty that mixes in a bit of horror. Paul Witcover is the author)

[Pex]

My only issue with multi classing os
(Atleast in my experience)
There is to many people wanting to be min maxed or etc and hyper focusing on the paper and pen part of the game.

Most of my players know

Don't worry about optimization just take what makes sense for your character and their story.

And even saying that , and carefully crafting campaign so everyone can shine and etc. Theirs still people worried about being the tankiest tank
Or having insane a.c
For sake of the stats. Not the narrative or story of character and dont want any kind of narrative or story having to do with the class (ie Warlocks wanting to hand wave pacts etc)


In the end I don't care either way to be honest. As long as they are having fun with it and dont complain when things don't go their way even when % wise it was in their favor.



Note: I don't dm cuz I like it, for long time I dreaded it. However the part of dming I enjoy is when the players are thinking in character or stating what their character is thinking or reacting. And the fun memories made along way.

Banning multiclassing won't change people only interested in the numbers.

[Astofel]

I don't know if it was your intent, but your final claim above comes across to me as the equivalent of "my way or the highway". I think that's being unnecessarily exclusionary. In this thread multiple posters have expressed that they use 5e for exactly the experience you claim it doesn't offer. I think that's strong evidence that 5e offers a wider range of experiences than you're giving it credit for.

I think it's beautiful that the game we love can be used to bring enjoyment in so many different ways. I see no purpose in implying that 5e is only suited to your particular approach to character building.


You're right, I can see how that could come off as exclusionary, although that wasn't my intention. To refine that statement, I don't think that 5e was designed for an abilities>archetypes style of character building and if that's what I wanted I'd use a system designed with that in mind. If using 5e this way works for some people that's great! It is wonderful that the game can bring joy to all sorts of groups and playstyles. But for this playstyle in particular I more often see frustration that the system doesn't work quite the way they wanted.

[Max_Killjoy]

You're right, I can see how that could come off as exclusionary, although that wasn't my intention. To refine that statement, I don't think that 5e was designed for an abilities>archetypes style of character building and if that's what I wanted I'd use a system designed with that in mind. If using 5e this way works for some people that's great! It is wonderful that the game can bring joy to all sorts of groups and playstyles. But for this playstyle in particular I more often see frustration that the system doesn't work quite the way they wanted.

It's further than that.

The style some of us want, even if we know D&D won't ever do it, is character -> abilities -> mechanics. Archetype doesn't even exist in that thought process or that style.

[Pex]

You're right, I can see how that could come off as exclusionary, although that wasn't my intention. To refine that statement, I don't think that 5e was designed for an abilities>archetypes style of character building and if that's what I wanted I'd use a system designed with that in mind. If using 5e this way works for some people that's great! It is wonderful that the game can bring joy to all sorts of groups and playstyles. But for this playstyle in particular I more often see frustration that the system doesn't work quite the way they wanted.

For me abilities and characters are two different things. The character is whatever I feel like roleplaying. I give him a personality and motives with the campaign story further shaping him as he reacts and become proactive to the situations that happen. The abilities are whatever cool things I feel like having fun using this time.

Sometimes personality dictates abilities and other times abilities dictates personality. It depends on my mood for the game in question, so I guess I'm really all over the place on this.

[Tanarii]

For me abilities and characters are two different things. The character is whatever I feel like roleplaying. I give him a personality and motives with the campaign story further shaping him as he reacts and become proactive to the situations that happen. The abilities are whatever cool things I feel like having fun using this time.

Sometimes personality dictates abilities and other times abilities dictates personality. It depends on my mood for the game in question, so I guess I'm really all over the place on this.For me, roleplaying is the decisions I make for my character in the fantasy environment. So things that affect my Roleplaying are the sum total of all things that affect my decision making, which includes both character personality and abilities. Among other things

[KorvinStarmast]

It's further than that.

The style some of us want, even if we know D&D won't ever do it, is character -> abilities -> mechanics. Archetype doesn't even exist in that thought process or that style. This is the D&D 5e sub forum. If you don't care for the game's basic structure, then simply complaining about it achieves little. Tanarii put a good bow on this discussion:

For me, roleplaying is the decisions I make for my character in the fantasy environment.
Regardless of the nuances or constraints in the system, that is the core exercise of agency in terms of game play.

[Tanarii]

This is the D&D 5e sub forum. If you don't care for the game's basic structure, then simply complaining about it achieves little.We get a lot of prolific posters around here that don't actually play the game.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is the D&D 5e sub forum. If you don't care for the game's basic structure, then simply complaining about it achieves little.


So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"?

OK.

[KorvinStarmast]

So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"? OK. When you try to put words into someone else's mouth, Max, the failure to engage in good faith becomes obvious.

What are you trying to accomplish here? This discussion began as a bit of back and forth on multiclassing, and you have turned it into a screed against the mechanics of how classes and archetypes are part of the building blocks of this particular game.

What value are you adding to the conversation by taking it in that direction?

[PhoenixPhyre]

When you try to put words into someone else's mouth, Max, the failure to engage in good faith becomes obvious.

What are you trying to accomplish here? This discussion began as a bit of back and forth on multiclassing, and you have turned it into a screed against the mechanics of how classes and archetypes are part of the building blocks of this particular game.

What value are you adding to the conversation by taking it in that direction?

Agreed. It's totally fine not to like archetypes and classes. It's not fine to claim that those are a flaw or secondary when they're entirely primary to the game. It's like complaining that Train Simulator 2019 doesn't have enough tanks or shooting in it. It's defying the entire premise of the title.

Shoehorning in characters that don't fit into a setting or system is a problem for the doer, not the system. Sure, you can bend a lot of premises. But the core ones (in this case the centrality of strong fantasy archetypes and adventuring)? Doing so just results in a broken mess. And I've seen other people then blame the game for the mess that results, when they broke it by discarding the core.

I'm allergic to people wanting to recreate a character they've imagined in detail, whether original or from some other medium. Or even another edition of D&D, although that's more acceptable. Recreate themes and broad brushstrokes? Fine. Exactly model the character, including backstory and power-set? That does violence to the system and to any settings its employed in. D&D is not, nor is it designed to be, a generic fantasy character emulation engine. Especially in 5e, it's a (relatively) focused game about strong archetypes going on fantasy adventures that involve combat, exploration, traps, and cooperation between people (whether PCs or NPCs). A non-combatant or non-adventurer is not a valid 5e PC. In fact, they're the very definition of an NPC.

[ZorroGames]

One thing I am learning on this forum is to ignore the crybabies, KILLJOYs, and “You must do it this way” posters.

Play the game. Don’t let the game play you.

[2D8HP]

I'm of the opinion that, at least for 5e, you should be designing a character with the system in mind, rather than imagining a character and then trying to squeeze them into the system. The latter tends to lead to frustration when the abilities you imagine come from three different classes across 9 levels, so your character can't have all of them until very high level, if ever, and they come with a whole host of other abilities you never wanted, and which might not fit the character you had in mind at all.

That's part of the reason I want class fluff to matter in my games. It helps players approach the game in terms of "I want to play a rogue with this type of personality" rather than "I want to play a character with this specific personality and who has x, y, and z abilities". Nothing wrong with the latter, but if that's what you want out of an RPG that's not the experience that 5e offers.

But all of the above has nothing to do with how I restrict multiclassing, which I more or less don't. As an example of how I view multiclassing, a hypothetical conversation between me and a player who wants to make a multiclass character.
Them: I imagine my character being able to shoot magic lasers from their fingers and fire from their hands, and also being martially proficient and able to imbue their weapon strikes with power, so I've decided to make a warlock/paladin.
Me: Sounds neat, but I'll need a bit more than that. How did they become a warlock, and how did they become a paladin? In my game the classes are more than just a set of powers, they detail the means by which you obtained them.
Them: Oh, I hadn't really thought about that.
Me: That's okay, I'll work through it with you. How about...

And then some time passes, and at the end of it we have a character who made a pact with a devil for power, but then did some things they regretted and swore an oath to redeem both themself and others, but the devil patron still lurks over their shoulder, tempting them with an offer of more power for just a little favour, surely the power I offer could be used in your crusade for good. NPCs in a game with this character wouldn't point at them and say "this person has more than one class," or even "this person is a warlock/this person is a paladin." Those who are knowledgeable about certain types of powers would be able to say "this person has powers that are obtained through a pact with a fiend, and also powers arising from dedication to an oath of redemption," but that's the extent to which NPCs in my games think of class.


In the end, though, the mechanics are what are going to determine what your character is capable of doing. Your personality, background, race, all of those things may dictate how you do things, or what your preference is, but there is little preference with the mechanics that you have.

It does not matter how smart your Barbarian is or how high his Wisdom is. He cannot cast spells while he Rages. A Paladin doesn't have much support as a ranged character. Just because you have the idea of a Sorcerer using magic to deflect attacks while he hits people in melee combat with his mind does not mean that the game is able to let that work.

In the end, the mechanics are the limiting factor. Of course, you could make a character concept, choosing the class last, but you'll almost always find yourself disappointed about an ability you want but can't have, or a concept that you'll never see come to fruition.

Personally, I think people should recognize how they want to play the game first, then make everything work around that. Because, at the end of the day, your tragic backstory and heroic upbringing won't be nearly as relevant as your Cleric levels in determining how you play.


It's further than that.

The style some of us want, even if we know D&D won't ever do it, is character -> abilities -> mechanics. Archetype doesn't even exist in that thought process or that style.


Maybe it shows the limits of my imagination, but for 5e a first level Fighter with the Noble Background, a first level Ranger with an Urchin Background, or a first level Rogue with the Outlander Background already cover 90% of the abilities that my character concepts need, and yes with multi-classing by 3rd level 99% of any concept that I had inspired by fiction is covered (as opposed to reading the rules and saying "That looks cool!").

I really like playing Fighter-Rogues, and I like Ranger's "Natural Explorer" ability (I also like many of the Paladins Oaths Tenets, but I don't need the Paladins abilities to roleplay a PC following them!) but with the Background Features and Racial proficiencies a single class PC may effectively be multi-class (and custom backgrounds are RAW).

And frankly that is why I like first level 5e better than playing first level of any other version of D&D.


Banning multiclassing won't change people only interested in the numbers.


True.


Ever read Waking Beauty? It has an interesting take on beauty that mixes in a bit of horror. Paul Witcover is the author


I just read a review (https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-06-105249-), and while I already had a stack (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585374-Which-book-shall-I-pick) of books I planned to read or re-read, it's now on my list!

[Max_Killjoy]

When you try to put words into someone else's mouth, Max, the failure to engage in good faith becomes obvious.

What are you trying to accomplish here? This discussion began as a bit of back and forth on multiclassing, and you have turned it into a screed against the mechanics of how classes and archetypes are part of the building blocks of this particular game.

What value are you adding to the conversation by taking it in that direction?


I'm sorry, what words did I try to put in whose mouth?

As for what I was trying to accomplish... that should have been clear.


There was a comment about the relationship between archetype and abilities, and whether 5e can handle either one coming first -- and that players who want abilities to drive archetype would be frustrated by 5e, if it's kinda designed to work in the other direction.



You're right, I can see how that could come off as exclusionary, although that wasn't my intention. To refine that statement, I don't think that 5e was designed for an abilities>archetypes style of character building and if that's what I wanted I'd use a system designed with that in mind. If using 5e this way works for some people that's great! It is wonderful that the game can bring joy to all sorts of groups and playstyles. But for this playstyle in particular I more often see frustration that the system doesn't work quite the way they wanted.


In response to which I tried to point out that for some players, it's not even part of the "equation", and thinking that their frustration comes from a simple arrow flip in the process will entirely mischaracterize and just miss what actually underlies that frustration.



It's further than that.

The style some of us want, even if we know D&D won't ever do it, is character -> abilities -> mechanics. Archetype doesn't even exist in that thought process or that style.


That is, some players want to multiclass because it's the only way to get the character in their head translated into the game's mechanics, and they don't give a fig about what "archetype" the character may or may not be, or what collections and progressions of skills and powers someone else might have lumped together. They want their character to be a person, not a trope.

And trying to make that clear came in the context of a lot of implicit and explicit insulting comments about the supposed motivations behind multiclassing -- multiple ongoing threads have been peppered with comments based on a false assumption that wanting to multiclass must be about trying to manipulate the system to create the most powerful PC possible, etc.

And if you want to claim that no such comments have been made, I'll be "happy" to go through the recent threads and quote them all here.




One thing I am learning on this forum is to ignore the crybabies, KILLJOYs, and “You must do it this way” posters.

Play the game. Don’t let the game play you.


That's funny, because that part I bolded... that's exactly what I'm arguing in favor of.

[Great Dragon]

So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"?

OK.
Well, it's helped me.
---
But to me - looking at only the mechanics (including features of Backgrounds, and stats) and manipulating them to get the most raw power, and ignoring the story/history of the PC is power gaming. (I don't expect a novel’s worth of History, especially for a first level PC)

There are some very nice Histories being posted.

IDK, I seem to not really get a picture of a PC until all of the pieces (D&D includes Class) are in place.

The PC's Personality is what the Player brings to the table.

And seeing all the Class/Subclass features as a list of tools, seems to me that what is desired is that everything (of all Classes/Subclasses) is just put on a list and the Player chooses what they want based on - what?
Again, seems to be very Skill-based to me.

----
A lot of new Players are trying to bring in things that just don't fit into D&D. Anime (Naruto, Bleach) being top of the list, with movies (Pirates-otC) and Podcasts (Critical Role) or TV shows next. Sure, the “Personality” of a given media Character can be used. But their “abilities” either require being High Level and/or Multiclassed, or (usually) simply can't be incorporated by even the nicest DM.

The fact that a lot of the time when new players come to a forum (not just this one), the first thing they see are advice for max-building their Characters - and usually no History advice.

Those of us who are not prone to do so are (at least in my case) late to the thread, or drowned out. The Playground does seem to have more helpful Members, though.

[Willie the Duck]

We get a lot of prolific posters around here that don't actually play the game.


One thing I am learning on this forum is to ignore the crybabies, KILLJOYs, and “You must do it this way” posters.

I am in general agreement with the reasoning that D&D is not flawed by embracing archetypes, classes, and not trying to be a generic fantasy emulator. I do, however, think these responses are taking things too far. Claiming that other posters on the forum don't actually play the game is perilously close to 'your argument doesn't count, not because the argument is wrong, but because you don't really have standing to complain.' Likewise, any time we have one of these big devolve-into-bickering threads, both sides end up walking away considering the other side crybabies.

Max_Killjoy has made his gaming position very clear -- he is coming back to D&D gaming, and not sure he really likes 5e, but is giving it a go. I agree that in some ways he's trying to convert a minivan into an ambulance and complaining about the constraints (when ambulances exist for sale), but he's been straightforward about what he's trying to accomplish the whole time.

[Xetheral]

You're right, I can see how that could come off as exclusionary, although that wasn't my intention. To refine that statement, I don't think that 5e was designed for an abilities>archetypes style of character building and if that's what I wanted I'd use a system designed with that in mind. If using 5e this way works for some people that's great! It is wonderful that the game can bring joy to all sorts of groups and playstyles. But for this playstyle in particular I more often see frustration that the system doesn't work quite the way they wanted.

Thank you for refining your statement! I disagree that 5e was specifically designed to promote one approach to character building over any other (and I think the intent of the designers is, in any case, less relevant than how the product is used in the wild), but there is plenty of room for us to disagree on that point.

Thanks again--I really appreciate that you took the time to respond to my objection.

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed. It's totally fine not to like archetypes and classes. It's not fine to claim that those are a flaw or secondary when they're entirely primary to the game. It's like complaining that Train Simulator 2019 doesn't have enough tanks or shooting in it. It's defying the entire premise of the title.

Shoehorning in characters that don't fit into a setting or system is a problem for the doer, not the system. Sure, you can bend a lot of premises. But the core ones (in this case the centrality of strong fantasy archetypes and adventuring)? Doing so just results in a broken mess. And I've seen other people then blame the game for the mess that results, when they broke it by discarding the core.

I'm allergic to people wanting to recreate a character they've imagined in detail, whether original or from some other medium. Or even another edition of D&D, although that's more acceptable. Recreate themes and broad brushstrokes? Fine. Exactly model the character, including backstory and power-set? That does violence to the system and to any settings its employed in. D&D is not, nor is it designed to be, a generic fantasy character emulation engine. Especially in 5e, it's a (relatively) focused game about strong archetypes going on fantasy adventures that involve combat, exploration, traps, and cooperation between people (whether PCs or NPCs). A non-combatant or non-adventurer is not a valid 5e PC. In fact, they're the very definition of an NPC.

Who's arguing in favor of non-combatants or non-adventurers as valid PCs?

(I have, in the recent past, nearly railed against players trying to play an NPC as their PC, regardless of system or setting or campaign.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, it's helped me.
---
But to me - looking at only the mechanics (including features of Backgrounds, and stats) and manipulating them to get the most raw power, and ignoring the story/history of the PC is power gaming. (I don't expect a novel’s worth of History, especially for a first level PC)


As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

[Great Dragon]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

Indeed.
********
Question about mixing class Features:

Would it be possible for someone starting with Class/Subclass - but only wanting a specific ability from another class be allowed to take that as a feat close to the level of the target class's ability?

Like a Wizard that wanted Sneak Attack, giving up their 4th level ASI. If so, does SA stay at 1d6 or scale to level?

This would change the game, but still be close enough?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Who's arguing in favor of non-combatants or non-adventurers as valid PCs?

(I have, in the recent past, nearly railed against players trying to play an NPC as their PC, regardless of system or setting or campaign.)

That wasn't directed only at you, but at the many others who I've seen make the exact same claims in other occasions. You've been good about that part in these discussions, but you do tend to reject the core premise of D&D and then fault D&D for not accommodating your taste. Which is the rest of the issue.

Edit:

Question about mixing class Features:

Would it be possible for someone starting with Class/Subclass - but only wanting a specific ability from another class be allowed to take that as a feat close to the level of the target class's ability?

Like a Wizard that wanted Sneak Attack, giving up their 4th level ASI. If so, does SA stay at 1d6 or scale to level?

I would not allow that. Class features are "balanced" both thematically and holistically. Sneak attack doesn't have a fixed value that can be judged in isolation (and compared to a feat, for example). No class feature does. It only has value in context. For example, there's already a feat that grants a few battlemaster maneuvers and a couple superiority dice. It's routinely panned as not useful for anyone. Without the rest of the chassis, it's pointless. On the other hand, Magic Initiate gives you a heavily nerfed spell-casting ability (2 cantrips, one 1st level/day) and is widely considered one of the better feats.

[Xetheral]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

Echoing this, when I "optimize" a multiclass character I'm doing so to maximize the degree to which the mechanics and the concept reinforce each other, rather than for "raw power". This is a recursive process where I explore different mechanical combinations to try to best fit the concept and also tweak the concept to best fit the available mechanics. Oftentimes this will result in ultimately selecting between several dfferent takes on the same character, with me picking the mechanic/thematic combination that I think has the tightest fit (and thus will be the most fun for me to play).

[Pex]

Agreed. It's totally fine not to like archetypes and classes. It's not fine to claim that those are a flaw or secondary when they're entirely primary to the game. It's like complaining that Train Simulator 2019 doesn't have enough tanks or shooting in it. It's defying the entire premise of the title.

Shoehorning in characters that don't fit into a setting or system is a problem for the doer, not the system. Sure, you can bend a lot of premises. But the core ones (in this case the centrality of strong fantasy archetypes and adventuring)? Doing so just results in a broken mess. And I've seen other people then blame the game for the mess that results, when they broke it by discarding the core.

I'm allergic to people wanting to recreate a character they've imagined in detail, whether original or from some other medium. Or even another edition of D&D, although that's more acceptable. Recreate themes and broad brushstrokes? Fine. Exactly model the character, including backstory and power-set? That does violence to the system and to any settings its employed in. D&D is not, nor is it designed to be, a generic fantasy character emulation engine. Especially in 5e, it's a (relatively) focused game about strong archetypes going on fantasy adventures that involve combat, exploration, traps, and cooperation between people (whether PCs or NPCs). A non-combatant or non-adventurer is not a valid 5e PC. In fact, they're the very definition of an NPC.

It's equally not fine to say those who enjoy the various archetypes, class abilities, and the combinations that result through multiclassing are only interested in the numbers game of optimization power gaming. Not everyone is saying that, and I'm not even saying you said that, but there have been some and use that as a reason not to allow multiclassing. It's an old accusation that continuously happens that predates 5E by a long shot. It happened in 2E with people pooh-poohing those who had an 18 for their character. If it's not multiclassing it's using dice rolling for ability score generation or playing a particular race for a particular class or whatever means a player uses to have a character who is very good at something.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's equally not fine to say those who enjoy the various archetypes, class abilities, and the combinations that result through multiclassing are only interested in the numbers game of optimization power gaming. Not everyone is saying that, and I'm not even saying you said that, but there have been some and use that as a reason not to allow multiclassing. It's an old accusation that continuously happens that predates 5E by a long shot. It happened in 2E with people pooh-poohing those who had an 18 for their character. If it's not multiclassing it's using dice rolling for ability score generation or playing a particular race for a particular class or whatever means a player uses to have a character who is very good at something.

I wasn't discussing anything about numbers or multiclassing there. Just the basic point of archetypes themselves. You can have great mixed archetypes. Yes, even the dreaded Paladin/Warlock mix. You can play off archetypes, subverting or inverting them. But if you reject archetypes entirely, you're rejecting a core premise of 5e. And that never goes well.

I'm totally fine with multiclassing. My players don't, but not because they can't. They just choose not to. In large part because they built the character around the archetype, not tried to jam a pre-existing character into a foreign framework.

Heck, I play a very "kitchen sink" style. The only restrictions are as to races, as not all races have been discovered in the main play area yet. They're somewhere in the world, just not there. When a group discovers them and makes peaceful contact, they'll become playable.

[Corran]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.
In lack of a better phrase, I think this mentality (or at least, what I can imply from your quote) is part of the problem. Mechanically, there might be several ways one could go about bringing a character to life. One of them could be multiclassing. Under the assumption that multiclassing neither adds nor substracts anything substantial to and from the concept I have in mind, I don't consider it an inferior way to go about building my character. Why one may prefer it then? One reason could be that it leads to a more powerful character. Some people take issue with that (ie with someone enjoying and toying with the mechanical aspects of the game). Or they may even think that multiclassing always takes value away from the concept, somehow. That's their opinion and I respect it, however incomprehensible it is to me. And when they want to play their own characters, they are free to follow their own unwritten sacred rules (as we all do, I guess). Personal preferences and all. Anything further than this, and no matter how you dress it up, all I can personally see is a badwrongfun argument.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm sorry, what words did I try to put in whose mouth? You started with the "so-assertion-dishonestly-presented-as-a- question" form. The structure of your post, that I responded to, is dishonest rhetoric. (Perhaps a symptom of your frustration with the discussion so far ...)
Your words were this:

So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"? OK.

And if you want to claim that no such comments have been made, I'll be "happy" to go through the recent threads and quote them all here. Not sure what series of people may have made any such claim, and you are more than welcome to waste your time doing that. It does not help the multiclassing discussion at all (at this point).

I have a piece of advice for you: Play the game in front of you. If the game is Monopoly, don't try to play Chess. (Unless everyone else at the table is trying that same variant, in which case have at it and have fun!)

As to your frustration, as an experienced player: this edition of D&D attempted, in its structure, to lower the barriers to entry to this game, and by conesequence to the hobby. That leads to a structure that has classes and archetypes in it - that model has been successful before. What you are complaining about may be informed by your long experience with the RPG hobby, and thus your having no need for the "low barrier to entry feature" that is built into this edition of the game.

I've been playing RPGs for a long time too, off and on, and do not let such things frustrate me. I play the game in front of me.


As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, ... then we're good. We are in violent agreement on this. :smallsmile:

[Yunru]

Indeed.
********
Question about mixing class Features:

Would it be possible for someone starting with Class/Subclass - but only wanting a specific ability from another class be allowed to take that as a feat close to the level of the target class's ability?

Like a Wizard that wanted Sneak Attack, giving up their 4th level ASI. If so, does SA stay at 1d6 or scale to level?

This would change the game, but still be close enough?

The DMG happily advises you to swap class features as an when you want.

[2D8HP]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.


I enjoy playing multi-class 5e D&D characters, and I get wanting the customization possible with GURPS/HERO/Mutants & Masterminds type systems (though I find character creation to be too much of a chore), but other than power and ability limits what character concepts aren't really available with 5e?

Say I want to play a sneaky warrior with outdoor survival skills, and a bit of magical ability - an Outlander Background High Elf has you covered even without a Class yet as you get:

Cantrip (magic)

Stealth (sneaky)

Longbow proficiency (warrior)

Longsword proficiency (warrior)

Wanderer (outdoor survival)

"But I want to play a human!"

A third level Human Eldrich Knight Fighter with the Urchin background and survival skill nets similar goodies.

So what concepts don't we have single class?

[Max_Killjoy]

I enjoy playing multi-class 5e D&D characters, and I get wanting the customization possible with GURPS/HERO/Mutants & Masterminds type systems (though I find character creation to be too much of a chore), but other than power and ability limits what character concepts aren't really available with 5e?


This has been asked and answered quite a lot lately -- in this thread, the "homebrew cringe (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585772-Does-anyone-else-just-cringe-when-they-hear-quot-homebrew-quot)" thread, and the "thematic options (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?584826-Why-is-having-more-diverse-thematic-options-a-bad-thing)" thread.

[Corran]

So what concepts don't we have single class?
The skeleton of every concept can possibly be shoehorned in just 2 classes most likely.
Why have all of barbarian, fighter, paladin, rogue, ranger, when we can just have a fighter and just roleplay the extra sauce? Why do we have cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, wizard, when we could just have a class called magic user?
Sometimes a character idea is specific enough that it needs specific mechanical support. When making such a character, it is more important to have access to mechanics that help bring your concept to life, than forcing yourself in a pointless exercise to shoehorn your concept into a predetermined set of mechanics (that's what a class is). That aside, your question implies (and correct me if I am wrong on this one) that you find it problematic if someone can understand and wants to enjoy the mechanical side of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

The skeleton of every concept can possibly be shoehorned in just 2 classes most likely. Delta (http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/) was onto this some years ago, even though he also chose to include thieves as the 3rd class (http://www.oedgames.com/OED-PlayersRules-1.05.pdf). (Daniel Collins)

Sometimes a character idea is specific enough that it needs specific mechanical support. Which is kind of how cleric came to OD&D.

It is very easy to take a character concept and make it into bloat. Paladin and Ranger were two cases of that in their original package, as were dozens of "classes" and "character concepts" in Dragon Magazine for the first 10 years of its existence.

Because there are also a certain number of game balance constraints in the current idea of how to produce an RPG, that wide open "try anything" philosophy won't withstand those constraints for long.

The other issue is "does this character grow as the campaign grows" (D&D) or does it come preloaded? (Original Traveller for example)

[2D8HP]

The skeleton of every concept can possibly be shoehorned in just 2 classes most likely.
Why have all of barbarian, fighter, paladin, rogue, ranger, when we can just have a fighter and just roleplay the extra sauce?


Except for Paladin, all those classes nominally don't have magic (unless you get that ability to work magic from a racial bonus including a Feat with variant humans) and a case may be made that first level Paladins are still primarily mundane warriors, so sure.


Why do we have cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, wizard, when we could just have a class called magic user?


Sure, I'm down for that (and in the first version of D&D I played the only spell casters were Clerics and Magic-Users, and if they were no undead encountered to "turn" Clerics were pretty much a limited Fighter at first level as they didn't have spells), but people like different flavors of magic.


Sometimes a character idea is specific enough that it needs specific mechanical support. When making such a character, it is more important to have access to mechanics that help bring your concept to life, than forcing yourself in a pointless exercise to shoehorn your concept into a predetermined set of mechanics (that's what a class is).


But without already knowing the mechanics how do you have a concept that demands a specific mechanic?

In broad strokes (mostly uses swords or mostly uses sorcery) D&D already has options (and always did!).

Unless you have a rulebook that has billions of pages I can't see how to have mechanics for every minute concept, and I don't think many concepts would even exist divorced from looking at the available mechanics - how would one want this Druid feature, with that Warlock ability without having first seen them?


That aside, your question implies (and correct me if I am wrong on this one) that you find it problematic if someone can understand and wants to enjoy the mechanical side of the game.


Well if I do then I'd have to admonish myself 'cause my first reaction to reading the "Swashbuckler" sub-class features was "Hot Damn!".

[Man_Over_Game]

Except for Paladin, all those classes nominally don't have magic (unless you get that ability to work magic from a racial bonus including a Feat with variant humans) and a case may be made that first level Paladins are still primarily mundane warriors, so sure.




Sure, I'm down for that (and in the first version of D&D I played the only spell casters were Clerics and Magic-Users, and if they were no undead encountered to "turn" Clerics were pretty much a limited Fighter at first level as they didn't have spells), but people like different flavors of magic.




But without already knowing the mechanics how do you have a concept that demands a specific mechanic?

In broad strokes (mostly uses swords or mostly uses sorcery) D&D already has options (and always did!).

Unless you have a rulebook that has billions of pages I can't see how to have mechanics for every minute concept, and I don't think many concepts would even exist divorced from looking at the available mechanics - how would one want this Druid feature, with that Warlock ability without having first seen them?




Well if I do then I'd have to admonish myself 'cause my first reaction to reading the "Swashbuckler" sub-class features was "Hot Damn!".

I think there's really only like 2-3 "archetypes", and everything else is just a scale of one thing vs. another.

A Paladin is mostly just a Fighter with some light magic.
A Cleric is like a Paladin, but more magic than Fighter.
A Druid is mostly just a Cleric with a focus on Nature than Light.
There's not enough of a difference between Paladin and Fighter to make them separate classes, as well as Paladin and Cleric, but there is enough of a difference between Cleric and Fighter. Would a Fighter + Druid be much different than a Ranger?

I'd be interested to see something like this emulated in a system. Something like this:


Fighting

Savagery
Finesse
Ranged
Protector

Skill

Persuasion
Knowledge
Alchemy
Dexterity

Magic

Holy
Dark
Nature
Arcane


Level into specific selections of specific groups, then choose your abilities based on what thresholds you meet. Ranged Fighting + Arcane Magic basically makes you an Arcane Archer. Dark Magic + Protector Fighting would be a Conquest Paladin. Dark Magic + Persuasion Skill would be a Mastermind Rogue with some magic tied in.


Even with this 5 minute example, if you limited it so that you paired two options from different groups (so you can't have Holy and Dark magic), that still leaves 96 possibilities. 5e has 12 classes and about 6 subclasses each, leaving about 72 non-multiclass builds.

There's not a lot that can't really be emulated with a decent, modular system, and you can still keep things in a mechanically oriented, "classful" system. I don't think it'd take "billions" of pages. Just from these 12 you get almost 100 options, and that's with limiting things to pairs.

My point is, it doesn't have to be strictly locked in like 5e has it so that we can settle for the sake of balance, and it doesn't need to have a billion pages. It just needs to be planned out.


On another topic, does someone know of a TTRPG system that works something like this? I'd be very interested in finding out.

[KorvinStarmast]

On another topic, does someone know of a TTRPG system that works something like this? I'd be very interested in finding out. The one you are writing, surely? :smallbiggrin: Seeing it soon on a kickstarter near us, one hopes.

[Great Dragon]

The DMG happily advises you to swap class features as an when you want.

Where is that at?
I saw Monsters as NPCs, and Villain Options with Death Domain and Oathbreaker Paladin.



On another topic, does someone know of a TTRPG system that works something like this? I'd be very interested in finding out.


The one you are writing, surely? :smallbiggrin: Seeing it soon on a kickstarter near us, one hopes.

Plus one vote!

[2D8HP]

The DMG happily advises you to swap class features as an when you want.

Where is that at?
I saw Monsters as NPCs, and Villain Options with Death Domain and Oathbreaker Paladin...


I couldn't find it either with a quick skim of the DMG, but I did find:


"...As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual...

...Before you add a rule to your campaign, ask yourself two questions:

Will the rule improve the game?
Will my players like it?


If your confident that the smswer to both these questions is yes, then you have nothing to lose by giving it a try...

...No matter what a rules source, a rule serves you, not the other way around

Where have I seen something like that before?

Oh yes:

From Dungeons &Dragons vol. 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (1974)
page 36,


"AFTERWARD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing."


Same game, same most important rule:
The DM makes the rules.

[Tanarii]

Where is that at?

Page 285.

It most certainly does not say to do it as you want. It says to make sure the swap is just as appealing and just as effective across all three pillars. It does not, however, say to watch out for overpowering things.

SUBSTITUTING CLASS FEATURES
If one or more features of a given class don't exactly
fit the theme or tone of your campaign, you can pull them out of the class and replace them with new
ones. In doing so, you should strive to make sure
that the new options are just as appealing as the
ones you are removing, and that the substitute class features contribute to the class's effectiveness at social interaction, exploration, or combat just as well as those being replaced.
Ultimately, a class exists to help a player express a particular character concept, and any class feature you replace is also removing an aspect of that character. Substituting a class feature should be done only to fit a specific need for your campaign, or to appeal to a player trying to create a specific kind of character (perhaps one modeled after a character from a novel, TV series, comic book, or movie).

[BurgerBeast]

...If we're to be that basic then there's no point in having a discussion about anything. It's not enough to say the DM can do something. It's equally important to know why the DM does something. The discussion is about people's opinions about the why.

It’s not that we’re being basic about it. It’s that it is purely a matter of taste. This is true regardless of how we choose to be about it.

So it’s not that there’s no point in discussing any thing. It’s that there’s no point in discussing this kind of thing.

Knowing why the DM likes tomatoes is not going to tell me whether my players like tomatoes. Discussing why other players like tomatoes is not going to change the way tomatoes taste to me.

Plenty of topics are not like this. This topic, however, is like this. How many character options you think should be available, and the variety of those options that you think should be available, are matters of taste.

[Corran]

It’s not that we’re being basic about it. It’s that it is purely a matter of taste. This is true regardless of how we choose to be about it.

So it’s not that there’s no point in discussing any thing. It’s that there’s no point in discussing this kind of thing.

Knowing why the DM likes tomatoes is not going to tell me whether my players like tomatoes. Discussing why other players like tomatoes is not going to change the way tomatoes taste to me.

Plenty of topics are not like this. This topic, however, is like this. How many character options you think should be available, and the variety of those options that you think should be available, are matters of taste.
It's slightly more complicated than that. The analogy would be that I for example don't like tomatoes, so no one at my house gets to eat tomatoes. Now, there might be a good reason why no one at my house shouldn't eat tomatoes, but not liking eating tomatoes myself is not a good reason, or at least that's what is being argued.

Analogies aside, restricting player options does make sense a lot of times. For example, a DM might not want their players to play evil characters because that might hurt the campaign. That could be for example because the DM has imagined of a story that works a lot better for heroes than for villains. Or simply because the DM has no interest in playing a game where he would be forced to have the game world interact with the pc's in certain ways, such as having to play the authorities chasing after the murderhobo pc's. To me, something like that is very understandable. I am looking to hear for reasons as to why something similar should hold for say, multiclass characters. To be honest, I don't think there are any compelling reasons for that, and I think that asking a lot of ''why'' is the best way to make an absurd position collapse in on itself.

[Great Dragon]

My, I'm long-winded!!

Thank you, 2D8HP. (No, really).

But like was posted:

A DM with no players is, at best, an author.

@Tanarii - thanks, I'll check it out.
But reading what you placed, it seems more like “change something in a class with another thing that makes sense."

Not "crossing the Class streams".
The Feat-trade was the closest I could think of for getting that.


Players have fewer options so either accept one of the few available DMs, with that DM’s conditions, or become a DMthemselves.

Part of the problem is that a lot of players don't want to be the DM.

They feel intimidated by the 'expectatons' that a lot of media sites (Critical Role, etc) cause.

They see being the DM as doing a lot of work, and that just being a player is 'more fun'. {Which is fine}

I do my best to encourage people to try being a DM - and give as many tips and shortcuts as possible, including referring them to this Forum.
----
Noticed some things that I have overlooked.



1. All oaths don't have gods.
Which is why I put it like “(gods)”.


2. The hexblade is a completely alignment neutral patron.
Again, that's dependent on the DM.
Only if they have no-one/nothing other than The Raven Queen....
Remember that the Black Razor is Sentient and Evil. The DM determines the creator, and it might not be something the Character would really have a way to know about.


3. Nowhere is the cost of the pact discussed. "Selling your soul" is just setting up one specific example in an attempt to ignore other case, because they contain examples that logically work.
Even without ”selling your soul”, your dedicating yourself to something in a similar manner to an Oath. The idea behind Paladins and Warlocks is that making an Oath not only grants power, but is binding.


4. Let's say the Paladin does worship a god, and gets to interact with them:

Random god: I see you have offered your services to the blade in exchange for power?
Paladin: Well yeah, it didn't have any goals that don't align with mine, and the most it's asked of me is to kill undead when I see them which is what I already do.
/Conversation
And how about:
Deity: “And how, exactly, is the power that I grant you not enough?”
Or
“Are you aware that the weapon in question was made by a being that, while not directly opposed, is not in alignment with either my ideals, my duties, nor my goals?”
-----

Even with small allowances for PC being indeviduals, that still means all NPCs of all civilized races, so elves, dwarves, human, halfling, rich and poor, east coast to west coast, all agree on how to dress based on just class but archetype?
For those that intermingle in the Trade Cities, mostly. Back "home" the 'dress code' might be different for each Race. Some might copy from another Culture/Race, with some changes made. The difference between rich and poor is usually the type and quality of materials.
(I encourage the Players to add/invent these things. It helps me, and let's them feel more connected to my Game World. Anyone here can also jump in The Old Keep in World Building, or PM me)


And how will they know I'm an illusionist casting the occasional necromantic spell and not a necromancer casting the occsional illusionist spell?

I’d say: by all the real Undead following the Necromancer around? Sure, the Illusionist can know and cast Create Undead, but will these most likely not look as “nice” as the Necromancer's.
(Showing the Necromancer's abilities to enhance the undead they create)
---

Originally Posted by Great Dragon
If everyone is the same, how do the PCs stand out as Heroes?


By their deeds and actions.

Um, you mean like how Hercules was really mostly only remembered by the Deeds he did with his Divine given Strength - And not that it took some time for him to stop being a self-centered jerk?
---

[Corran]

Delta (http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/) was onto this some years ago, even though he also chose to include thieves as the 3rd class (http://www.oedgames.com/OED-PlayersRules-1.05.pdf). (Daniel Collins)
Which is kind of how cleric came to OD&D.

It is very easy to take a character concept and make it into bloat. Paladin and Ranger were two cases of that in their original package, as were dozens of "classes" and "character concepts" in Dragon Magazine for the first 10 years of its existence.
Agreed. A couple of years ago I would furiously argue about this and I would defend bloat to be good customization, but I've changed my mind about this. Yet, what seems like bloat to you might not necessarily seem bloat to me. I started playing dnd with 3e, and I have no experience whatsoever with the previous editions. So while I can understand that some people might even see several of the present classes as bloat, I only see the warlock as such. And that's not necessarily because the warlock fills less of a niche than a lot of the other classes, but it's probably because when I started playing there was no warlock on the phb. Thanks for the links btw, I'll have a look at them eventually.


Because there are also a certain number of game balance constraints in the current idea of how to produce an RPG, that wide open "try anything" philosophy won't withstand those constraints for long.
And if or when multiclassing breaks balance, then I agree that it's a good reason to ban it. I don't think that multiclassing is the source of any serious imbalance, but that's personal opinion and beside the point. The point is that I agree that if multiclassing causes balance issues then it's a very good decision to ban it.


The other issue is "does this character grow as the campaign grows" (D&D) or does it come preloaded? (Original Traveller for example)
Having a good idea about how you want your character to grow is ok by me. If you have a good idea about how you will mechanically support that, that's fine too as far as I am concerned. Granted, I have never played a character that wasn't influenced at least to a small extent by the campain itself, whether it's the story or the other players.




Except for Paladin, all those classes nominally don't have magic (unless you get that ability to work magic from a racial bonus including a Feat with variant humans) and a case may be made that first level Paladins are still primarily mundane warriors, so sure.
So do we agree that the machanics of the game can be important to realizing a concept?


But without already knowing the mechanics how do you have a concept that demands a specific mechanic?

In broad strokes (mostly uses swords or mostly uses sorcery) D&D already has options (and always did!).

Unless you have a rulebook that has billions of pages I can't see how to have mechanics for every minute concept, and I don't think many concepts would even exist divorced from looking at the available mechanics - how would one want this Druid feature, with that Warlock ability without having first seen them?
It can happen. Imagining a character does not necessarily exclude imagining some of the powers this character will use. Many dnd features are not exclusive to dnd culture. For example, I might want to play a character that has the ability to turn invisible before even knowing if invisibility is something that can be achieved in dnd (in which case we are probably talking about a new player). But imo, timing is not important. An idea for a character can sometimes start by looking at mechanical features of the game, and this is not a silly argument that I just happened to have heard, but something that I have experienced. It's an unconventional way of thinking of a character, but I don't think it can predetermine how much I will like the character in question.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yet, what seems like bloat to you might not necessarily seem bloat to me. I started playing dnd with 3e Yeah, our frame of reference differs; but to be fair, a lot of us gobbled up the early bloat like Halloween candy. We wanted to try all kinds of different cool ideas, and balance for its own sake wasn't that big of a concern since the RAW fetish that seemed to come with the 3e hadn't developed at that point. DM tweaking of bloaty things was expected and common. Every game was a custom game, to a certain extent.

And if or when multiclassing breaks balance, then I agree that it's a good reason to ban it. I don't think that multiclassing is the source of any serious imbalance, but that's personal opinion and beside the point. The point is that I agree that if multiclassing causes balance issues then it's a very good decision to ban it. Seems a rational position; I am not a "ban MC" sort; I like what 5e has tried to do with it. My core objection the 5e (and 3e for that matter) is Charisma based casters, and for 5e Warlocks should be int based casters, but that horse left the barn a long time ago.


Having a good idea about how you want your character to grow is ok by me. If you have a good idea about how you will mechanically support that, that's fine too as far as I am concerned. Granted, I have never played a character that wasn't influenced at least to a small extent by the campain itself, whether it's the story or the other players. I totally like that way of character development plays out (italicized bit). The character grows with the adventures ...

Something I don't try to do in D&D is take a character from a movie, book, tv show, what have you, and try to make it for D&D. I am not sure how to explain this, but to me and for me, every D&D character I have ever made was, and is, organic to being a D&D character. If it resembles a different kind of character from another genre, fine, but that's never been a character goal of mine.

[Imbalance]

I think there's really only like 2-3 "archetypes", and everything else is just a scale of one thing vs. another.

A Paladin is mostly just a Fighter with some light magic.
A Cleric is like a Paladin, but more magic than Fighter.
A Druid is mostly just a Cleric with a focus on Nature than Light.
There's not enough of a difference between Paladin and Fighter to make them separate classes, as well as Paladin and Cleric, but there is enough of a difference between Cleric and Fighter. Would a Fighter + Druid be much different than a Ranger?

I'd be interested to see something like this emulated in a system. Something like this:


Fighting

Savagery
Finesse
Ranged
Protector

Skill

Persuasion
Knowledge
Alchemy
Dexterity

Magic

Holy
Dark
Nature
Arcane


Level into specific selections of specific groups, then choose your abilities based on what thresholds you meet. Ranged Fighting + Arcane Magic basically makes you an Arcane Archer. Dark Magic + Protector Fighting would be a Conquest Paladin. Dark Magic + Persuasion Skill would be a Mastermind Rogue with some magic tied in.


Even with this 5 minute example, if you limited it so that you paired two options from different groups (so you can't have Holy and Dark magic), that still leaves 96 possibilities. 5e has 12 classes and about 6 subclasses each, leaving about 72 non-multiclass builds.

There's not a lot that can't really be emulated with a decent, modular system, and you can still keep things in a mechanically oriented, "classful" system. I don't think it'd take "billions" of pages. Just from these 12 you get almost 100 options, and that's with limiting things to pairs.

My point is, it doesn't have to be strictly locked in like 5e has it so that we can settle for the sake of balance, and it doesn't need to have a billion pages. It just needs to be planned out.


On another topic, does someone know of a TTRPG system that works something like this? I'd be very interested in finding out.

TT, no, but the above is not far from Skyrim's system, FWIW.

[Max_Killjoy]

Page 285.

SUBSTITUTING CLASS FEATURES
If one or more features of a given class don't exactly fit the theme or tone of your campaign, you can pull them out of the class and replace them with new
ones. In doing so, you should strive to make sure that the new options are just as appealing as the ones you are removing, and that the substitute class features contribute to the class's effectiveness at social interaction, exploration, or combat just as well as those being replaced.

Ultimately, a class exists to help a player express a particular character concept, and any class feature you replace is also removing an aspect of that character. Substituting a class feature should be done only to fit a specific need for your campaign, or to appeal to a player trying to create a specific kind of character (perhaps one modeled after a character from a novel, TV series, comic book, or movie).


Huh.

"Ultimately, a class exists to help a player express a particular character concept"

Interesting.