Multiclassing/Dipping Shame

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I have a hang-up when it comes to playing multiclassed characters, especially ones where the multiclass is a dip for something like weapon proficiencies. Unless I'm in a game that has Prestige Classes, where multiclassing is the price of entry (both to take the class and often to meet its prerequisites as well), multiclassing feels "wrong" somehow. It isn't so bad if you're dividing the multiclass relatively evenly between a pair of classes, but most multiclassing I see seems to consist of dipping, just taking 1 level of the most combat-oriented class, either as your first or second level, and then moving as if that isn't a huge narrative whiplash, like "I labored and studied in a dank tower for decades to learn how to cast the magic missile I've been using. Now after a few weeks of fighting goblins I'm suddenly as trained and proficient as our warrior in swords and armor, and now I'm just going to go back to casting magic like nothing's happened."

Plus, it feels like a lot more games these days are written to encourage you NOT to multiclass, with abilities that scale as time goes by and shiny capstone abilities at 20th level. I get that the average campaign rarely, if ever, reaches that level of play and when they do, the capstone rarely sees much use beyond maybe the last few battles of the campaign and perhaps a nod in the roleplaying epilogue if it had some narrative value like "your character stops aging" or whatnot. But for classes that get those kinds of benefits, it feels really jarring, like you're giving up ultimate enlightenment, ostensibly the goal your character was striving for, oart of the reaso why they ARE that class in the first place, for some extra fighting "oomph" early on.

Most players and GMs just sort of accept this and gloss over those implications, but of late they've been really really bothering me, prompting me to come up with complicated builds and strategies JUST so the character doesn't have to multiclass, and I feel like something's wrong with ME that I can't just dip like a normal player. How do I get over this hang-up and stop feeling guilty for doing something that rationally is no big deal?

[Warder]

Eh, I think your feelings are pretty valid. I share them to a large extent - I see people talking about level 1 warlock dips as if it's the most natural thing in the world for a paladin to make strange pacts with extraplanar creatures and to not worry about it, but I do. If it doesn't make narrative sense, I don't multiclass. I've done the paladin/sorcerer thing in the early days of 5e, but that was a Favored Soul UA sorcerer taking oaths as a paladin, which made sense at the time. I know a lot of people create a narrative after they've decided to multiclass, but it often feels incredibly hamfisted to me so I really can't take that approach for my own characters.

I don't feel bad about it, though - 5e has so few character creation choices and so little in terms of true threats to a character's longevity, so I'd rather make choices that I don't feel compromise my character's narrative, since I'll probably be "stuck" with them for a long time.

[Psyren]

Most players and GMs just sort of accept this and gloss over those implications, but of late they've been really really bothering me, prompting me to come up with complicated builds and strategies JUST so the character doesn't have to multiclass, and I feel like something's wrong with ME that I can't just dip like a normal player. How do I get over this hang-up and stop feeling guilty for doing something that rationally is no big deal?

No need - of all the 'hang-ups' you've posted about this is probably one of the mildest. Lots of people, myself included, find dip-frankenstein builds to be inelegant or undesirable; games like Pathfinder recognized this and baked incentives to avoid dipping into their system's very DNA, e.g. via the favored class system, archetypes, and later the variant multiclassing system. Wanting to avoid dipping isn't a cause for guilt.

[Mendicant]

I've never had an aversion to dipping because I don't see class levels as discrete accomplishments but rather a purely metagame layer over who the character "really" is that lets the character interact with the game world.

In other words, getting your first level in "scholar" isn't equivalent to finishing your PhD, it's just the mechanical way you describe someone who has a PhD. If they get their first scholar level at 2nd level, they didn't do their dissertation in the time between goblin slaying; it was either already done the whole time or was almost complete. The level basically just adds more pixels to the character portrait. You can solve the narrative disconnect in skills/features any number of ways, including just some cheerful mind caulk, bit it's a lot easier when you start at 3rd or 5th, which is pretty common in the 3.x systems that actually allow dipping.

[Telwar]

Yeah, I wouldn't really feel like it's a bad thing to not multiclass. I haven't so far in 5e, but that's because I didn't feel like it matched my concept or if I could make it work it wasn't worth the opportunity cost.

I also wouldn't feel guilty about multiclassing, either. Sure it's optional, but if WotC didn't want it, they could have just not printed it as an option. And there are legitimate concepts that are hard to do without it in this edition.

[Xervous]

I’ve been straying around in build point systems recently so it hasn’t really been a concern for anyone. And even when it comes to GMing class structured games they’re all just a bundle of widgets for expressing what my players and I agree on. If we all agree at the start that class is baked in with fluff and lore that’s how it works. If not, there’s little concern over what X/Y/Z is on the sheet, so long as it does what the player wants and can be understood by said player.

One player calling out another player on it? Whoever is breaking with the session 0 charter is the offender.

[OldTrees1]

How do I get over this hang-up and stop feeling guilty for doing something that rationally is no big deal?

If you want to "get over" this "hang-up" then it depends on what is causing it. It is okay to have preferences, even preferences about leveling.


It isn't so bad if you're dividing the multiclass relatively evenly between a pair of classes, but most multiclassing I see seems to consist of dipping, just taking 1 level of the most combat-oriented class, either as your first or second level, and then moving as if that isn't a huge narrative whiplash, like "I labored and studied in a dank tower for decades to learn how to cast the magic missile I've been using.


it feels really jarring, like you're giving up ultimate enlightenment, ostensibly the goal your character was striving for, part of the reason why they ARE that class in the first place, for some extra fighting "oomph" early on.


but of late they've been really really bothering me, prompting me to come up with complicated builds and strategies JUST so the character doesn't have to multiclass, and I feel like something's wrong with ME that I can't just dip like a normal player.

1) It sounds like, all else equal, you prefer a simpler solution. You are willing to make complicated single classed builds to avoid the complexity of multiclassing. You are more okay with ratio multiclassing (Fighter 5 / Wizard 15) than you are with dipping (Barbarian 3 / Paladin 2 / Wizard 15).

2) It sounds like you see classes as narrative units. You see narrative whiplash. You feel the capstones are part of the reason why characters are that class. Etc.


1) Personally I share that first issue. I don't like dipping. I can only do it as part of building a class that was not printed. For example in 5E I had a Knowledge Cleric 1 / Arcane Trickster 11 character. That character was a Dungeon Tour Guide but their ideal class would be a Rogue with some minor protection and stealth magic. There was no Divine Trickster class so I made one. But that is part of the point of multiclassing mechanics. A developer can't write 100 classes but they can write 12 classes. It is okay to prefer a simpler solution, although sometimes multiclassing is the simpler solution. Imagine trying to make an Eldrtich Knight without multiclassing in AD&D.

2) My easy fix for this is: Classes don't exist in the fiction. They are not narrative units. They are examples of training the character could obtain. The new guild thief is not signing up to be a Rogue because Rogue gets a capstone. Instead the player is giving them Rogue levels to represent the abilities they learned. Or maybe Monk levels are more appropriate for the kind of training this scrappy thief received on the streets. The guild thief monk 3 is not "striving" to become some ageless entity that can have their soul leave their body. That guild thief monk 3 is striving to escape the guards and remain a useful member of the guild. So at some point the N+1th level of Monk is not representative of this particular slugger. A Monk X / Rogue Y would probably make more sense (especially if interleaved).

So to get over this second issue, create a character, know their capabilities, and then try to model them using the available classes. You are more likely to break the mold, but you are more likely to be okay with it. The designers can't print a class for every character, but they can allow multiclassing. I imagined a protector with a twisted idealism that shield their allies and always had reserves of healing/restorative/reviving magic. The 5E Paladin class was a start but it focused too much on smiting (and novas to run out of slots) instead of sustained reserved magic. I ended up using Warlock to help accentuate the twisted ideal and to adjust the spellcasting to lower bandwidth but deeper reserves. So I had a Paladin 11 / Warlock 5.

[Willie the Duck]

of late they've been really really bothering me, prompting me to come up with complicated builds and strategies JUST so the character doesn't have to multiclass

I've never had an aversion to dipping because I don't see class levels as discrete accomplishments but rather a purely metagame layer over who the character "really" is that lets the character interact with the game world.

Lots of people, myself included, find dip-frankenstein builds to be inelegant or undesirable;

I kind of agree with all of this -- in most of the current game systems*, there is nothing wrong with dipping because the classes and levels have been so divorced from a narrative function that grabbing any class when you level is an act of picking something for the mechanical benefits; but if the system makes me feel like I have to, then I consider it a less well-designed system.
*Back in AD&D (I will use the 2e terminology, as people are usually more familiar with it), I think dual- and multi-classing was more consistent with themes (although limiting one to humans and the other to non-humans was just Gary being weird) -- you either were trying to advance in 2-3 fields at once and thus doing so more slowly; or you started doing one thing, decided to change careers, went back to square one, and went on with the new career.

[Anonymouswizard]

As far as I can tell Modern class systems are moving towards dipping as the only Multiclassing, outright banning it, it having new classes replace the old. It's all about archetype enforcement, one of the bih pluses about class systems, and one of things I miss admit point buy.

I recently picked up the Alien RPG Street having been impressed with Coriolis, and liked how classes in Alien are more restrive. Both only let you put your class Attribute up to five dice, and limit how you can spend your starting skill points, but in Alien the three Talents you get to pick between at the start are exclusive to your class. If you're a Medic you can begin play as a field surgeon, but a Colonial Marine just can't take it. No Multiclassing, even though most Talents are in a general list your archetype is protected.

So I'd argue that this isn't a problem. There's no need for Multiclassing to be a thing, and as long as the system is well designed not engaging in it won't be a problem.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

No need - of all the 'hang-ups' you've posted about this is probably one of the mildest. Lots of people, myself included, find dip-frankenstein builds to be inelegant or undesirable; games like Pathfinder recognized this and baked incentives to avoid dipping into their system's very DNA, e.g. via the favored class system, archetypes, and later the variant multiclassing system. Wanting to avoid dipping isn't a cause for guilt.
I really do like how Pathfinder 2e addressed this by making multiclassing feel more like a supplement for the character's path rather than a detour on it.

If you want to "get over" this "hang-up" then it depends on what is causing it. It is okay to have preferences, even preferences about leveling.

1) It sounds like, all else equal, you prefer a simpler solution. You are willing to make complicated single classed builds to avoid the complexity of multiclassing. You are more okay with ratio multiclassing (Fighter 5 / Wizard 15) than you are with dipping (Barbarian 3 / Paladin 2 / Wizard 15).

2) It sounds like you see classes as narrative units. You see narrative whiplash. You feel the capstones are part of the reason why characters are that class. Etc.

1) Personally I share that first issue. I don't like dipping. I can only do it as part of building a class that was not printed. For example in 5E I had a Knowledge Cleric 1 / Arcane Trickster 11 character. That character was a Dungeon Tour Guide but their ideal class would be a Rogue with some minor protection and stealth magic. There was no Divine Trickster class so I made one. But that is part of the point of multiclassing mechanics. A developer can't write 100 classes but they can write 12 classes. It is okay to prefer a simpler solution, although sometimes multiclassing is the simpler solution. Imagine trying to make an Eldrtich Knight without multiclassing in AD&D.

2) My easy fix for this is: Classes don't exist in the fiction. They are not narrative units. They are examples of training the character could obtain. The new guild thief is not signing up to be a Rogue because Rogue gets a capstone. Instead the player is giving them Rogue levels to represent the abilities they learned. Or maybe Monk levels are more appropriate for the kind of training this scrappy thief received on the streets. The guild thief monk 3 is not "striving" to become some ageless entity that can have their soul leave their body. That guild thief monk 3 is striving to escape the guards and remain a useful member of the guild. So at some point the N+1th level of Monk is not representative of this particular slugger. A Monk X / Rogue Y would probably make more sense (especially if interleaved).

So to get over this second issue, create a character, know their capabilities, and then try to model them using the available classes. You are more likely to break the mold, but you are more likely to be okay with it. The designers can't print a class for every character, but they can allow multiclassing. I imagined a protector with a twisted idealism that shield their allies and always had reserves of healing/restorative/reviving magic. The 5E Paladin class was a start but it focused too much on smiting (and novas to run out of slots) instead of sustained reserved magic. I ended up using Warlock to help accentuate the twisted ideal and to adjust the spellcasting to lower bandwidth but deeper reserves. So I had a Paladin 11 / Warlock 5.
That's sort of the thing: sometimes dipping IS the simpler solution. Starfinder, for example, has 10 classes at the moment, and 9 of them can be improved by dipping into the Soldier class at 2nd level to gain proficiency with literally all types of weapons and armor, and then resuming with your 1st level class for the remainder of your character's career. Even the combat-heavy vanguard which was designed to be an alternative to the Soldier can benefit from this, as the proficiencies allow them to use better guns than they'd otherwise have access to. Many of the classes have features that grant extra proficiencies at later levels, like the mechanic's exocortex feature or the biohacker's injection expert feature, or the Spell Sergeant archetype any spellcasting class can take, and of course you can just purchase proficiency with a feat, but taking a level of Soldier is simply more efficient because you don't have to wait till 7th or 9th level to get access to them. But unlike Pathfinder, where you could take a level of Fighter as a wizard or cleric and still have access to the most powerful spells your class can cast, in SF those spells are specifically tied to their respective class' capstone ability. A technomancer who takes a level of soldier to get heavy armor and better guns will never be able to cast wish. The only class that DOESN'T benefit from dipping into Soldier is...Soldier itself, since you're not multiclassing at all.

The reason I'm more comfortable with "ratio multiclassing" as you say is that most Prestige Classes, which is primarily why I multiclass at all, require being at a certain attack bonus or caster level to even qualify, and in those instances often the Prestige Class is meant to sort of synthesize the two, which can be done well like with the Eldritch Knight, or badly, like with the Mystic Theurge. But there's still a narrative reason for it: "I mastered both of these methodologies to create something greater than the sum of its parts!"

[Frogreaver]

Only time I have a problem with this is when certain classes carry some fairly strong Roleplay Baggage.

It's easy enough to play a religious fighter that later dips into cleric.
It's easy enough to play a Fighter that dips rogue a bit later.

What's harder to justify due to the baggage is taking a good cleric and then dipping infernal warlock. It's fiction so some solution can be imagined. But the more effort you have to put into imagining a reasonable solution, the harder it is to feel good about the multiclass mix.

It's similar to the issue of Eldritch Knights suddenly learning battle magic at level 3. You can make it work narratively (I had been studying this). But when you go from no casting to casting in a matter of days or weeks and at most months of the game time it feels a little strange.

This is probably why I prefer much flatter leveling systems that don't grant a bunch of new powers but instead build up on your characters previous themes. Features like level bonus to attack rolls tend to work well.

[OldTrees1]

That's sort of the thing: sometimes dipping IS the simpler solution.

Sometimes dipping is the simpler solution. However that does not seem to be your only source of dislike. Those conflicting desires might be causing your doubt. There is nothing wrong with you.


I really do like how Pathfinder 2e addressed this by making multiclassing feel more like a supplement for the character's path rather than a detour on it.


But unlike Pathfinder, where you could take a level of Fighter as a wizard or cleric and still have access to the most powerful spells your class can cast, in SF those spells are specifically tied to their respective class' capstone ability. A technomancer who takes a level of soldier to get heavy armor and better guns will never be able to cast wish.


The reason I'm more comfortable with "ratio multiclassing" as you say is that most Prestige Classes, which is primarily why I multiclass at all, require being at a certain attack bonus or caster level to even qualify, and in those instances often the Prestige Class is meant to sort of synthesize the two, which can be done well like with the Eldritch Knight, or badly, like with the Mystic Theurge. But there's still a narrative reason for it: "I mastered both of these methodologies to create something greater than the sum of its parts!"


Why frame it as a detour? Why focus on features the character was never going to have? The technomancer that decided to take a level of soldier did not lose the ability to cast wish, rather they were never going to learn it.

You view multiclass prestige classes as mastering both methodologies. Some of the time that is true. Other times it is the character mastering their own methodology that does not map neatly to the existing classes. However the designers allowed enough multiclassing options so you could create their 1-20 class via multiclassing existing classes.

Most of Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide's methodology overlaps with the early levels of 5E Rogue. However that overlap does not last forever. Levels 16-20 of Rogue don't suit Dun's methodology. To be fair, this is exacerbated a bit by Reliable Talent from Rogue 11 being Dun's capstone feature (even if they get it early). If I want to create a Dungeon Tour Guide class for Dun, I would need to consider multiclassing. Just like there are features of Rogue that do not fit as features of a Dungeon Tour Guide, there are features that fit a Dungeon Tour Guide that are not features of Rogue. Sure by multiclassing Dun would never get the Rogue 20th feature Stroke of Luck, however Dun was never going to get Stroke of Luck. Multiclassing was not a detour, but remaining a Rogue would have been a detour.

Of course even if you frame the methodology as being character based rather than class based, multiclassing will not be ubiquitous and dips will still be rare. However this shift in perspective can help you accept some multiclassing that you wish you could accept.


On the other hand, I want to remind you that it is okay to have preferences. You are not broken. Even if your character concept requires a complicated single classed build vs a simple multiclass build, it is okay to have an aversion to multiclassing.


PS: The Soldier dip in Starfinder sounds like an efficient dip, but it does not sound like a thematic dip. If a dip does not match the character concept, then I don't think I would count it as the simpler solution. In 5E many classes could benefit from Fighter 2, but very few characters would benefit from Fighter 2. An aversion to that dip sounds normal to me.

[Glorthindel]

I feel it is an issue when one of the classes has a considerable roleplay component, but the dip is done purely for mechanical purposes - Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and others, have significant roleplay requirements, that I don't like seeing brushed over in search of a particular level 1 ability.

I definitely have sympathy where a particular character concept can only be constructed with multiclassing, but I do sometime raise an eyebrow if this is claimed frivolously (no, there is absolutely no character concept that requires you to dip Warlock for Hex Warrior, your concept is not damaged by you having to use Str or Dex to hit instead of your maxxed Cha!).

[icefractal]

D&D is pretty ambiguous about how specific classes are, with some being pretty distinctive and others being so general it's hard to imagine them as an in-setting concept.

So YMMV, but for most games I consider the classes to be a mechanical representation of your capabilities, but not inherently recognizable IC. No, you can't tell that guy is a Fighter. He's a buff-looking guy wearing armor, with an axe on his back, so probably has some melee skills, but who knows what exactly? You see him fight, you could get an idea of his skill and maybe recognize some maneuvers, but "Fighter 10" will never appear in glowing letters above him. Certain skills are recognizable, because they're specifically a standardized system, like Wizardry, or Nine-Swords Maneuvers. But even then, all you know is "this person uses wizardry, and the strongest spell I've seen them cast is Dimension Door", not their class(es), not their total level.

From that perspective, since people aren't limited to specified paths of study, the combination of skills that some characters have may be better represented by multiple classes than a single one. Someone who was trained as an assassin might be best represented as a Monk/Rogue, but that doesn't mean they switched back and forth between two paths, it means their single path contains a mixture of the skills associated with a Monk and with a Rogue.

[King of Nowhere]

Fluff is your tool. Fluff can be arranged. You don't have to be a slave to the book's fluff.
Say you are a good cleric and you dip warlock; ok, it makes no sense, right?
But you can have it make sense. Say that instead of making a pact with a demon you made a pact with an angel to get the same effect. Refluff as appropriate, swap good with evil on some descriptions.
Or perhaps you can take levels of warlock and call yourself a cleric, and just say your divine magic works this way. The warlock powers are not granted by a demon, but directly by your god, in place of normal spells.

The whole thread seems like a stormwind fallacy applied to builds.

Oh, and i prefer the option to dip. I used to think otherwise in the past, but after you already did the main classes, being able to rearrange them keeps things fresh.
Whether you use that for powergaming, exploration, enhanced customization, is enterely up to you

[MoiMagnus]

Fluff is your tool. Fluff can be arranged. You don't have to be a slave to the book's fluff.

Mechanics can be arranged too. Why dip when you could homebrew your main class (or just one feat) to add what you need for your character concept?
It's not like dipping in other classes was known to be perfectly and carefully balanced, you're likely to create something more balanced by homebrewing than by multiclassing for single dips.

[Anonymouswizard]

D&D is pretty ambiguous about how specific classes are, with some being pretty distinctive and others being so general it's hard to imagine them as an in-setting concept.

Less ambiguous, more inconsistent. The must consistent editions are probably BECM (classes are based on archetypes, witch does lead to race as class) and AD&D 2e (each class group has one generic option and one or more more specific choices). I think AD&D2e was really into something when it moved to Class+Kit, and if you have me 2e today and told me to make 3e I'd redone Multiclassing and Dualclassing to focus on Kits.


Anyway, I'll also note that there are some people who view Multiclassing as a sign of min-maxing, and this board's tendency to towards TO means that we're more likely to talk about powerful multiclass options over doing it for flavour. And while fluff is less solid then mechanics, consistency means that you should think about if it's weird for two characters to use the same mechanics.

Or just ovary 13th Age or the like.

[Morty]

Plus, it feels like a lot more games these days are written to encourage you NOT to multiclass, with abilities that scale as time goes by and shiny capstone abilities at 20th level.

I don't know about that, since most games don't have classes. If they do have something you could call classes, they don't have levels of anything like multiclassing.

That aside, being reluctant to multiclass is perfectly understandable. D&D multiclassing is a Rube Goldberg device of a mechanic, meant to cobble a uniquely constrained system into something flexible. It's sensible to avoid the hassle and just play strong archetypes in a game that's supposedly meant to emphasize them.

[King of Nowhere]

Mechanics can be arranged too. Why dip when you could homebrew your main class (or just one feat) to add what you need for your character concept?
It's not like dipping in other classes was known to be perfectly and carefully balanced, you're likely to create something more balanced by homebrewing than by multiclassing for single dips.

yes indeed. I've done that too. both refluff and homebrew have their uses.
However, it is generally easier to make a dm accept a refluff than a homebrew.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My easy fix for this is: Classes don't exist in the fiction. They are not narrative units. They are examples of training the character could obtain.
Very much this. "Classes" are just conveniently pre-packaged archetypes; "multiclassing" is just building your own concept piece by piece. You don't introduce yourself as a Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer monstrosity, you say "I'm a shadow warrior." You're an X, slowly increasing in power, just like everyone else.

[Anonymouswizard]

However, it is generally easier to make a dm accept a refluff than a homebrew.

Sadly true, partially due to the unfortunate tendency for homebrew to end up on the 'too powerful side' (sometimes intentionally, often not). Refluffing isn't my preferred option, and I'm personally willing to work on homebrewing a new option with a player, but many aren't.

I'll note that some of my favourite ideas have come from playing existing fluff as strictly as possible and finding the wiggle room in it (the genasi Warlock who made a pact with their parent and carries them around in their vessel), and finding fun builds within limits. But sometimes refluffing to make a more powerful build is better.

Actually, said genasi Warlock actually dips Fighter for Action Surge and medium armour proficiency (and might go all the way to give levels if I ever get to play them), and their Pact of the Blade feature has some minor refluffing going on (they don't have a special shifting weapon, their mum just throws whatever they ask for out of the kettle). It's kind of the exception to my tendency not to multiclass.

[Ettina]

Very much this. "Classes" are just conveniently pre-packaged archetypes; "multiclassing" is just building your own concept piece by piece. You don't introduce yourself as a Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer monstrosity, you say "I'm a shadow warrior." You're an X, slowly increasing in power, just like everyone else.

There is such a thing as narrative multiclassing for some characters, and it can be a cool story, but mechanical multiclassing doesn't require narrative multiclassing (or vice versa in some cases - eg grabbing a 1/3 caster subclass in 5e like arcane trickster or eldritch knight can be treated like multiclassing in the narrative, even though you're a single-classed rogue or fighter).

For example, compare two sorcerer/warlock characters we've had at our gaming table.

Thisku is a yuan-ti divine soul sorcerer/hexblade warlock. Thisku's parents were cultists looking to summon up some world-destroying being, and a powerful celestial stepped in to stop them, killing them in the process. The immense power of that being altered Thisku, giving him a fraction of that being's power, and the trauma of that experience gave him nightmares. He later contacted a very different sort of being and made a deal with it to a) help him gain power instead of losing power from sleep deprivation (he's what's known as a "sleepless sorclock", who tries to avoid taking long rests in order to store up more and more spells with font of magic), and b) eventually make him capable of avenging his parents' death. Thisku is both narratively and mechanically a multiclass character.

In contrast, Aeryn is an aasimar divine soul sorcerer/celestial warlock. As an aasimar, Aeryn was born with innate divine power and a link to a celestial guide. Both her divine soul and celestial warlock abilities come from her innate divine ability, guided by the instruction of the celestial being that watches over her and communicates with her in her dreams. Aeryn is mechanically multiclass, but narratively, both classes and her race are all reflections of a single unified theme in her character's abilities - she's just an aasimar who is really good at being an aasimar.

[OldTrees1]

There is such a thing as narrative multiclassing for some characters, and it can be a cool story, but mechanical multiclassing doesn't require narrative multiclassing (or vice versa in some cases - eg grabbing a 1/3 caster subclass in 5e like arcane trickster or eldritch knight can be treated like multiclassing in the narrative, even though you're a single-classed rogue or fighter).

For example, compare two sorcerer/warlock characters we've had at our gaming table.

Thisku is both narratively and mechanically a multiclass character.

Aeryn is mechanically multiclass, but narratively, both classes and her race are all reflections of a single unified theme in her character's abilities - she's just an aasimar who is really good at being an aasimar.

Good examples.

To elaborate and expand further: Even in cases of narrative multiclassing, the narrative "classes" might not be 1:1 with the mechanical classes used.

Dun the Dungeon Tour Guide could be considered a narratively a Priest / Expert multiclass despite being mechanically a Cleric / Arcane Trickster multiclass.

Lux the ex Guild Thief Paladin of Light is narratively a Ex-Thief / Paladin multiclass that is going insane but is mechanically a Paladin / Warlock multiclass with a Criminal background.

This is why my easy fix is: Classes don't exist in the fiction. They are not narrative units. They are examples of training the character could obtain. This does not mean narrative units don't exist. It just means those narrative units are not necessarily 1:1 with the mechanical classes.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I feel it is an issue when one of the classes has a considerable roleplay component, but the dip is done purely for mechanical purposes - Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and others, have significant roleplay requirements, that I don't like seeing brushed over in search of a particular level 1 ability.

I definitely have sympathy where a particular character concept can only be constructed with multiclassing, but I do sometime raise an eyebrow if this is claimed frivolously (no, there is absolutely no character concept that requires you to dip Warlock for Hex Warrior, your concept is not damaged by you having to use Str or Dex to hit instead of your maxxed Cha!).
This is it exactly. I think David Prokopetz said it best here (https://prokopetz.tumblr.com/post/651443455999033344/when-i-talk-about-picking-classes-for-the-dungeons).

"The second thing that’s going on is more subtle, but arguably more critical: D&D character classes also encode assumptions about the kinds of stories that characters assigned to that class are going to be used to tell."

And that's true of the majority of the games I play right now: D&D in all of its incarnations, Pathfinder and Starfinder. A lot of the classes I like to play in these games really DO have that considerable roleplay component you mentioned. What point is playing a monk in D&D or a mystic in Starfinder if you're not trying to reach Enlightenment? What's the point of playing a paladin if your GM doesn't give you a Holy Avenger before the end of the campaign? And a lot of the characters I play are characters from other media adapted to whatever ruleset I'm playing, so I feel torn between the arc the CHARACTER sort of represents and the arc the CLASS sort of assumes the character will have. Add to that the arc laid out by whatever CAMPAIGN I'm playing in, since most of what I play recently are Adventure Paths. It's really, REALLY hard to get all three of those to resonate in a narrative sense, and that's what I worry about most when I play. I've got a Bachelor of Arts in English, I've gotta USE it, darnit!

[OldTrees1]

I feel it is an issue when one of the classes has a considerable roleplay component, but the dip is done purely for mechanical purposes - Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and others, have significant roleplay requirements, that I don't like seeing brushed over in search of a particular level 1 ability.

I definitely have sympathy where a particular character concept can only be constructed with multiclassing, but I do sometime raise an eyebrow if this is claimed frivolously (no, there is absolutely no character concept that requires you to dip Warlock for Hex Warrior, your concept is not damaged by you having to use Str or Dex to hit instead of your maxxed Cha!).

This is it exactly. I think David Prokopetz said it best here (https://prokopetz.tumblr.com/post/651443455999033344/when-i-talk-about-picking-classes-for-the-dungeons).

"The second thing that’s going on is more subtle, but arguably more critical: D&D character classes also encode assumptions about the kinds of stories that characters assigned to that class are going to be used to tell."

Glorthindel gives a very good place to draw the line.

I think you are exaggerating David Prokopetz's position and it is contributing to your problem.

They are not saying "What is the point of playing a paladin if they don't find a Holy Avenger". Their point is a bit more subtle and far less restrictive. They are talking about the themes buried inside the mechanics themselves. In 5E levels in Paladin will give a character the ability to heal others with a touch. If a Sorcerer is taking levels of Paladin to get Divine Smite as a way to channel magic into their Eldritch Knight fighting style, then what about the Lay on Hands feature?


custom characters, on the other hand, those characters already have their story arcs laid out for them, so you’ve gotta ask: to what extent is it possible to adapt the existing arc of this character to the implicit arc laid out by the mechanical progression of this class? What needs to change about the character? What needs to change about the class?

And sometimes that’s an easy question. In spite of often being very weird in their particulars, the broad outlines of the implicit story arcs baked into the mechanics of most D&D classes stick to popular and readily adapted archetypes. The interesting cases are the ones where that isn’t true!

David would ask "What implicit arc is there inside the mechanic of gaining the power to heal others with a touch?". I would assume the answer would be something about becoming more of a healer. David then asks to "What extent can the character's arc adapt to this implicit arc? What needs to change about the character? What needs to change about the class?"

Glorthindel would ask a different question. They would point out the Paladin abilities work based on conviction to an oath (usually an ideal). They would ask what oath this character is living by and how that meshes with the rest of the character concept.



And a lot of the characters I play are characters from other media adapted to whatever ruleset I'm playing, so I feel torn between the arc the CHARACTER sort of represents and the arc the CLASS sort of assumes the character will have. Add to that the arc laid out by whatever CAMPAIGN I'm playing in, since most of what I play recently are Adventure Paths. It's really, REALLY hard to get all three of those to resonate in a narrative sense, and that's what I worry about most when I play. I've got a Bachelor of Arts in English, I've gotta USE it, darnit!

You are over emphasizing and embellishing the "arc" of the CLASS. I suggest following David's advice instead. Even your single class characters will have greater narrative resonance if you do.

Lux's CAMPAIGN arc was discovering a cult that was going to end the world and stop them.
Lux's FEATURE arc was repurposing their criminal skills, taking personal responsibility for making the world a better place, and a growing madness about what "better" means.
Lux's CHARACTER arc was being lead away from a life of crime by a corrupting influence. Lux already knew the world was in a bad place, but the corrupting influence caused Lux to realize that nobody else was going to save them or those they cared about. It also provided the symbolism of Light as a beacon of hope, joy, and excellence. Lux took responsibility, they can't fix everything but someone needs to start. They found a group whose lives Lux could improve. Gently causing this group to shine as a beacon of hope that brought joy and hope to those they encountered. Along the way Lux slowly changed their understanding of why it was important to cause hope, joy, and excellence. The metaphorical light of the beacon became an end in itself. Eventually Lux became something like a sunrise alarm clock for a slumbering outer god, whose essence had been radiation out of a magical lantern Lux had picked up back in their guild thief days, a week before this all began.

Notice a "Holy Avenger" is not part of any of the 3 arcs.

[Quertus]

"Paladin" is a class, right? But Unearthed Arcana has it as a prestige class. Are you somehow less of a Paladin of you start as a Fighter, then take the Paladin prestige class?

Arcane Archer started life as a prestige class. Then someone wrote it up as a base class. Have a conceptual problem with dips? Just get the GM to write your dip-heavy build as a single, conceptual class. Done.

[Morty]

David Prokopetz's main mistake, looking at that post, is giving D&D classes far, far too much credit. They're not a coherent, balanced or meaningful set of options; they're an inconsistent, fossilized mess designed by accretion and kept together by designers' fear that if they remove or change even one, people will get mad and not buy the game.

Your main mistake, Zousha, is relying far too much on other people to tell you how to play. You don't like multiclassing? Don't multiclass. If you ever change your mind, multiclass to your heart's content, but either way don't try to justify your choice through some deeper narrative purpose. If you want to play D&D or Pathfinder, don't expect the mechanics to line up with the story and the world too closely.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

David Prokopetz's main mistake, looking at that post, is giving D&D classes far, far too much credit. They're not a coherent, balanced or meaningful set of options; they're an inconsistent, fossilized mess designed by accretion and kept together by designers' fear that if they remove or change even one, people will get mad and not buy the game.

Your main mistake, Zousha, is relying far too much on other people to tell you how to play. You don't like multiclassing? Don't multiclass. If you ever change your mind, multiclass to your heart's content, but either way don't try to justify your choice through some deeper narrative purpose. If you want to play D&D or Pathfinder, don't expect the mechanics to line up with the story and the world too closely.
How will I know if I'm playing WELL, though? If I just follow my instincts or go for what I think is cool, I'm going to fall into the various traps laid in the rules by picking bad options, becoming a liability to the party in the process, and then no one will wanna play with me! And how will I know if I'm a good or bad roleplayer if other people don't TELL me?

[Ettina]

How will I know if I'm playing WELL, though? If I just follow my instincts or go for what I think is cool, I'm going to fall into the various traps laid in the rules by picking bad options, becoming a liability to the party in the process, and then no one will wanna play with me! And how will I know if I'm a good or bad roleplayer if other people don't TELL me?

Trap options don't make you a liability, just less effective than you could be.

And if someone doesn't want to play with you because you're not min-maxing enough, you're better off not playing with them anyway, because they're *******s who won't be very fun to play with. Most people won't care.

[OldTrees1]

How will I know if I'm playing WELL, though? If I just follow my instincts or go for what I think is cool, I'm going to fall into the various traps laid in the rules by picking bad options, becoming a liability to the party in the process, and then no one will wanna play with me! And how will I know if I'm a good or bad roleplayer if other people don't TELL me?

Trap options are unrelated to being a good/bad roleplayer.

Roleplaying:
You will know you are being a good roleplayer when someone says they enjoy something about your character or enjoy something your character did. Appreciation / enjoyment is common, someone mentioning their enjoyment is a bit rarer. So hearing a compliment is an indication of a lot of appreciation.

If people have complaints about your roleplaying, they will tell you. If there is an issue complaints will be common.

Creating characters you feel are interesting and cool is more likely to be good roleplaying than bad roleplaying.


Trap options:
Picking trap options or becoming a liability are not huge problems. People will still want to play with you, even if they may want to make suggestions. If you want help avoiding trap options then consider:
1) Some games (like D&D 5E) or classes (like D&D 3E's Tome of Battle) have higher optimization floors. In other words they don't have many traps and their traps are not going to make you a liability.
2) Mention your character concept to someone and then ask about the mechanical options you are taking to instantiate that character. If there is a trap, they might point it out.
3) Trap options impact YOU the most, then the DM. They impact the other PCs the least.


If you make a character that is interesting and enjoyable (for you and other players), then you are playing well. Even if your character is a Sentient Potted Plant that needs to be carried by the other PCs.

[Morty]

How will I know if I'm playing WELL, though? If I just follow my instincts or go for what I think is cool, I'm going to fall into the various traps laid in the rules by picking bad options, becoming a liability to the party in the process, and then no one will wanna play with me! And how will I know if I'm a good or bad roleplayer if other people don't TELL me?

The only people whose opinion matters when it comes to your roleplaying are you and people you play with. Not random people on the Internet. And unless you're actively disrupting the game or making other people uncomfortable, how exactly do you roleplay "wrong", anyway?

Trap options are a completely separate issue and, as far as I can tell, completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Not multiclassing isn't a trap option and isn't going to make you a liability.

[Xervous]

Trap options don't make you a liability, just less effective than you could be.

And if someone doesn't want to play with you because you're not min-maxing enough, you're better off not playing with them anyway, because they're *******s who won't be very fun to play with. Most people won't care.

Except when you’re proposing an incompetent character that is outside the bounds of expectations laid out in session 0. Then you’re the pringus. Just the same as you usually wouldn’t bring Batman to a buddy cop game, bringing the buddy cop to an Avengers game will generally be a bad idea. The table agreed on X, we’re well within our rights to point out an outlier as an outlier, regardless of it being high or low.

[Vahnavoi]

How will I know if I'm playing WELL, though? If I just follow my instincts or go for what I think is cool, I'm going to fall into the various traps laid in the rules by picking bad options, becoming a liability to the party in the process, and then no one will wanna play with me! And how will I know if I'm a good or bad roleplayer if other people don't TELL me?

You empirically learn if your playing well or not the same way you learn it in virtually all types of games:

Trial and error.

That is, you set your goals and make an honest attempt at reaching them. If you reach them, you're doing well enough, if not, you need to make adjustments and make another attempt.

You really only need one other person in this process: the one actually running a game for you. The other players and their opinions do not matter as long as that one person is fine with your attempts. If those others players are bothered by the idea of you failing to the point of not wanting to play with you, either the rest of the group has too high of a skill level compared to yours and you should find a group of LESS skilled players willing to do some trial and error with you, or they are try-hards who are so afraid of failure they'd rather follow dubious advice on the internet instead of doing things on their own, if only so they have someone else to blame when things go tits up. :smalltongue:

---

As far as multi-classing and dipping shame go, I neither feel nor encounter such, because I near-exlusively play games with either no classes or no multi-classing. (Classes are fine, but only when they're distinctive and few in numbers.)

[Psyren]

But unlike Pathfinder, where you could take a level of Fighter as a wizard or cleric and still have access to the most powerful spells your class can cast, in SF those spells are specifically tied to their respective class' capstone ability. A technomancer who takes a level of soldier to get heavy armor and better guns will never be able to cast wish. The only class that DOESN'T benefit from dipping into Soldier is...Soldier itself, since you're not multiclassing at all.

I'm confused here; sounds like they built in reasons for dipping to NOT be the optimal or most desirable strategy for every player of those classes - as they should have.



On the other hand, I want to remind you that it is okay to have preferences. You are not broken. Even if your character concept requires a complicated single classed build vs a simple multiclass build, it is okay to have an aversion to multiclassing.


PS: The Soldier dip in Starfinder sounds like an efficient dip, but it does not sound like a thematic dip. If a dip does not match the character concept, then I don't think I would count it as the simpler solution. In 5E many classes could benefit from Fighter 2, but very few characters would benefit from Fighter 2. An aversion to that dip sounds normal to me.

This.


I feel it is an issue when one of the classes has a considerable roleplay component, but the dip is done purely for mechanical purposes - Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and others, have significant roleplay requirements, that I don't like seeing brushed over in search of a particular level 1 ability.

I definitely have sympathy where a particular character concept can only be constructed with multiclassing, but I do sometime raise an eyebrow if this is claimed frivolously (no, there is absolutely no character concept that requires you to dip Warlock for Hex Warrior, your concept is not damaged by you having to use Str or Dex to hit instead of your maxxed Cha!).

So dip something that is compatible with those requirements. Or don't! That's the beauty of it.

[farothel]

That's what I like about Pathfinder 2E. There multiclassing (or a Dedication, as it's called in that system) can be done by just taking the one feat (the original Dedication feat) but that often gives you the just the basic ability of that class at the lowest level and that level won't go up as you level up, so by the time you're above level 10 it won't do all that much anymore.
For instance a Wizard Dedication gives you the ability to cast 2 cantrips and makes you trained in spellcasting. But that gives you a level of spellcasting that you won't succeed against the saves of any critter at level 10 or above most of the time.

So you need to take a few other abilities from the Dedication to make it actually work, especially at higher levels. As you need to take 2 dedication feats, which you take instead of class feats before you can switch to another dedication and you get a class feat at every even level (generally), that's a 6 level commitment before you can switch to something else. So you will most likely not take more than 2 of these dedications and most likely only 1. You also keep getting the non-class feats of your original class, no matter what Dedication you take.

And it's a lot easier to explain in character. For instance a rogue with wizard dedication is simply a rogue who also studied magic at sometime, but he stays a rogue. If you take just the Dedication, you're a dabbler who learned a few simple tricks at some time and if you invest the time to take more dedication feats, you invest time and energy in becoming better, as you would if you multiclassed evenly in PF1.

[Dravda]

I feel it is an issue when one of the classes has a considerable roleplay component, but the dip is done purely for mechanical purposes - Warlocks, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and others, have significant roleplay requirements, that I don't like seeing brushed over in search of a particular level 1 ability.

I definitely have sympathy where a particular character concept can only be constructed with multiclassing, but I do sometime raise an eyebrow if this is claimed frivolously (no, there is absolutely no character concept that requires you to dip Warlock for Hex Warrior, your concept is not damaged by you having to use Str or Dex to hit instead of your maxxed Cha!).

This exactly. I share many of your aversions to multiclassing, Zousha, because I've experienced more than a few power-gamers who derive enjoyment from "breaking" the game's limits, even when it puts them out of line with the rest of the party. I'm not going to claim that playstyle is WRONG (I see the appeal!), just that it doesn't fit at my table.

That said, multiclassing is a valuable tool in creating interesting characters, whose flavor informs their mechanics and vice versa. I'm working on my own hang-ups and recently started playing a multiclassed monk/ranger to get closer to a "ninja" feel than a pure shadow monk. I suppose the line is that I like "concept-focused" multiclass builds, that use multiclassing to inform a character idea. The ones that I don't tolerate are "power-focused" multiclass builds, that have the effect of outshining other players who don't pour over the books in their spare time.

[DwarfFighter]

I don't allow multi-classing in my 5e games. I am convinced that it makes for a more balanced party if the players stick with their character's class. Non-optimized PCs have greater interdependence and this is conductive to playing well with each others as the PCs need to rely on each other to succeed as a group. The idea that you are failing your party if you aren't playing optimized to the max is a toxic mindset to me.

-DF

[OldTrees1]

@Archpaladin Zousha


I don't allow multi-classing in my 5e games. I am convinced that it makes for a more balanced party if the players stick with their character's class. Non-optimized PCs have greater interdependence and this is conductive to playing well with each others as the PCs need to rely on each other to succeed as a group. The idea that you are failing your party if you aren't playing optimized to the max is a toxic mindset to me.

-DF

I always allow multiclassing in my 5e games. I am convinced multiclassing is a wonderful tool to leverage the mechanics of the game to better represent the character concepts. The idea that you are failing your party if you aren't playing optimized to the max is a toxic mindset to me.

Even if we use "optimized" to mean "optimizing how well the mechanics represent your character concept", the idea that you are failing your party if you aren't playing optimized to the max is still a toxic mindset to me.


Archpaladin Zousha, there is no shame in having preferences about how much multiclassing you want to do. I love multiclassing and DwarfFighter dislikes it. Neither of us feels shame about our preference or tries to shame the other over our difference in preference. And despite having wildly different preferences, we both agree that you are not "failing" if you are not "optimized to the max".

[Vahnavoi]

I agree the described mindset is toxic, but I think you both need to do more to explain why it is toxic.

[icefractal]

I think really everyone should only worry about how their own character is built/played, unless someone asks for advice. This does also mean that the GM shouldn't force the party into situations where lack of optimization results in significant problems for the whole group.

As far as multiclassing and OP characters though - largely unconnected, IME. The most powerful classes in 3E are casters, and multiclassing is almost always a step down for them. Non-casters benefit a lot more, but even then it's more often pushing them from below-par to on-par rather than any kind of extreme power.

[DwarfFighter]

I agree the described mindset is toxic, but I think you both need to do more to explain why it is toxic.

When one player is running a min/max character he will be happy when he gets to shine, but when the chips are down, he's taken some crits and his build isn't carrying the day he will start berating the rest of the players for not being sufficiently min/maxed. Then follows the backseat driver stage where he tries to manage the other character's actions. Being told what your character should do is toxic.

-DF

[Anonymouswizard]

Multiclassing also occasionally leads to the weak unfocused character, which is just as much of a problem (except in the occasional circumstances who m where I've seen players roll incredibly good stats and device to max-min because they can actually afford a bad build). And sometimes players who can't op to save their life will insist on branching out, inevitably making the game less fun for them when they can't keep up...

I honestly think that Multiclassing should be limited to Fears and subclasses. Even if their implementation is often somewhat subpar. It keeps balance in a narrower band and avoids a lot of build-based resentment. (But that I actually like strongly classed games anyway, but that's a separate issue).

[Vahnavoi]

When one player is running a min/max character he will be happy when he gets to shine, but when the chips are down, he's taken some crits and his build isn't carrying the day he will start berating the rest of the players for not being sufficiently min/maxed. Then follows the backseat driver stage where he tries to manage the other character's actions. Being told what your character should do is toxic.

-DF

I think you're begging the question. The last sentence (the apparent conclusion) could be the first (the premise) and the chain of logic would make more sense.

You'd do better focusing on the emotional component: the behaviour is toxic because it's all rooted in emotional resentment of failure, projected outward. There may or may not be good reasons to tell how another's character should act, but being a sore loser rarely is.

[Morty]

Multiclassing also occasionally leads to the weak unfocused character, which is just as much of a problem (except in the occasional circumstances who m where I've seen players roll incredibly good stats and device to max-min because they can actually afford a bad build). And sometimes players who can't op to save their life will insist on branching out, inevitably making the game less fun for them when they can't keep up...

D&D multiclassing is a high-risk high-reward strategy in my experience. You can carefully pick the right levels in the right combination... or you can just go with what feels right and wind up with an unfocused mess of a character. 5E at least makes it less likely to end up with a complete trainwreck, which in 3E was very easy if you didn't know exactly what you were doing.

[Ettina]

When one player is running a min/max character he will be happy when he gets to shine, but when the chips are down, he's taken some crits and his build isn't carrying the day he will start berating the rest of the players for not being sufficiently min/maxed. Then follows the backseat driver stage where he tries to manage the other character's actions. Being told what your character should do is toxic.

-DF

The problem isn't different optimization of PCs, it's a dingus who berates teammates when things go badly. Kick that guy to the curb.

Min/maxing is about how you build your own character, not how you treat the other players.

[OldTrees1]

The problem isn't different optimization of PCs, it's a dingus who berates teammates when things go badly. Kick that guy to the curb.

Min/maxing is about how you build your own character, not how you treat the other players.

As I scroll up for more context I can see that DwarfFighter is talking about the "dingus" mindset rather than min/maxing in general.

[Jay R]

It doesn't bother me, because it matches my life.

I am primarily a Mathematician, which qualified me for a few levels in each of the Prestige Classes Statistical Consultant, Actuary, Telecommunications Engineer, and Role-Playing Gamer, a few levels in Fencer, and a 1-level dip in Ranger (Philmont Ranger for 2 summers).

[Frogreaver]

When one player is running a min/max character he will be happy when he gets to shine, but when the chips are down, he's taken some crits and his build isn't carrying the day he will start berating the rest of the players for not being sufficiently min/maxed. Then follows the backseat driver stage where he tries to manage the other character's actions. Being told what your character should do is toxic.

-DF

I was once playing a monk. The great tactical plan we had come up with went south due to the other players waffling and not attacking when we had planned. I ended up on the other side of the enemy encampment fighting the boss with them further away than they should have been. They were dealing with some mooks and had already dealt with a brute in between. The boss hit me like a truck a couple of times and I hit him back to where he was noticeably injured but no firm figure on how much hp he had left. I was on low hp and started bonus action dodging with my ki and kept attacking hoping to finish him off first. This was a death at 0 hp game. I bonus action dodged for 3 rounds and missed all my attacks. I made sure the other players knew I was on low hp hoping one would move my direction and heal me or attack the boss. No one attempted to help my PC and he ended up dying.

It's pretty frustrating when your team doesn't follow a simple plan that ends up with you in a bad situation and then doesn't help you in any way through that bad situation. I didn't berate anyone but I can understand why someone would. It was pretty ridiculous.

[Starbuck_II]

Well, sometimes multiclassing is needed to fully use your own abilities.

Take a ID Rager.
They get phantom abilities that depend on slam attack (but don't get slam) while bloodraging.
If they smartly multiclass into Dreamthief Rogue, their attacks count as slam attacks 1/rd.

By multiclassing, they are mechanically and thematically superior (mostly because Paizo dropped ball and never thought about the limitation of having no slam for abilities that rely on it).

What I am not sure about is if they get two emotions or must they choose same emotion for abilities (both ID rager and Dreamthief get access to an emotion aspect for phantoms).

Regardless, multiclassing fixes error in designer creations.

[dspeyer]

As an IRL Programmer / Sysadmin / SRE / Bioengineer / Bioinformaticist, multiclassing (and taking dual-progression PRCs) feels natural to me. On one recent adventure, I was serving as the party's programmer, statistician and UX designer when we discovered we were short an oncologist. So I dipped a tenth of a level in oncologist. No big deal.

A friend of mine who was an Artificier / Bard dipped Cleric so he could officiate a wedding. No big deal.

Each level represents the skills you focused on developing on that occasion. There's no need to have a plan that ends in enlightenment, and no reasonable expectation that such a plan would survive contact with reality.

(Some classes may be unreasonably front-loaded, especially if weapons proficiencies are important. 5e's special multiclassing rules may be useful here.)

[vasilidor]

AS far as things like trap options go, I allow players to recreate their characters, once after we have played for a few sessions, and then again if the players ask. if they feel like their chosen options are not living up to expectations and it is hurting their fun, they should be allowed to change their characters.

[quinron]

I'm in largely the same boat as you, Zousha - if I'm thinking about multiclassing, I've already planned out how I explain my character getting into the new class and how that's going to affect their development as a person. Dips feel cheap to me, like the RPG progression equivalent of a deus ex machina.

OTOH, I'm talking about more recent games; as you said, many prestige classes in 3.x that would suit a character may require dips that don't mesh that well. Looking at it through that lens, I think my level of favorability toward multiclassing is pretty heavily influenced by how many classes there are in a system. 3.x has literally dozens of classes, hundreds if you count PrCs. Whereas 5e has grand total of 14, at least in the officially published content, and even the "non-canon" material published by the team running the game only adds 1 more. So while I'm pretty happy mixing and matching anything that fits thematically in a 3.5 game, I'm pretty hesitant in a 5e game to even mix "storm sorcerer" with "tempest cleric."

[MrStabby]

My personal preferences depend on what everyone else is doing. I feel characters are defined (almost) as much by what they can do as what they do do. And the mos defining abilities are the powerful, high level abilities. As a wizard what is the mose powerful spell you can cast? As a rogue, how hard can you stab?

Now sometimes losing the higher level abilities can be compensated for in terms of power, by more, good, low level abilities. This can be nice. However, it huts the feeling of being a powerful mage if someone else at the table can cast more powerful spells. It hurts the feeling of being the consumate thief if another sneaks better. If I am playing a wizard and someone else is playing a sorcerer then I am much less likely to multiclass.

On the other hand there are the classes like fighter (in D&D anyway), where the sense of specialism[I] is a bit less clear. There it is taking lots of hits? Dealing lots of damage? Really hard to hit? So many more classes can contribute to the specialism there - even in a game with another fighter I am pretty happy to multiclass as long as it does not diminish my feelings of being a specialist in my chosen area. [I]Feeling to be an effective specialist is more than a raw objective numbers game but about relative expectations.

But whatever, your preferences are, there should be no shame in it. The only way of playing where you should have some shame is if you actively derive pleasure from others enjoying the game less.

[Duff]

I hear you. I prefer to have this sort of thing fit in with the game.
For example, in a 4th ed D&D game I knew that at my next level I was going to to be adding a bunch of languages (I think maybe a feat and a familiar?). So I had my chartacter pull out a "Language stone" - completely made up magical item that he used to "Brush up on some languages he'd gotten badly rusty on".
In much the same way, my character will be "Studying magic" for ages before taking a level in wizard if I can do it.

But also, sometimes the party needs X and so the team player thing to do is take a level in X, or you realise a level in Y will make the character more fun to play, and that's fine too

[Mordante]

Maybe DnD should move away from character levels.

[Xervous]

Maybe DnD should move away from character levels.

If D&D is going to keep anything, levels are probably one of the most integral features.

[Jay R]

Dips feel cheap to me, like the RPG progression equivalent of a deus ex machina.

I don't see any connection between dips and either cheapness or a deus ex machina.

Walt Disney took a dip in Animator before his major levels in Director and Producer.
Many actors took a dip in some other profession for awhile.
Stan Lee took a dip in producer after many, many levels of Comic Book Editor.
Bilbo Baggins, a respectable gentlehobbit, took a one-adventure dip in Burglar.
Cardinal Richelieu, a life-long cleric, took a dip in Politician.
Snow White, a princess, took a dip in Housekeeper for seven miners.
I took a dip in Ranger (two years as a Philmont Ranger while studying mathematics and statistics).
Captain America took a dip in the Atlantic Ocean between times as a super hero.

The idea of having only one profession all your life is simply not supported by the evidence, in either real life or fantasy literature.


Maybe DnD should move away from character levels.

Why? People are using them and enjoying them and buying the books that support them.

We vote against character levels with threads like this, and vote for character levels by buying the splatbooks that add to them.

Wizards of the Coast only counts the latter votes.

[Tanarii]

Yeah 5e should have left 3e-style Multiclassing with 3e. OTOH it's an optional rule. So you shouldn't feel compelled to use it.

[Morty]

Yeah 5e should have left 3e-style Multiclassing with 3e. OTOH it's an optional rule. So you shouldn't feel compelled to use it.

I really get the impression the designers of 5E didn't particularly want 3E-style multiclassing, but people demanded it, so it had to be included. Another one on the list of pretty bad ideas that became tradition so they have to stick around.

[OldTrees1]

I really get the impression the designers of 5E didn't particularly want 3E-style multiclassing, but people demanded it, so it had to be included. Another one on the list of pretty bad ideas that became tradition so they have to stick around.

Level by level multiclassing is a very useful tool for designers. It allows them to make fewer base class while having a larger list of virtual base classes.

I think it is a good idea for optional content. It does not need to be used, but it allows players with non standard characters to play D&D instead of leaving to find another RPG that can handle their character concepts.

For example, in the absence of a lycanthrope PC species, you could have a 5E Totem Barbarian / Moon Druid to represent a warrior that is fighting to hold back the beast within. Start the fight as a calm fighter. On round 2 activate Rage as combat decreases your efforts to hold back the beast. On round 3-4 Wildshape into the beast within.

[Tanarii]

Level by level multiclassing is a very useful tool for designers. It allows them to make fewer base class while having a larger list of virtual base classes.
Not really. There are many better ways to do it that don't have to worry about the fact that it doesn't work, because classes can't be balanced on a level by level basis.

Even D&D has done it better, in two different ways. Pathfinder 2 took the hint from 4e and moved away from it. Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e (edit: multiclass) system.

[Psyren]

Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

Because it's intuitive and easy to grasp. The scaling issues can be fixed in other ways.

Yes P2 avoided some of the traditional pitfalls, but they introduced new ones, like exacerbating the feeling from P1 that you need the right feat to use the bathroom.

[Morty]

Not really. There are many better ways to do it that don't have to worry about the fact that it doesn't work, because classes can't be balanced on a level by level basis.

Even D&D has done it better, in two different ways. Pathfinder 2 took the hint from 4e and moved away from it. Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

Honestly, even in 5E subclasses are much better for branching away from core classes than multiclassing is. Both in 5E and in 3E, multiclassing is mostly a tool for optimizers. A player who just wants to play a concept a single class doesn't allow for is as likely as not to blunder into a trap. The best you can say about 5E's take is that it's harder to make a character that is just plain bad, which in 3E was very very easy.

If D&D classes are too restrictive, then either you loosen them up some or accept that as a logical consequence of a class-based system is trying to accomplish. You don't give players a crowbar and tell them to start pulling things out at their leisure.

[Jay R]

Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

That "failed" system sold more books, supplements, and related equipment than any other system in the history of role-playing. By contrast, 4e sold very few books. That's WotC moved away from it so quickly.

Publishers publish games to sell rulebooks, supplements, and related equipment.

By the measure of a publisher, that "failed" 3e / 3.5e system is the most successful system ever.

The measure of a product is how much it sells.

[icefractal]

The measure of a product is how much it sells.For previous editions, yes. For 5E, I don't think selling books is the main business model anymore, based on the fairly slow rate of product (extremely slow compared to 3E/4E). The way D&D makes money now is by being a valuable IP, and the goal of 5E is to maintain that by keeping D&D widely known and mostly liked.


If D&D classes are too restrictive, then either you loosen them up some or accept that as a logical consequence of a class-based system is trying to accomplish. You don't give players a crowbar and tell them to start pulling things out at their leisure.Maybe you don't. :smallbiggrin:

5E leans significantly in the "however your group wants to play D&D, that's the right way to play" direction (rather than "let us teach you the right way to play"), and so I think allowing multiclassing is almost mandated by that.

And personally, I'm glad they did, even if it isn't perfectly balanced. No-multiclass no-feat 5E can be practically "you stop making choices after initial char-gen", depending on which class you play, and that's not my jam.

[OldTrees1]

Not really. There are many better ways to do it that don't have to worry about the fact that it doesn't work, because classes can't be balanced on a level by level basis.

Even D&D has done it better, in two different ways. Pathfinder 2 took the hint from 4e and moved away from it. Not sure why the 5e Devs tried to go back to the failed 3e system.

I understand you feel there are better ways to do it. I also recognize that is not a universal truth. I see the multiclass feats as much worse than the level by level multiclassing. Take the example character I gave, its ideal mechanical representation would be split fairly evenly between the uncontrollable fury mechanics and the animal form mechanics. With level by level multiclassing that is easy. With multiclass feats it would generally be impossible for 2 reasons. 1) Multiclass feats severely limit the ratios you can use. They basically only allow dips, and often smaller dips than a subclass would allow. 2) Multiclass feats allow multiclassing by content driven exceptions. If there are no multiclass feats that have access to the cross class features the character concept relies on, then you can't make the character. In contrast level by level multiclassing uses the existing features, so they immediately support a broader range of mechanical representation for character concepts.

Now you mention that it is harder to balance (you also claim it can't be done but that is imprecise). Yes, it is harder to balance. However if you err on the side of competency and err on the side of higher levels give stronger abilities, then it becomes much easier to make it balanced enough for an RPG (assuming the classes were already balanced enough for an RPG).


No, I stand by what I said. Level by level multiclassing is a valuable innovation in the RPG designer's toolbox. It is relatively easy to implement and expands the support much faster and more comprehensively than alternative ways.


Honestly, even in 5E subclasses are much better for branching away from core classes than multiclassing is. Both in 5E and in 3E, multiclassing is mostly a tool for optimizers. A player who just wants to play a concept a single class doesn't allow for is as likely as not to blunder into a trap. The best you can say about 5E's take is that it's harder to make a character that is just plain bad, which in 3E was very very easy.

If D&D classes are too restrictive, then either you loosen them up some or accept that as a logical consequence of a class-based system is trying to accomplish. You don't give players a crowbar and tell them to start pulling things out at their leisure.

I agree that subclasses are also a good innovation. They took the idea of alternate class features and clumped them together in thematic packages (similar to PF1's archetypes).

However you are a bit too quick to dismiss multiclassing. Multiclassing is mostly a tool for creating characters outside of a single class. I assume you have heard of the Bard, Eldrtich Knight, and Arcane Trickster? At their inception these were multiclass characters. They eventually became a base class and 2 subclasses but that only came later. The benefit of level by level multiclassing is the player in First Edition AD&D could play a Bard instead of having to wait for Second Edition AD&D. The example Barbarian/Druid I gave can play 5E instead of waiting for 7E. There will always be "one more class/subclass" that the developers did not have time to make, but level by level multiclassing allows players the option if they want it.

What a class based system is trying to accomplish is completely compatible with level by level multiclassing. Just think back to the Bard.

Now maybe you prefer the lower volume of potential characters. Different people have different preferences. Level by level multiclassing is always optional. Many groups don't use it, but 5E sells to both groups that do and don't use it because it works for both groups.

[Tanarii]

That "failed" system sold more books, supplements, and related equipment than any other system in the history of role-playing. By contrast, 4e sold very few books. That's WotC moved away from it so quickly.
I'm sorry, are you claiming that the reason for 3e's successful sales was the 3e Multiclassing system? And the reason for 4e's successful but not as stunningly successful sales was their take on Multiclassing? :smallconfused:

[OldTrees1]

I'm sorry, are you claiming that the reason for 3e's successful sales was the 3e Multiclassing system? And the reason for 4e's successful but not as stunningly successful sales was their take on Multiclassing? :smallconfused:

I feel like this hyperbolic leap in your reply to Jay R was atypical of your norm Tanarii.
Edit: Perhaps my later reply to Jay R helped?


The following is ignoring the hyperbole in your leap.

Beware Sample size of 1:
A: 4E's lack of sufficient multiclassing was one of my main reasons I skipped it. My other dealbreaker also dealt with other aspects of the decreased volume of mechanical representation for character concepts.
B: With level by level multiclassing the volume of mechanical representation for character concepts does scale fairly well with increased number of classes. That contributed to why I bought so many 3E books.

[Jay R]

I'm sorry, are you claiming that the reason for 3e's successful sales was the 3e Multiclassing system? And the reason for 4e's successful but not as stunningly successful sales was their take on Multiclassing? :smallconfused:

No. I did not state a reason for why 3e was successful. I simply demonstrated that, by the measure used by publishers, it was successful. My point was that 3e was not a "failed ... system", as you claimed.

[OldTrees1]

No. I did not state a reason for why 3e was successful. I simply demonstrated that, by the measure used by publishers, it was successful. My point was that 3e was not a "failed ... system", as you claimed.

Context is important. Tanarii was talking about multiclassing systems. That sentence was not about the edition as a whole.

I disagree with Tanarii's estimation that the 3E multiclass system was a failure compared to the 4E multiclassing system (although the 5E system includes improvements, as expected of a new model). However Tanarii did not make a claim about 3E as a whole.

[Telwar]

I remember looking at the Pathfinder Unchained Rogue and wondering why Paizo was going through such hoops to let that rogue version use Dex to attack and damage, when it hit me, that they were doing their darnedest to try to make it hard to get Dex to attack and damage with a quick level dip. 4e (and PF2)-style multiclassing avoids that completely. But that style you're not mixing your classes nearly as much; you're dipping a little, mostly for feat and paragon path access.

Personally, I prefer the 4e-style multiclassing, I never particularly cared about trying to mix classes up to make some concept work, and even then you could wind up with 1/2 to 1/3 of your stuff from the other class, depending (in 4e). But you can realize builds with an a la carte class/level system that you would need a full class for otherwise, so as long as it floats your boat, go for it.

[Morty]

However you are a bit too quick to dismiss multiclassing.

To the contrary, my opinion on the subject is a result of putting a lot of thought into it. I used to like multiclassing, before realizing it just isn't good.


Multiclassing is mostly a tool for creating characters outside of a single class. I assume you have heard of the Bard, Eldrtich Knight, and Arcane Trickster? At their inception these were multiclass characters. They eventually became a base class and 2 subclasses but that only came later. The benefit of level by level multiclassing is the player in First Edition AD&D could play a Bard instead of having to wait for Second Edition AD&D. The example Barbarian/Druid I gave can play 5E instead of waiting for 7E. There will always be "one more class/subclass" that the developers did not have time to make, but level by level multiclassing allows players the option if they want it.

What a class based system is trying to accomplish is completely compatible with level by level multiclassing. Just think back to the Bard.

Now maybe you prefer the lower volume of potential characters. Different people have different preferences. Level by level multiclassing is always optional. Many groups don't use it, but 5E sells to both groups that do and don't use it because it works for both groups.

As I've already explained - if the problem is that classes and subclasses alone aren't enough to create all the characters people want, then multiclassing isn't a good solution. Either you figure out how to open up the classes or just accept that D&D isn't a system where you can play whatever you want. Multiclassing is an attempt to bypass the system's core concepts and introduce some kind of clunky pseudo point-buy to a uniquely strict class/level advancement.

It's no coincidence that the three classes/subclasses you list started out as multiclassing and became codified later. Because playing such characters as multiclassed was a major, counter-intuitive pain. Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters in particular became PrCs in 3E because of how much of a trap it was to multiclass a martial character with a spellcaster normally.

[Tanarii]

I feel like this hyperbolic leap in your reply to Jay R was atypical of your norm Tanarii.
Edit: Perhaps my later reply to Jay R helped?Not really, he read mine out of context, and I read his response within my context. I also didnt (and still don't) see your response before this attempt to clarify. (Thanks for playing mediator. :smallwink: )


No. I did not state a reason for why 3e was successful. I simply demonstrated that, by the measure used by publishers, it was successful. My point was that 3e was not a "failed ... system", as you claimed.


Context is important. Tanarii was talking about multiclassing systems. That sentence was not about the edition as a whole.Edited my post to make that clearer I was talking about the multiclass system specifically. I do not consider 3e as a whole a failed system. Only some components of it, mostly Multiclassing and too many fiddly feats.

------

OldTrees1
I don't have much more to say to us having strongly differing opinions on the effectiveness of the multiclass systems. But specifically, I still disagree that level by level balance across the spectrum of play is even a desirable system, let alone the question of it it is feasible to execute. Most games want some weight towards the beginning of the character career, not splayed across the career.

And 4e's / pathfinder 2's dabbling system aren't the only ways to implement multiclassing in a non-level by level fashion. 4e also had Hybrids, and AD&D had non-human multiclassing. Both were better than 3e's system. And that's saying a lot that AD&D's method was superior. :smallamused:

[OldTrees1]

@Telwar
I wonder what a system would look like if it included both variants. They would be variants so people only used them if they wanted them, but they would both be available. 6E and PF3 would be in good places to consider innovating on the concepts.


To the contrary, my opinion on the subject is a result of putting a lot of thought into it. I used to like multiclassing, before realizing it just isn't good.

After putting a lot of thought into the subject, my appreciation for level by level multiclassing continues to grow. I continue to realize it is great. However since you have spent a lot of time and reached a different opinion, let's conclude our informed opinions differ. Luckily editions like 5E support both of us. I can play my codified characters and my non codified characters (a warrior struggling with the beast within using Barbarian/Druid) and you can play some codified class.


OldTrees1
I don't have much more to say to us having strongly differing opinions on the effectiveness of the multiclass systems. But specifically, I still disagree that level by level balance across the spectrum of play is even a desirable system, let alone the question of it it is feasible to execute. Most games want some weight towards the beginning of the character career, not splayed across the career.


Yeah, we have strongly differing opinions on this. Maybe there will be a future innovation that resolves that difference or better satisfies both camps simultaneously. I am willing to leave it there, although perhaps you would elaborate on that last point?


You say most games want some weight towards the beginning of the character career. I want to understand that better.


Are you saying the marginal gain from 2nd level would be stronger than the marginal gain from 5th?

This sounds like a diminishing returns system. I don't think this is what you meant, however games where leveling focuses on horizontal improvement (gaining new abilities instead of getting stronger) can also work with multiclassing.


Or are you saying the game wants everyone to start at 3rd level so it merged levels 1-3 so "1st" level weighs more than "5th" level?

A mildly facetious solution would be to keep the levels separate and just suggest groups start at 3rd level.

5E multiclassing decided the 1st character level was special and gets some extra proficiencies and extra hp based on the starting class but not linked with 1st level in the class if gained later.

Another solution would be to have species/backgrounds fill in for what the designer feels is needed for a starting character.


Or are you saying that some structural abilities would be placed earlier and later levels would focus on enhancing those abilities?

This is what I think you were implying, but I don't want to assume. Structural abilities general come earlier and they seem to be the main focus of multiclassing. Even the Barbarian/Druid example I used was focusing on using Rage and Wildshape to represent its characterization. However this is generally not what I would call "having weight towards the beginning" because this qualitative different does not mean the Structural abilities are stronger than the latter enhancing abilities. However this can bleed into the previous possibility.


Or 4th thing?

[Tanarii]

I am saying that most leveled games want a character to be able to do their Schtick at the beginning of a career, possibly after a few "training levels" to get used to the character. That typically results in a drop in marginal power gains in levels after the first level, and possibly after the training levels another drop in power gains.

This was addressed in 3e/5e multiclassing somewhat by not giving a character multiclasses everything that the first level character got. But it's nowhere close to balancing the fact that low level dips pretty much universally add a lot more power than say a 50/50 split, and often significantly more than staying 100% in either single class.

And of course that's exactly what the 4e/PF2 feats system is intentionally doing: only adding power equivalent to one feat from the new class. Whereas 3e/5e come nowhere close to always adding 1 levels worth of power equivalent. It's usually vastly more, sometimes significantly less.

[Trask]

The thing I dislike about dips and why I hate to see them is that they fundamentally challenge the whole point of having a class system. If I pick a fighter, I'm doing it for a certain conceptual package, same with a wizard. But when you dip, you often get to borrow the most iconic things from another class without actually being that class (usually having armor).

The extra sting is that dipping is almost always more optimal for casters, in a game where they don't need help to be dominant.

[icefractal]

The thing I dislike about dips and why I hate to see them is that they fundamentally challenge the whole point of having a class system. If I pick a fighter, I'm doing it for a certain conceptual package, same with a wizard. The problem with classes having strong iconic identities is - are all characters supposed to conform with a dozen or less concepts? Sure, more come out in time, if the GM is using those books, but I really don't want to play from such a restricted range, nor do I have a problem coming up with character concepts.


But when you dip, you often get to borrow the most iconic things from another class without actually being that class (usually having armor).I have to say "having armor" does not sound like a great defining feature. "Let us sing the tale of Tormod the Gray ... he wore armor." And it's also not something that's restricted to any particular class, that I know of?


The extra sting is that dipping is almost always more optimal for casters, in a game where they don't need help to be dominant.Wat? :smallconfused:

Is that the case in 5E? Because it sure as hell ain't the case in 3E, where "thou shalt not lose caster levels" is almost always the rule, power-wise.

[Max_Killjoy]

There's nothing inherently or ethically wrong with any sort of multiclassing.

Character classes are straight-jackets, almost anything a player does to break the straight-jacket is justified.

Don't play a trope, play an individual.

[Trask]

The problem with classes having strong iconic identities is - are all characters supposed to conform with a dozen or less concepts? Sure, more come out in time, if the GM is using those books, but I really don't want to play from such a restricted range, nor do I have a problem coming up with character concepts.

I have to say "having armor" does not sound like a great defining feature. "Let us sing the tale of Tormod the Gray ... he wore armor." And it's also not something that's restricted to any particular class, that I know of?

Wat? :smallconfused:

Is that the case in 5E? Because it sure as hell ain't the case in 3E, where "thou shalt not lose caster levels" is almost always the rule, power-wise.

Wearing armor is iconic, because some characters just cannot do that and it is mechanically powerful. It also assumes all the things that come with armor, like being tough and standing in the front line. Lifting that concept just because you want to be a 'battlemage' or because you want to emulate some character from a book, comic, or anime isn't necessarily bad, but when you only treat the classes like grab bags then you lose the point of having classes in the first place, strong iconic packages that tentpole and populate the setting. This can be particularly annoying with dips, where the impact they can have on your build is enormous but the impact they have on the fiction of your character is often minimal. There are games better suited to picking and choosing, like point based games.

Classes are part of the appeal to me, and I'm not the type of player who would pick or multiclass into barbarian just because they wanted the rage feature that worked well for their build but completely threw away the "fluff" of rage. Or even someone who would pick a barbarian because I liked the class but my character isnt a barbarian at all, just an angry guy. Not my style. If we have classes, I want to use them and I want their fiction to be important. I wouldn't play a star wars game and pick a jedi but just ignore the force lore and say my character is a rare telepath that has nothing to do with the force.

I also am using my experiences with 5e as a baseline, if its different in 3e then I can't comment.

I'm not against multiclassing in general, one of my favorite D&D characters was a paladin 6/sorcerer 14. I think my opinion must be that I feel multiclassing should be a major investment and character defining, and so I'm opposed to the idea of dips on principle.

[Morty]

After putting a lot of thought into the subject, my appreciation for level by level multiclassing continues to grow. I continue to realize it is great. However since you have spent a lot of time and reached a different opinion, let's conclude our informed opinions differ. Luckily editions like 5E support both of us. I can play my codified characters and my non codified characters (a warrior struggling with the beast within using Barbarian/Druid) and you can play some codified class.


Nope. 5E does not support both of us. The existence of multiclassing is an active detriment to it even if I, personally, don't use it. You also keep insisting that I want to play codified classes. I don't, particularly. But multiclassing is a bad way to play characters less codified than core D&D classes.

[OldTrees1]

Nope. 5E does not support both of us. The existence of multiclassing is an active detriment to it even if I, personally, don't use it. You also keep insisting that I want to play codified classes. I don't, particularly. But multiclassing is a bad way to play characters less codified than core D&D classes.

How is it an active detriment? If your group uses the various subclasses and multiclass feats and does not use the multiclassing rules, how is the optional content you are not using somehow an active detriment? An unused optional rule is never an active detriment.

The whole point of something being optional, is my group can use it and your group can ignore it. How my group plays is not an active detriment to your group.

OR are you in a group where some players value multiclassing?

5E supports both of us on the topic of level by level multiclassing because unused optional content is not an active detriment.


The optional level by level multiclassing is a good way for a developer to allow players to play character concepts the developer did not explicitly support. The beast within example (5E Totem Barbarian / Moon Druid) would rather be possible than not be possible, especially since it can exist without being an active detriment to you. So it sounds like a good way to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

So what happens to characters who can't be modeled without multiclassing dips?

What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

"Sorry, can't play those." ?

[Vahnavoi]

Well duh. There isn't any universal reason for a game to allow any arbitrary character.

[Trask]

So what happens to characters who can't be modeled without multiclassing dips?

What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

"Sorry, can't play those." ?

I would question whether a player really needs that many levels to just play a character.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would question whether a player really needs that many levels to just play a character.

It's not really about the levels.

[Vahnavoi]

@Trask: They obviously don't. They only need that to play some very specific character that exists at the margins of the system.

[OldTrees1]

Classes are part of the appeal to me, and I'm not the type of player who would pick or multiclass into barbarian just because they wanted the rage feature that worked well for their build but completely threw away the "fluff" of rage. Or even someone who would pick a barbarian because I liked the class but my character isnt a barbarian at all, just an angry guy. Not my style. If we have classes, I want to use them and I want their fiction to be important. I wouldn't play a star wars game and pick a jedi but just ignore the force lore and say my character is a rare telepath that has nothing to do with the force.

I also am using my experiences with 5e as a baseline, if its different in 3e then I can't comment.

I'm not against multiclassing in general, one of my favorite D&D characters was a paladin 6/sorcerer 14. I think my opinion must be that I feel multiclassing should be a major investment and character defining, and so I'm opposed to the idea of dips on principle.


So what happens to characters who can't be modeled without multiclassing dips?

What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

"Sorry, can't play those." ?


Well duh. There isn't any universal reason for a game to allow any arbitrary character.

If a game/group/campaign has level by level multiclassing and prevents dips, then yes a character that only dips Ranger would not be supported by that game/group/campaign. There isn't a universal reason to allow any arbitrary character.

However there is a reason why a game might want to be applicable to a large player base by allowing explicit support for common characters and allowing the possibility to create the less common characters. So a game that allows an optional level by level multiclassing might leave it up to the group to decide if they want to allow/prevent dips or mandate everyone have 1 level of Rogue.

This then goes back to what Trask was saying. Personally I am also adverse to dips and adverse to throwing away fluff (refluffing is a bit different to me). There are probably places we differ, and we can scope those difference to our separate groups.

Sidenote: In 5E I don't see Armor as iconic. The classes with armor have other aspects that are iconic. However I do agree that structural features show up in the early levels. Some iconic features (Divine Smite) show up in those levels. Other iconic features (Aura of Protection) show up later.

Sidenote 2: In 5E some of the later levels in classes are poorly designed. I think the Paladin is a good model, because and multiclassing has a comparable tradeoff. Design like that decreases dips and makes them less of a mechanical issue.

[Max_Killjoy]

Note that "you can't do that because this specific setting doesn't feature what you want" is different from "you can't do that because other players or the system designer wanted quote-unquote 'iconic archetypes".

At some point both the prescriptivist misuse of tropes and the entire notion of archetypes in general... need to just die already.

[OldTrees1]

Note that "you can't do that because this specific setting doesn't feature what you want" is different from "you can't do that because other players or the system designer wanted quote-unquote 'iconic archetypes".

Assuming the restriction is scoped to the group:
Why not Thief 3 / Warmage 3 / UA Ranger 3 (not in that order)? If the character concept only comes together at level 6, then start at level 6. However in a group that does not like dips, don't make it a dip?

I am also a bit confused by the example character. I am not seeing the reason for the Ranger 1. However I could ask the player and they could explain why that is a crucial part of the character core identity.

[Vahnavoi]

Note that "you can't do that because this specific setting doesn't feature what you want" is different from "you can't do that because other players or the system designer wanted quote-unquote 'iconic archetypes".

For many practical cases, this is a distinction-without-difference: if a game master or play group desire iconic archetypes, it's a solid bet that mix-and-match characters don't exist in their game settings as a direct result.

[icefractal]

Nope. 5E does not support both of us. The existence of multiclassing is an active detriment to it even if I, personally, don't use it. You also keep insisting that I want to play codified classes. I don't, particularly. But multiclassing is a bad way to play characters less codified than core D&D classes.I don't understand this - are you the GM or a player?

If you're the GM, you can ban multiclassing. Done.
If you can't find players who're ok with that, they probably wouldn't be ok with playing a system where it didn't exist either.

If you're a player - stop looking at the other players' character sheets.
Not that those sheets need to be a secret, but if you're finding yourself becoming irritated and judgmental by looking at them, stop doing that. IC, you don't know that information anyway - people don't have "Fighter 5" hovering above their head, unless you're playing a self-aware or isekai-style setting. Base your roleplaying on what you actually see the character do in-game.

[Tanarii]

How is it an active detriment?
Official Play.

I mean, for me it was a benefit. I was able to get an entire campaign running in three game stores because it of how badly 5e Multiclassing and feats destroy official play.

[OldTrees1]

For many practical cases, this is a distinction-without-difference: if a game master or play group desire iconic archetypes, it's a solid bet that mix-and-match characters don't exist in their game settings as a direct result.

Is there a relevant difference between the game developer / players from other playgroups saying "no" vs your playgroup saying "no"? I think there is a practical difference. What if the game developer says "no" but the group wants to say "yes"? If the group faces that enough, or suspects they will face that, they might not play that game developer's system.



Official Play.

I mean, for me it was a benefit. I was able to get an entire campaign running in three game stores because it of how badly 5e Multiclassing and feats destroy official play.

Heh, 5E Official Play has so many flaws it is ripe for poaching players.

In our case Adventure League kept tying the GM's hands. Modules are bad enough but the GM/group outranks the Author. Adventure League wanted to outrank the GM/group. That became especially egregious when they started dictating which characters could go on which quests.


However if that was the intended example then we can apply the same logic as if the majority of a group disagrees with the outlier:
If your group's consensus is that they want to allow X, then X is not an active detriment to the group. It might be something the outlier dislikes, but that is not the same thing because the group consensus is that X is a positive. If it is a big enough deal to the outlier, then they can find a compatible group.

For example our group left Adventure's League because we had issues with the admin's consensus and then they made it worse. So we left to form our own compatible group instead of being an outlier member of a league that disliked the league consensus.

[vasilidor]

The thing about official play is it is designed for those people who cannot create a decent character, those guys who have no idea at chargen which results in those guys who have a clue tearing through it like the tissue paper that it is.

[Blackdrop]

So what happens to characters who can't be modeled without multiclassing dips?

What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

"Sorry, can't play those." ?

What are "those" out of curiosity? You haven't given a character concept that could or could not be built sans-multiclassing, you've given a random assortment of classes. All that proves is that you can't build a multiclass character without multiclass rules.

[malloc]

I have a hang-up when it comes to playing multiclassed characters, especially ones where the multiclass is a dip for something like weapon proficiencies. Unless I'm in a game that has Prestige Classes, where multiclassing is the price of entry (both to take the class and often to meet its prerequisites as well), multiclassing feels "wrong" somehow. It isn't so bad if you're dividing the multiclass relatively evenly between a pair of classes, but most multiclassing I see seems to consist of dipping, just taking 1 level of the most combat-oriented class, either as your first or second level, and then moving as if that isn't a huge narrative whiplash, like "I labored and studied in a dank tower for decades to learn how to cast the magic missile I've been using. Now after a few weeks of fighting goblins I'm suddenly as trained and proficient as our warrior in swords and armor, and now I'm just going to go back to casting magic like nothing's happened."

Plus, it feels like a lot more games these days are written to encourage you NOT to multiclass, with abilities that scale as time goes by and shiny capstone abilities at 20th level. I get that the average campaign rarely, if ever, reaches that level of play and when they do, the capstone rarely sees much use beyond maybe the last few battles of the campaign and perhaps a nod in the roleplaying epilogue if it had some narrative value like "your character stops aging" or whatnot. But for classes that get those kinds of benefits, it feels really jarring, like you're giving up ultimate enlightenment, ostensibly the goal your character was striving for, oart of the reaso why they ARE that class in the first place, for some extra fighting "oomph" early on.

Most players and GMs just sort of accept this and gloss over those implications, but of late they've been really really bothering me, prompting me to come up with complicated builds and strategies JUST so the character doesn't have to multiclass, and I feel like something's wrong with ME that I can't just dip like a normal player. How do I get over this hang-up and stop feeling guilty for doing something that rationally is no big deal?

I feel like you're a bit too hung up on class as a character concept, instead of your build as the character concept. I'm not a (class) paladin, I'm a holy warrior. "Paladin" is just a term for one type of holy warrior: someone titled Paladin could be a cleric, or a devout warrior with no holy magic, but a strong religious bent. Similarly, my swashbuckler 2/warrior 2/monk 1/ranger 2 isn't a bunch of unassociated classes, it's the resultant character (maybe it throws shields like Captain America, or is some type of exotic fighter). Regardless, that isn't a bunch of unassociated garbage, that's the collection of life experiences that lead to the character I'm playing.

A ranger is a woodsperson with wilderness experience. The class "ranger" is just a collection of things that fill the common description of "ranger". It's not the only way to build a character that fills that archetype. Similarly, dipping isn't some sort of cross-contamination; it's a way of creating a set of skills that describe your character concept.

[ORione]

Here's an example of a character concept that called for multiclassing:

I was remaking one of my 3e characters for 5e. He was a bard, and that still seemed to suit him, except for one thing. 3e bards are 2/3 casters, whereas 5e ones are full casters. So to dilute his magical power, I gave him one fighter level for every two bard levels. That worked pretty well.



For more examples, Tulok the Barbarian (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5EfKWar21WkaYUSOwPWakg/videos)'s videos have many. This guy creates builds for approximating various fictional characters in D&D 5e. Since most fictional characters weren't created with a specific D&D class in mind, most of his builds multiclass to approximate the character's abilities.

[Max_Killjoy]

I feel like you're a bit too hung up on class as a character concept, instead of your build as the character concept. I'm not a (class) paladin, I'm a holy warrior. "Paladin" is just a term for one type of holy warrior: someone titled Paladin could be a cleric, or a devout warrior with no holy magic, but a strong religious bent. Similarly, my swashbuckler 2/warrior 2/monk 1/ranger 2 isn't a bunch of unassociated classes, it's the resultant character (maybe it throws shields like Captain America, or is some type of exotic fighter). Regardless, that isn't a bunch of unassociated garbage, that's the collection of life experiences that lead to the character I'm playing.

A ranger is a woodsperson with wilderness experience. The class "ranger" is just a collection of things that fill the common description of "ranger". It's not the only way to build a character that fills that archetype. Similarly, dipping isn't some sort of cross-contamination; it's a way of creating a set of skills that describe your character concept.


^ THIS.




Here's an example of a character concept that called for multiclassing:

I was remaking one of my 3e characters for 5e. He was a bard, and that still seemed to suit him, except for one thing. 3e bards are 2/3 casters, whereas 5e ones are full casters. So to dilute his magical power, I gave him one fighter level for every two bard levels. That worked pretty well.



For more examples, Tulok the Barbarian (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5EfKWar21WkaYUSOwPWakg/videos)'s videos have many. This guy creates builds for approximating various fictional characters in D&D 5e. Since most fictional characters weren't created with a specific D&D class in mind, most of his builds multiclass to approximate the character's abilities.


Most fictional characters, and many characters who were characters before they were a conglomeration of rules, won't fit.

What's really funny is watching a system try to emulate the fiction by creating classes that fit the existing characters.

See, d20 Star Wars, where in it's basic form you can play a Luke clone, a Han clone, a Leia clone, etc.

[quinron]

Note that "you can't do that because this specific setting doesn't feature what you want" is different from "you can't do that because other players or the system designer wanted quote-unquote 'iconic archetypes".

At some point both the prescriptivist misuse of tropes and the entire notion of archetypes in general... need to just die already.

If a system is designed around the concept of character archetypes, then complaining about the fact that you're being forced into character archetypes feels like you've got the wrong end of the stick. At some level, though - and, as this discussion has clearly indicated, that level varies between systems and individuals - a class-and-level system is designed around the idea of a character falling into a certain archetype. Wanting to subvert those archetypes for more nuanced and niche characters isn't a bad way to play or to want to play, but neither is wanting to fit into them. And when it comes to post-3e D&D/Pathfinder, it's going to be easier to make a character that does fit an archetype than one that doesn't.

[Trask]

D&D is an archetypal game, whether you like it or not. There are lots of rules to bend and twist those archetypes, but saying that we need to "stop thinking in archetypes" is honestly more funny than wrong, literally go play a different game please.

[icefractal]

I mean, it's totally fine to play an archetypical character. You can be a single-classed Rogue, wear black, use a dagger, be part of a Thieves' Guild, and overall be the most classic Rogue that ever Rogued, and that's all good.

But why is it a problem is someone else wants to play something different? It seems like saying "I don't like pasta salad, therefore this buffet shouldn't have any" - just don't eat the pasta salad!

[quinron]

I mean, it's totally fine to play an archetypical character. You can be a single-classed Rogue, wear black, use a dagger, be part of a Thieves' Guild, and overall be the most classic Rogue that ever Rogued, and that's all good.

But why is it a problem is someone else wants to play something different? It seems like saying "I don't like pasta salad, therefore this buffet shouldn't have any" - just don't eat the pasta salad!

For my part, my complaint is really about 5e, which is the system that at least Trask has been referencing most in this discussion. In that system, multiclassing seems like an afterthought; the designers' intent was that they have strong archetypes, which you could use the subclasses to enhance and tweak into more specific niches. But, presumably because of playtester feedback, they ended up including it as an "optional rule" that's assumed to be in play at basically every table. So it feels more like being told "you're being really close-minded for not trying pasta salad, it's a great side dish," while the buffet you're at has put out a dish of Kraft Dinner macaroni tossed with mayonnaise.

[icefractal]

I don't think anyone's saying that people who don't want to multiclass should though. Just that it's strange to complain about and advocate banning other people's ability to do so.

You always, in any edition of D&D, have the choice to not multiclass available.

Like, I don't like mayo-heavy coleslaw, but if it's at a buffet or potluck and other people are enjoying it, then I'm not going to tell them to stop, or try to throw it in the trash - why would I?

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't think anyone's saying that people who don't want to multiclass should though. Just that it's strange to complain about and advocate banning other people's ability to do so.

You always, in any edition of D&D, have the choice to not multiclass available.

Like, I don't like mayo-heavy coleslaw, but if it's at a buffet or potluck and other people are enjoying it, then I'm not going to tell them to stop, or try to throw it in the trash - why would I?

It's a fundamentally asymmetrical argument, with one side saying "I'd like this option, no one else has to use it, but I'd like to", and the other side saying "I prefer not to use that option, therefore no one should be able to use that option".

[Tanarii]

It's a fundamentally asymmetrical argument, with one side saying "I'd like this option, no one else has to use it, but I'd like to", and the other side saying "I prefer not to use that option, therefore no one should be able to use that option".
The reality is it's not treated as an option, even when it's explicitly called out as a "check with your DM" option. And that puts a lot of pressure on DMs to allow the option in play at their tables.

Now if it were published in the DMG or a splatbook expanding the rules, it'd be different.

[Satinavian]

Multiclassing is a compromise for allowing a huge variety of character concepts in a class based system. It works incredibly well for what it is supposed to do.

Of course if "allowing a huge variety of character concepts" is the only thing you care about, going fully point based is way easier than having players jump through hoops combining classes to get the ability composition they imagine.

But some people want classes. So we get to the compromise named multiclassing which makes no one really happy but most can live with.

Now we could talk about what the use of classes even is and if we could do pointbuy and just present archetypes or bundles for those who want less complexity. But that is another discussion.

[OldTrees1]

The reality is it's not treated as an option, even when it's explicitly called out as a "check with your DM" option. And that puts a lot of pressure on DMs to allow the option in play at their tables.

Now if it were published in the DMG or a splatbook expanding the rules, it'd be different.

The reality varies from table to table and person to person.

For example as a player, I assume the multiclassing variant is enabled by default but it is completely valid to turn it off. Although we treat character creation holistically as a "check with your GM during session 0". I recognize that contributes slightly to the pressure we GMs feel to allow multiclassing.

I know there are players that assume the multiclassing variant is off by default.

And yes, I have seen players on this forum that think the multiclassing variant needs a justification before it can be left disabled.


Considering how important I feel the variant is to the core rules, I would want it in one of the core books. Considering how variants in the PHB have been treated as on by default, I agree the DMG is the right place.

[Glorthindel]

...allowing a huge variety of character concepts...
...get the ability composition...
Apologies for mangling your quote, it was just a nice example to draw where I think a lot of the counter-arguement comes from, and that's the dissonance between these two goals. While I definitely have sympathy for those whose character concept can't be realised with a certain core class, i think the incidents of this are far less common than claimed. At no point do a lot of us consider "allowing a character concept" to equal "I must get this ability". Concept is high level, whereas abilities are minutiae.

As an example, earlier in the thread, Max said:


What happens to the character who actively needs say Rogue (thief) 3, Wizard (war mage) 2, UA Ranger 1, just to start being the character they're supposed to be?

What is the "concept" being sought here, that cannot be covered by an Arcane Trickster (or one of several other subclasses or Feat combination)? It is not "concept" that the player in this case is seeking, it is specific abilities. And that's fine, but be honest that that is what you are doing; obfuscating the desire to cherry-pick abilities under the umbrella of "It's my character concept" is a little dishonest, particularly when it is far more common to see multiclassers ejecting the roleplay flavour of their components in order to get to the tasty ability treats. The Hex Warrior ability is one of the most sought-after dips, but has absolutely no "concept" value (and I would bet most of the Hexblade dippers do their upmost to ignore the Warlock flavour entirely).

[Satinavian]

My second 3E character was already a multiclass. The concept was a former bandit leader : Strength based combattant with stealth and social skills. Going rogue/figter was perfect. I could have all the skills i needed, could fight properly with most weapons i might find or steal and a combat style relying less on feats than a pure fighter and more on dirty tricks with a weak sneak attack worked well. But i did have enough feats to get at least basic competence both for melee and ranged.

Now, i am not sure, but has 3.0 eher had a single class better for that concept ? Is this concept really that special ?


There have been many other concepts i also struggled to put in those rules. Often even with multiclassing as it was not always that easy. Nowadays i only play pointbuy systems and it is oh so much smoother. I have not played 5E once and don't feel much like using a system even more restrictive than 3.x in regards to possible characters.

[Max_Killjoy]

Apologies for mangling your quote, it was just a nice example to draw where I think a lot of the counter-arguement comes from, and that's the dissonance between these two goals. While I definitely have sympathy for those whose character concept can't be realised with a certain core class, i think the incidents of this are far less common than claimed. At no point do a lot of us consider "allowing a character concept" to equal "I must get this ability". Concept is high level, whereas abilities are minutiae.

As an example, earlier in the thread, Max said:



What is the "concept" being sought here, that cannot be covered by an Arcane Trickster (or one of several other subclasses or Feat combination)? It is not "concept" that the player in this case is seeking, it is specific abilities. And that's fine, but be honest that that is what you are doing; obfuscating the desire to cherry-pick abilities under the umbrella of "It's my character concept" is a little dishonest, particularly when it is far more common to see multiclassers ejecting the roleplay flavour of their components in order to get to the tasty ability treats. The Hex Warrior ability is one of the most sought-after dips, but has absolutely no "concept" value (and I would bet most of the Hexblade dippers do their upmost to ignore the Warlock flavour entirely).


You're making A LOT of assumptions about other peoples' thinking and goals here, and resorting to thinly-veiled accusations of dishonesty. Makes it hard to really take your "argument" seriously.

But it is funny that you're simultaneously arguing that concept is "high level" while abilities are "minutia"... and then making side-comments that seem pretty negative about "dippers doing their best to ignore flavor".

[OldTrees1]

Apologies for mangling your quote, it was just a nice example to draw where I think a lot of the counter-arguement comes from, and that's the dissonance between these two goals. While I definitely have sympathy for those whose character concept can't be realised with a certain core class, i think the incidents of this are far less common than claimed. At no point do a lot of us consider "allowing a character concept" to equal "I must get this ability". Concept is high level, whereas abilities are minutiae.

I don't recall a frequency being mentioned. So I doubt it can be "less common than claimed" unless you wish to claim it never happens. Although I will say it happens to me frequently enough that how the system handles those cases impacts whether I will adopt a system.

Additionally you are right that different people see characterization differently. Some want their PC's stats to include mechanical representation of what the Character Concept could do / is facing.

If you are willing, I want to switch from Max Killjoy's example (since I can't speak for them) to my example.

I can imagine a warrior that is struggling to control a beast within. Maybe this is similar to lycanthrope. In 5E I would use a fairly even ratio of Totem Barbarian / Moon Druid to mechanically represent the beast within that this tribal warrior is trying to contain. The character concept is of a warrior, that struggles and occasionally fails to contain the beast within. So I would want the character stats to include things that mechanically represent the incomplete and complete transformations. In 5E the Rage and Wildshape mechanics fit that well. Additionally the Barbarian class fits the initial concept of the warrior quite well. If you take the time to empathize with this character concept, you might realize they are likely to want to learn more about their condition to help them control it. The Druid class seems an ideal fit for a Barbarian learning more about this bestial transformation.

So if I wanted to have a mechanical instantiation of this character concept that is as faithful as possible to the character concept, I think a Barbarian / Druid multiclass makes more sense than a single class. Of course different people would reach different conclusions.

You are right that, for me*, the concept starts high level. However we use the game system to model the character concept. Sometimes a high level aspect of the character concept would be best modeled in one way or another.

* Just like people vary about whether they characters are more defined by the past, present, or future, people can vary on this too.

PS: This character was just meant as an example, but the more I explain it, the more likely I will use it next campaign.

[quinron]

I don't recall a frequency being mentioned. So I doubt it can be "less common than claimed" unless you wish to claim it never happens. Although I will say it happens to me frequently enough that how the system handles those cases impacts whether I will adopt a system.

Additionally you are right that different people see characterization differently. Some want their PC's stats to include mechanical representation of what the Character Concept could do / is facing.

If you are willing, I want to switch from Max Killjoy's example (since I can't speak for them) to my example.

I can imagine a warrior that is struggling to control a beast within. Maybe this is similar to lycanthrope. In 5E I would use a fairly even ratio of Totem Barbarian / Moon Druid to mechanically represent the beast within that this tribal warrior is trying to contain. The character concept is of a warrior, that struggles and occasionally fails to contain the beast within. So I would want the character stats to include things that mechanically represent the incomplete and complete transformations. In 5E the Rage and Wildshape mechanics fit that well. Additionally the Barbarian class fits the initial concept of the warrior quite well. If you take the time to empathize with this character concept, you might realize they are likely to want to learn more about their condition to help them control it. The Druid class seems an ideal fit for a Barbarian learning more about this bestial transformation.

So if I wanted to have a mechanical instantiation of this character concept that is as faithful as possible to the character concept, I think a Barbarian / Druid multiclass makes more sense than a single class. Of course different people would reach different conclusions.

You are right that, for me*, the concept starts high level. However we use the game system to model the character concept. Sometimes a high level aspect of the character concept would be best modeled in one way or another.

* Just like people vary about whether they characters are more defined by the past, present, or future, people can vary on this too.

PS: This character was just meant as an example, but the more I explain it, the more likely I will use it next campaign.

For me, much of this argument seems to be inflected by the fact that multiclassing does exist in this game, we've been presented these class options, and you're interested in combining them to make interesting characters. If we didn't have a mechanic for "gets angry to make themselves stronger in combat," would you be feel the need to have a character with that mechanical capability, or would you just look for ways to simulate that with other features? Is a druid who always preps alter self for fangs and claws to represent a bestial half-transformation and occasionally fully transforms with Wild Shape while always being exceptionally aggressive and violent in their actions choices during these periods not a sufficient representation of this character's intended flavor? Ultimately, I don't know how capable we even are of answering this question, because it would require us to be able to predict our responses if we were totally unaware of these concepts and tropes.

And since we're starting to talk a bit about what GMs allow at their tables, what if you decided that you wanted your character to actually be a werewolf? Is it unfair of the GM to disallow you from playing one? And once you're presented with the rules for how NPCs are changed upon becoming werewolves, is it unfair of the GM to say that you can't make a character who gets several ability boosts and who's immune to non-silvered, non-magic weapons?

Personally, as a perennial GM, my concerns about mutliclassing and especially dipping are mostly over how much I'm able to predict my players' progression. I like to tailor the adventures I write to the characters my players are running, at least to a certain degree. So when someone's been playing a rogue for 3 levels and I start planning a big skill-oriented adventure where they can take center stage, it's going to really screw my plans if they decide to start taking fighter levels, pumping their Strength, wearing heavy armor, and exclusively using those rogue levels for rapier Sneak Attack damage.

That's the trouble with multiclassing in an archetypal system - most of the time, the ultimate concept you're going for has little to nothing to do with any one class that makes it up, which means that until you've got those levels, you're either playing a totally different character, or you're having to more-or-less pretend in fiction that you've been temporarily prevented from using abilities that your character thinks they should have. If you really want to play a concept that requires more than 2 classes to make, I just don't think D&D - 3e or 5e - is a very good system for it from either the player's or GM's side.

[icefractal]

Personally, as a perennial GM, my concerns about mutliclassing and especially dipping are mostly over how much I'm able to predict my players' progression. I like to tailor the adventures I write to the characters my players are running, at least to a certain degree. So when someone's been playing a rogue for 3 levels and I start planning a big skill-oriented adventure where they can take center stage, it's going to really screw my plans if they decide to start taking fighter levels, pumping their Strength, wearing heavy armor, and exclusively using those rogue levels for rapier Sneak Attack damage.I would suggest asking your players what type (thematically) of character they're playing and where they see that path leading.

Like, the example above - I don't understand it, because "they're a Rogue" doesn't really tell you much. A single-classed Rogue could be ...
* A con-man who's never picked a lock in his life - words unlock wallets just fine.
* A dour member of the secret police, committed to The Law™ with a Judge Dredd-like intensity.
* An archeologist / ruin delver, specialist in disarming traps and finding ancient relics.
* An assassin, either mercenary or for ideological reasons
* A deep-cover spy who, ideally, you'll never even remember was there
* A swashbuckler with a flashy, deceptive combat style
* A burglar, pickpocket, and general ner-do-well
* Probably dozens or hundreds more things

What kind of adventure would fit all of those, but wouldn't fit with a more combat-oriented Rogue/Fighter who wears heavy armor? They still do have skills, and it's not like the Rogue is the only class who can use skills, either! The main difference is they're not stealthy ... but not all Rogues are stealthy either; it's just one of 11 skills they can pick from.

[OldTrees1]

And since we're starting to talk a bit about what GMs allow at their tables, what if you decided that you wanted your character to actually be a werewolf? Is it unfair of the GM to disallow you from playing one? And once you're presented with the rules for how NPCs are changed upon becoming werewolves, is it unfair of the GM to say that you can't make a character who gets several ability boosts and who's immune to non-silvered, non-magic weapons?

Let's address this part first.

1) No. A playgroup having a set of character generation rules is not unfair. Even if it prevents all of my current character concepts it is still not unfair for a playgroup to have restrictions.

2) You obviously realize the difference between the game rules and the playgroup rules. However is it unfair if a game does not support one / some / many / all of my character concepts? No, it is not "unfair".

3) However if a game tends to not support some of my character concepts, I am much less likely to buy and play that game. So it is in the game's best interest to support more character concepts, all else equal. A completely optional Level by level multiclassing variant is a very efficient developer tool for that task.


For me, much of this argument seems to be inflected by the fact that multiclassing does exist in this game, we've been presented these class options, and you're interested in combining them to make interesting characters. If we didn't have a mechanic for "gets angry to make themselves stronger in combat," would you be feel the need to have a character with that mechanical capability, or would you just look for ways to simulate that with other features? Is a druid who always preps alter self for fangs and claws to represent a bestial half-transformation and occasionally fully transforms with Wild Shape while always being exceptionally aggressive and violent in their actions choices during these periods not a sufficient representation of this character's intended flavor? Ultimately, I don't know how capable we even are of answering this question, because it would require us to be able to predict our responses if we were totally unaware of these concepts and tropes.

1) Actually I can answer that question. I read the 5E PHB from front to back after I already knew about the concept of level by level multiclassing from 3E. So there was a point where I had read the 5E classes but had not read if 5E did or did not have level by level multiclassing. Nothing fundamentally changed when I got to that section of the 5E PHB. I already knew about the concept of level by level multiclassing from 3E and thus could already imagine characters that would be more faithfully represented by multiclassing.* So this example is not dependent on a game having or not having level by level multiclassing.

*And recognize when a character that used to need multiclassing received enough support to be better represented as a single classed character.

2) You also ask, what if Barbarian did not have a feature ideal for representing the loss of control? In this hypothetical world where Barbarians did not get a Rage mechanic, I would still want a mechanic that represented that loss of control over the bestial rage. I hope that was obvious. If it was not obvious, please point out the origin of the miscommunication. I would still probably favor multiclassing with Barbarian for the other reasons (tribal warrior). However I would look for some mechanical representation of the aspect I wanted to have mechanical representation.

3) You then mention Alter Self. Alter Self is a rather poor mechanical representation because the fluff of Alter Self is the Druid being even more in control (concentration mechanic), and has no mechanical representation for the decreased control. However it does have mechanics representing some bestial features. All in all it is a much worse and contradictory mechanical representation.

Would this thematically contradicting alternative have been good enough? That is a personal judgement call. In my case for this character, no concentration would have been thematically jarring. Luckily I don't live in that hypothetical world so I can see Barbarian is not only a Tribal Warrior with a subclass related to bestial traits, but they also have a mechanic that is well suited to representing the struggle for control.



Personally, as a perennial GM, my concerns about mutliclassing and especially dipping are mostly over how much I'm able to predict my players' progression. I like to tailor the adventures I write to the characters my players are running, at least to a certain degree. So when someone's been playing a rogue for 3 levels and I start planning a big skill-oriented adventure where they can take center stage, it's going to really screw my plans if they decide to start taking fighter levels, pumping their Strength, wearing heavy armor, and exclusively using those rogue levels for rapier Sneak Attack damage.

That's the trouble with multiclassing in an archetypal system - most of the time, the ultimate concept you're going for has little to nothing to do with any one class that makes it up, which means that until you've got those levels, you're either playing a totally different character, or you're having to more-or-less pretend in fiction that you've been temporarily prevented from using abilities that your character thinks they should have. If you really want to play a concept that requires more than 2 classes to make, I just don't think D&D - 3e or 5e - is a very good system for it from either the player's or GM's side.

So you, as a GM in a playgroup, prefer to not have multiclassing. Sounds good. You elaborate and describe your nuanced understanding of why you have that preference. I did read through that explanation. However you having that preference needs no defense.

If you want I could give advice on how a player & GM could communicate in a manner that resolved your concern. However I really don't want to detract from my message that you having and acting on your preferences is completely valid. So I won't elaborate on that tangent unless you ask. Because you having and acting on your preference is completely valid.

[Max_Killjoy]

Plus the 5e Druid uses a lot of its "balance allotment" for spellcasting that such a character might not need, and doesn't have the weapons and armor proficiencies that a warrior might need.

Sometimes the problem with classes is as much the things the class has that the character in question ideally wouldn't.

See, "why won't arcane trickster work for this character instead of multiclassing?" above. Because AT has restricted schools of magic, and more magic than the character ideally would, and other abilities that don't fit.

[Second Wind]

If the goal is to play fantasy adventures, then D&D needs rules to build variety. Single classes are often weirdly specific niche concepts, and multiclassing is a useful patch to work around D&D's idiosyncrasies. A custom class would be cleaner than a multiclass, of course, but that requires a lot more negotiation and design work from players/DM.

If the goal is to play D&D's weirdness, then multiclassing is a distraction from the core archetypes.

[quinron]

So you, as a GM in a playgroup, prefer to not have multiclassing. Sounds good. You elaborate and describe your nuanced understanding of why you have that preference. I did read through that explanation. However you having that preference needs no defense.

If you want I could give advice on how a player & GM could communicate in a manner that resolved your concern. However I really don't want to detract from my message that you having and acting on your preferences is completely valid. So I won't elaborate on that tangent unless you ask. Because you having and acting on your preference is completely valid.

I said these are my concerns; that doesn't mean I don't ignore them. Personally, I don't have beef with multiclassing - despite what I seem to have implied, I tend to allow it in my game, and I tend to be prepared for it because I usually play with friends whose character ideas and plans I like to hear and give advice on. But I'm aware of the risks I take by allowing that, and I tend to limit it to 2 or at most 3 classes; that's as much for my players as for me, because inexpert dipping is much more likely to lead to underpowered characters than overpowered ones, and even if you're keeping pace with the party, it's easy to get to a point where there's no core to your character that helps you figure out how to roleplay them.


If the goal is to play D&D's weirdness, then multiclassing is a distraction from the core archetypes.

This is really the core of my argument - D&D isn't the setting-neutral, run-any-game system that a lot of people seem to want it to be. I think they want it to be that for the entirely understandable reason that it's really hard to get a group of TTRPG players together to play a new system that's either more generic and allows more of the options they'd like to have, or more specific and able to cater to the games they want to play. So we just keep playing D&D, tweaking and kitting it to make it better at what we want and arguing that it's supposed be a setting-neutral, run-any-game system. And it's not helped by the fact that, despite designing a ruleset that's only really good at combat-centric, heroic fantasy, 5e's design team is constantly talking about how to run other genres and types of games in it.

[Trask]

Very much agree that D&D is not setting neutral. It has an implied world and tone. I started having more fun with D&D (frustrated with it for years) once I just accepted that.

[OldTrees1]

I said these are my concerns; that doesn't mean I don't ignore them. Personally, I don't have beef with multiclassing - despite what I seem to have implied, I tend to allow it in my game, and I tend to be prepared for it because I usually play with friends whose character ideas and plans I like to hear and give advice on. But I'm aware of the risks I take by allowing that, and I tend to limit it to 2 or at most 3 classes; that's as much for my players as for me, because inexpert dipping is much more likely to lead to underpowered characters than overpowered ones, and even if you're keeping pace with the party, it's easy to get to a point where there's no core to your character that helps you figure out how to roleplay them.

Apologies for misunderstanding. It would have been completely valid to just not deal with multiclassing and, especially in the light of the OP, I wanted to emphasis that.

I did not want to give the impression that multiclassing was mandatory. Just like I hope you are not trying to give the impression that 5E should not have included optional multiclass rules for the groups that want them. (It was a bit hard to tell with the pushback on the example multiclass character concept.)


This is really the core of my argument - D&D isn't the setting-neutral, run-any-game system that a lot of people seem to want it to be. I think they want it to be that for the entirely understandable reason that it's really hard to get a group of TTRPG players together to play a new system that's either more generic and allows more of the options they'd like to have, or more specific and able to cater to the games they want to play. So we just keep playing D&D, tweaking and kitting it to make it better at what we want and arguing that it's supposed be a setting-neutral, run-any-game system. And it's not helped by the fact that, despite designing a ruleset that's only really good at combat-centric, heroic fantasy, 5e's design team is constantly talking about how to run other genres and types of games in it.

There are plenty of character concepts that fit into the D&D setting but do not have single class support. Remember 1st edition Bard (one of the original multiclass character concepts)? I think my Tribal Warrior fighting the Beast Within(Barbarian Druid) playable lycanthrope is comparable to an NPC one could meet in any of the D&D settings (although I am not sure about Dark Sun).

The core of my argument is multiclassing allowed the 5E design team to implicitly cover D&D character concepts that were not explicitly covered with single class support. That allowed 5E to support more D&D character concepts than it otherwise would have. Plus that implicit support allowed them to support a greater volume of D&D characters and thus support a greater playerbase. All in all a simple optional variant rule that adds virtual dev time and attracts more players, which makes it a good tool for the dev tool box.


Perhaps we should double check, are we actually arguing?

[vasilidor]

one character that I cannot do without multiclassing or homebrew in DnD 5e is the warrior who uses Divination magic to learn about his enemies as fighters only get evocation magic.

[quinron]

Perhaps we should double check, are we actually arguing?

I don't think we're arguing; more like we're engaging in some dialectical discussion.

My biggest issue with 5e's muticlassing is that it feels sloppily implemented, as I've indicated. Compare this to 3e, where multiclassing is and always was core to the creation and presentation of mechanics. The big tell here, for me, is the disparity between steadily scaling features and frontloaded features - the former includes things like Lay on Hands and Martial Arts that progress linearly, the latter things like Rage, Wild Shape, and Action Surge that, while gaining steady increases over levels, grant the most value when they're first gained. Regardless of class, you'll have gained almost all your core features by level 3; most levels past this will be either ribbons or increases to your existing features, with of course a useful exception or two per class.

It feels like most of the discussion and almost all the defenses of multiclassing are flavor-based, while there's been little discussion of the mechanical successes and failures of the system. For my part, it's obvious that I don't think it works all that well; much as I might try to approach it from the other angle, I have difficulty doing so, and I'd like to hear the counterpoint.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think we're arguing; more like we're engaging in some dialectical discussion.

My biggest issue with 5e's muticlassing is that it feels sloppily implemented, as I've indicated. Compare this to 3e, where multiclassing is and always was core to the creation and presentation of mechanics. The big tell here, for me, is the disparity between steadily scaling features and frontloaded features - the former includes things like Lay on Hands and Martial Arts that progress linearly, the latter things like Rage, Wild Shape, and Action Surge that, while gaining steady increases over levels, grant the most value when they're first gained. Regardless of class, you'll have gained almost all your core features by level 3; most levels past this will be either ribbons or increases to your existing features, with of course a useful exception or two per class.

It feels like most of the discussion and almost all the defenses of multiclassing are flavor-based, while there's been little discussion of the mechanical successes and failures of the system. For my part, it's obvious that I don't think it works all that well; much as I might try to approach it from the other angle, I have difficulty doing so, and I'd like to hear the counterpoint.

Oh. *Start shifting gears* I had been providing a character concept focused, edition agonistic, explanation of the utility of the level by level multiclassing as a developer tool. So it was more a defense of the mechanic rather than a defense of the design of each class. *Finish shifting gears*

I think the comparison between Lay on Hands and Rage has multiple variables, but I don't see any of them as a big tell in theory. Each of those variables is a reasonable thing for some feature to have in a multiclassing enabled system.


Features that scale with class level expend some of that class's budget for features at those later levels. The more of the feature that scales, the more it will charge the budget of later levels.
Features that scale steadily will charge each level's feature budget. Features that scale sporadically will only charge the budge of the levels they occur at.
It does make sense for Structural features to be shifted towards the beginning of a class, and Enhancement features to be shifted towards the end of the class. That helps give the class identity rather than change identity. Think about how 5E Paladin 6 feels, it would be a bit weird if it started at 18th instead.
Higher levels should have features appropriate to the higher level. Think of it as the level's budget increases.


Given these principles I think both Lay on Hands and Rage make sense.

However higher level classes don't always follow these principles in 5E. Fighter 13 gives a 2nd use of the Fighter 9 feature. Fighter 17 gives a 2nd use of the Fighter 2 feature and a 3rd use of the Fighter 9 feature. These are features that scale sporadically but should not expend the entire budget of these much later levels. They are no longer level appropriate features on their own.

When I look at Tier 2 features in 5E, they seem quite reasonable for multiclassing. When I look at Tier 1 features I can see why proficiencies are not duplicated and they are generally quite reasonable for multiclassing. The exceptions are notable, but the variance is expected. 3E had similar variance. However when I look at Tier 3-4 it seems like some classes don't get full level's worth of features. Their combat prowess still increases enough to be within reasonable expectations, but Fighter 13/17 are not the only examples.

Now, I know I am harsher than most when it comes to evaluating when a 5E class stops providing me with something I consider level appropriate. Paladin(Ancients) is a very well designed 5E class and I feel shortchanged on 15th+ levels.

[Satinavian]

It feels like most of the discussion and almost all the defenses of multiclassing are flavor-based, while there's been little discussion of the mechanical successes and failures of the system. For my part, it's obvious that I don't think it works all that well; much as I might try to approach it from the other angle, I have difficulty doing so, and I'd like to hear the counterpoint.This is the general roleplaying section. I don't even know how many people here play 5E specifically. Expecting a detailed analysis of 5Es implementation of multiclassing condsidering 5Es classes and possible combinations might be a bit much.

[Glorthindel]

2) You also ask, what if Barbarian did not have a feature ideal for representing the loss of control? In this hypothetical world where Barbarians did not get a Rage mechanic, I would still want a mechanic that represented that loss of control over the bestial rage. I hope that was obvious. If it was not obvious, please point out the origin of the miscommunication. I would still probably favor multiclassing with Barbarian for the other reasons (tribal warrior). However I would look for some mechanical representation of the aspect I wanted to have mechanical representation.


See, this is where I keep bumping my head against the counter arguement. Where, within the Rage mechanic, is there any loss of control? Sure, its called rage, and historically a raging barbarian did lose control, but that element of it has been excised from the ability, to leave it as just a different sort of combat buff. Maybe you could argue that it is in the fact that it can be 'turned off' early by failing to do damage, or by the fact you cant concentrate while raging, but that's a bit weak. If that is the element you want represented, a Barbarian dip doesn't actually provide that, the onus is on you to provide it through RP, the same as you could just with a straight Wildshaping Druid.

Look, just to clarify, I am not saying people are wrong to want to multiclass. I like the idea of multiclassing, and what it offers, and I am sure i would be doing it myself if I got to play in more games and needed more variety (so far, I have took part in only three campaigns as a player, so I am a long way from bored of the base classess). But what needles me is when people talk about concepts, and then cite specific abilities, which in reality, have little to no bearing on achieving the concept. For example, I get why people like Hex Warrior - ability scores are finite, and its a great feature for stretching those finite ability points further, but ya know, just say that, and let the GM decide whether he is happy with the potential power bump, rather than painting it as a roleplay concern.

[Second Wind]

one character that I cannot do without multiclassing or homebrew in DnD 5e is the warrior who uses Divination magic to learn about his enemies as fighters only get evocation magic.
Without feats or multiclassing and only the Player's Handbook? That's a standard Ranger. Take Hunter's Mark as your in-combat Divination, and pick from a decent list of out-of-combat Divinations. (If nature theming is a no-go, the Eldritch Knight can pick divination spells at 3rd, 8th, 14th, and 20th level. Valor Bard also works if you want big divination spells and are OK with losing some martial prowess.)

Without feats or multiclassing? Bladesinger, or Swords Bard.

Without multiclassing? Any character with Ritual Caster.

[OldTrees1]

See, this is where I keep bumping my head against the counter arguement. Where, within the Rage mechanic, is there any loss of control? Sure, its called rage, and historically a raging barbarian did lose control, but that element of it has been excised from the ability, to leave it as just a different sort of combat buff. Maybe you could argue that it is in the fact that it can be 'turned off' early by failing to do damage, or by the fact you cant concentrate while raging, but that's a bit weak. If that is the element you want represented, a Barbarian dip doesn't actually provide that, the onus is on you to provide it through RP, the same as you could just with a straight Wildshaping Druid.

Look, just to clarify, I am not saying people are wrong to want to multiclass. I like the idea of multiclassing, and what it offers, and I am sure i would be doing it myself if I got to play in more games and needed more variety (so far, I have took part in only three campaigns as a player, so I am a long way from bored of the base classess). But what needles me is when people talk about concepts, and then cite specific abilities, which in reality, have little to no bearing on achieving the concept. For example, I get why people like Hex Warrior - ability scores are finite, and its a great feature for stretching those finite ability points further, but ya know, just say that, and let the GM decide whether he is happy with the potential power bump, rather than painting it as a roleplay concern.

1) Thematically rage has a loss of control. Yes that is important.
2) Mechanically rage disables some mental functions that involve control (spells, concentration) due to a decrease in mental control. This is the extent of the "loss of control" mechanics but it still represents some loss of control. So it works to represent the struggle phase where the mind is occupied trying to prevent releasing the beast within. Now you called that interaction "weak" however it is not "weak" to me. It seems rather ideal for what I am trying to represent for that phase (Did you miss the phases context? It was a couple pages back when I first mentioned the concept).

3) You did remember the part about tribal warrior? Totem Barbarian is there for multiple reasons, not just the Rage.
4) What dip? Do you consider Barbarian 11 / Druid 9 a dip? What about Barbarian 14 / Druid 6? I haven't thought about it enough to know the exact ratio, but you knew this was not a dip.

5) If my example needles you, then that is self inflicted. In reality these features (warrior features, rage, totem features*, wildshape, nature lore) have a lot of bearing on achieving the concept. Yes, I assume there are cases you have seen where the features have little to no bearing on achieving the concept. I can understand how that needles you. However it is wise for me to assume people are not stupid, so I would assume they see the relevance of those abilities even if I did not. That is probably why you asked me to elaborate while presuming I had a good answer.

*The totem features are a bit of a pleasant thematically appropriate bonus rather than a structural feature. They are not required for the concept but the Totem subclass seems the most appropriate for more bestial traits.

[Glorthindel]

I want to preface that I am not trying to call badwrongfun here, and I am merely using your example because you have presented a clear, robust "concept", with parameters of what you want and are trying to achieve, so it easier to challenge and dissect without making huge assumption leaps, to better indicate where my counter arguement is coming from. On a personal note, I would have absolutely no problem with your build at a table i ran - although I edge on the side of "multiclassing brings more trouble than its worth", your example isn't an example of that trouble (more, I am calling into question whether it provides enough "worth" to justify the "trouble" brought by others).


2) Mechanically rage disables some mental functions that involve control (spells, concentration) due to a decrease in mental control.
Notable Wildshape also prevents one of those two mental functions (casting spells, concentration is fine), so I would still maintain that Rage isn't bringing anything extra to the table at the concept level that Wildshape doesn't already bring. Granted, in my opinion, it does this fairly weakly, but since you said that would not be weak to you, we can probably agree to disagree here as our stances are actually supporting each others arguements!


4) What dip? Do you consider Barbarian 11 / Druid 9 a dip? What about Barbarian 14 / Druid 6? I haven't thought about it enough to know the exact ratio, but you knew this was not a dip.
Sorry, as should be obvious from my earlier posts, my main issue with multiclassing is dipping, so that tends to flavour my responses. Obviously, you aren't going for that, but given that Rage is a lv1 ability, it does fall into the category of easily dippable abilities.



In reality these features (warrior features, rage, totem features*, wildshape, nature lore) have a lot of bearing on achieving the concept.
And that's where I disagree, because you are talking in features, not themes. If you take away the hard feature names, and replace with "physical combatant, animal/bestial theme, tribal background, some loss of control, some form of shapechanging ability, nature lore", then that can be represented by a straight Druid, a Totem or Beast path Barbarian, or even a Shifter Fighter with Proficiency in Nature and the Uthgart Tribe Member Background roleplayed with a bad attitude when shifted.

Now, at the end of the day, its your character, so you should play what you want, and its not the place of someone like me to say "no, play this instead"; this is something we all do for fun, so fun should be the name of the game. The reason I am throwing out these counter arguements, is that I feel "missing character concepts" is often considered an automatic checkmate move for why "multiclassing has to exist", and I don't believe it is that automatic checkmate move, because most of the time (I am not foolish enough to say all the time, cos there is bound to be something!), the cited character concept can be easily portrayed within the class system as it is.

[OldTrees1]

And that's where I disagree, because you are talking in features, not themes. If you take away the hard feature names, and replace with "physical combatant, animal/bestial theme, tribal background, some loss of control, some form of shapechanging ability, nature lore", then that can be represented by a straight Druid, a Totem or Beast path Barbarian, or even a Shifter Fighter with Proficiency in Nature and the Uthgart Tribe Member Background roleplayed with a bad attitude when shifted.

At the end of the day, whether a mechanical instantiation of a character concept is a working instantiation depends on the subjective judgement of the player. For example you keep trying to use Druid to model the warrior. Each of your compromises makes the mechanical instantiations a worse and worse fit for the characterization. At some point it crosses a threshold and is no longer a mechanical instantiation of the desired character concept. Obviously that point is subjective and happens sooner for me in this case than it does for you.

When I hear these "alternatives" all it makes me think of is "Where is the miscommunication?"
Straight Druid? Not a warrior, lacks the struggle phase, and has insufficient lack of control elements.
Straight Barbarian with feats to pick up nature lore features? Insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.
Shifter Fighter with feats to pick up nature lore features? Lacks the struggle phase, and has no lack of control elements, insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.

So while these sound like alternatives to you, they don't sound like alternatives to me.


Now, at the end of the day, its your character, so you should play what you want, and its not the place of someone like me to say "no, play this instead"; this is something we all do for fun, so fun should be the name of the game. The reason I am throwing out these counter arguements, is that I feel "missing character concepts" is often considered an automatic checkmate move for why "multiclassing has to exist", and I don't believe it is that automatic checkmate move, because most of the time (I am not foolish enough to say all the time, cos there is bound to be something!), the cited character concept can be easily portrayed within the class system as it is.

1) Just to clarify, who said "multiclassing has to exist"? Who is treating "missing character concepts" as an automatic checkmate? I know my position was much more nuanced. I was describing how multiclassing is a useful developer tool to implicitly support characters that are not explicitly supported, and that increased support will support a larger player base, which game systems generally value. I also described how I run into this situation often enough that the implicit support influences my purchasing power.

2) When you say "most of the time the cited character concept can easily be portrayed within the class system as it is", is that by your judgement of the character concept OR by the player's judgement of the character concept? The example we have been going over still can't be easily portrayed by a single class according to the player's judgement.*

*If I lower my standards for faithful representation of the character concept, then I could portray every character concept as a Dwarf Fighter named Jane Smith. I worry you are doing a lesser version of this and then ignoring the feedback. That could heavily skew your data.

[quinron]

This is the general roleplaying section. I don't even know how many people here play 5E specifically. Expecting a detailed analysis of 5Es implementation of multiclassing condsidering 5Es classes and possible combinations might be a bit much.

Very fair - it took a bit of back-and-forth for me to realize how specific to 5e my complaints are. Though this has revealed to me just how setting-dependent my opinions on the subject are, and the defining factor seems to be that systems where I'm more favorable toward multiclassing are systems that were designed from the beginning with multiclassing in mind.

[vasilidor]

All I have is the 3 core books and what is available for free online. Hunters mark does not actually tell my anything about what I am facing. It allows me to kill the monster quicker, which is neat, but that is it. not where it's lair is, not what it could possibly have for a motivation, not what type of monster it is, any of that. looking back at the fighter, you are mostly correct, but you only get 3 spells, not 4. these are at levels 8, 14 and 20 and only those three. the spells I would probably take would be Dark Vision, See Invisibility and Arcane Eye. yes I am aware Dark Vision is transmutation. the concept barely works at all without multiclassing. The rest of the spells I would take would probably be abjuration spells as it is that or evocation.

In third and 3.5 this concept did not work at all until several splat books were released unless you multi-classed. same with previous editions.

[Morgaln]

At the end of the day, whether a mechanical instantiation of a character concept is a working instantiation depends on the subjective judgement of the player. For example you keep trying to use Druid to model the warrior. Each of your compromises makes the mechanical instantiations a worse and worse fit for the characterization. At some point it crosses a threshold and is no longer a mechanical instantiation of the desired character concept. Obviously that point is subjective and happens sooner for me in this case than it does for you.

When I hear these "alternatives" all it makes me think of is "Where is the miscommunication?"
Straight Druid? Not a warrior, lacks the struggle phase, and has insufficient lack of control elements.
Straight Barbarian with feats to pick up nature lore features? Insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.
Shifter Fighter with feats to pick up nature lore features? Lacks the struggle phase, and has no lack of control elements, insufficient representation for the beast within becoming the beast without.

So while these sound like alternatives to you, they don't sound like alternatives to me.



So what if the game starts at level 1? Your whole concept depends on having both druid wildshape and barbarian rage, to model something that is true for the character before the game even starts. Why was the beast without not there at level 1? Am I forced to play someone who keeps losing control more and more as I unlock more uses of rage? What if I want to do the opposite and have someone who gains control instead?
In general, multi-classing just can't map things well that happened before the adventurer's career even starts. The paladin who grew up as an orphan on the street and should therefore have some rogue skills; the warlock who worked as a court jester before making her pact and thus should be part bard; the wizard that was conscripted into the army as a teenager until his spark manifested. These are all character concepts that should be possible at level 1; multiclassing just doesn't allow for it. A player shouldn't be forced to play for several levels before they unlock the skills to represent what their character concept actually is.
Now admittedly, that is not the fault of multi-classing; it's a problem of having a class/level system in the first place and one reason I moved on to other systems long ago. But multi-classing is no more than a thin patch to try and hide that the system is just not equipped well to handle concepts that go beyond the boundaries of the class archetypes.

[OldTrees1]

So what if the game starts at level 1? Your whole concept depends on having both druid wildshape and barbarian rage, to model something that is true for the character before the game even starts. Why was the beast without not there at level 1? Am I forced to play someone who keeps losing control more and more as I unlock more uses of rage? What if I want to do the opposite and have someone who gains control instead?

There are at least 3 great answers to that question about what I would do.
1) I could have the character enter the campaign when the campaign is at a higher level.
2) I could have the character enter the campaign when they were a warrior (Barbarian) before they had this condition. That would be a prequel and just involve ignoring the Rage feature until the character development unlocks that aspect of the character creation. This would probably manifest as Barbarian 2 / Druid 2 /Barbarian +1 (turn on the condition) / level up Barbarian and Druid from there.
3) I could not play that character in that campaign.

Then you switch and ask about what you would do. I don't presume to speak for you. How you might instantiate your character might be dramatically different from how I instantiate my character. Those are great questions to ask yourself when figuring out how to most faithfully instantiate your character concept.


In general, multi-classing just can't map things well that happened before the adventurer's career even starts. The paladin who grew up as an orphan on the street and should therefore have some rogue skills; the warlock who worked as a court jester before making her pact and thus should be part bard; the wizard that was conscripted into the army as a teenager until his spark manifested. These are all character concepts that should be possible at level 1; multiclassing just doesn't allow for it. A player shouldn't be forced to play for several levels before they unlock the skills to represent what their character concept actually is.
Now admittedly, that is not the fault of multi-classing; it's a problem of having a class/level system in the first place and one reason I moved on to other systems long ago. But multi-classing is no more than a thin patch to try and hide that the system is just not equipped well to handle concepts that go beyond the boundaries of the class archetypes.

I am glad you see that is not the fault of multiclassing. I have seen multiclassing work well. It really depends on how far the concept strays from single class support and what multiclass support is available for that concept. So the system is a bit more resilient / broad than you give it credit for, but your root comment is that a class based system will support fewer character concepts than a classless system. That is true and we should all appreciate that there are some classless systems out there for the players that want that.

[Second Wind]

looking back at the fighter, you are mostly correct, but you only get 3 spells, not 4. these are at levels 8, 14 and 20 and only those three.
One of the spells you learn at 3rd level can also come from any school, and can be repicked into any school when you level up. See http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/fighter:eldritch-knight.


You know three 1st-level wizard spells of your choice, two of which you must choose from the abjuration and evocation spells on the wizard spell list.

The Spells Known column of the Eldritch Knight Spellcasting table shows when you learn more wizard spells of 1st level or higher. Each of these spells must be an abjuration or evocation spell of your choice, and must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For instance, when you reach 7th level in this class, you can learn one new spell of 1st or 2nd level.

The spells you learn at 8th, 14th, and 20th level can come from any school of magic.

Whenever you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the wizard spells you know with another spell of your choice from the wizard spell list. The new spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots, and it must be an abjuration or evocation spell, unless you're replacing the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or 20th level from any school of magic.

[OldTrees1]

One of the spells you learn at 3rd level can also come from any school, and can be repicked into any school when you level up.

unless you're replacing the spell you gained at 3rd, 8th, 14th, or 20th level from any school of magic.
For anyone else confused by this. The 5E PHB had an errata that lets Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters also replace the special spell gained at 3rd. So there is some decent flexibility for odd character concepts here.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This is the general roleplaying section. I don't even know how many people here play 5E specifically. Expecting a detailed analysis of 5Es implementation of multiclassing condsidering 5Es classes and possible combinations might be a bit much.
Especially since the RPG where I was feeling the most ashamed about this was Starfinder...

[OldTrees1]

Especially since the RPG where I was feeling the most ashamed about this was Starfinder...

Did the on topic posts (mostly page 1-2) help address the issue? Either by relieving some of the pressure to multiclass or quelling some of the shame?

[Telwar]

Translating mechanical concepts between systems can be tricky, depending on the level of mechanical options you have available. You definitely need to be flexible, how flexible you can be is a key component.

Like, I could take my 4e elementalist sorcerer (Mikhail al-Khelyej), and convert him into 5e...it just requires basing it mostly off of warlock rather than sorcerer (though with sorcerer first to get the Con proficiency, since one of Mikhail's schticks was that he was tough), and doing something with eldritch blast to make them fire.

On the other hand, my 4e Avenger, Cunnincula Peel, is a lot harder to translate. Avengers had good AC for being unarmored and used massive weapons; Cunnincula ran around in a halter top and miniskirt, with a greataxe taller than she was. Monk seems closest, but kensei doesn't allow for heavy weapons. Paladin had the "roll 2x to hit on a single target" (avengers other schtick) and heavy weapons, but you pretty much have to use heavy armor. Surprisingly, barbarian could work, but seems a little unlike the character. Were I trying to play her again, I'd probably try to homebrew a monk subclass for heavy weapons.

My last 4e character, a halfling rogue/assassin who threw shadow blades around and hit like a truck, would have been literally impossible to build prior to Tasha's. Now he'd be represented by a soulknife, probably single-classed, maybe with a brief monk dip.

On the fourth hand, my angel summoner concept wouldn't fly in 5e, since there's no option to conjure or summon a celestial until 9th level, and prior to Tasha's, you couldn't do that until 13th level. Meanwhile, the 4e invoker could do that at 1st level.


All I have is the 3 core books and what is available for free online. Hunters mark does not actually tell my anything about what I am facing. It allows me to kill the monster quicker, which is neat, but that is it. not where it's lair is, not what it could possibly have for a motivation, not what type of monster it is, any of that. looking back at the fighter, you are mostly correct, but you only get 3 spells, not 4. these are at levels 8, 14 and 20 and only those three. the spells I would probably take would be Dark Vision, See Invisibility and Arcane Eye. yes I am aware Dark Vision is transmutation. the concept barely works at all without multiclassing. The rest of the spells I would take would probably be abjuration spells as it is that or evocation.

In third and 3.5 this concept did not work at all until several splat books were released unless you multi-classed. same with previous editions.

For this concept, I would first ask yourself if you want to cast spells, or if you're okay sitting down and using rituals. If you're okay just with rituals, that's trivial, take Ritual Casting for a class that has your preferred divinations.

If you want to cast spells on the fly as well, you still have options, just the squinting level varies.

I'd start with asking the DM if they were okay with you switching out a spell type from eldritch knight, say abjuration, for divination. I imagine that shouldn't be too big a deal. If they're cool with that, you're done. You still can fit in Shield with one of your "free" spells.

If the DM is non-cooperative, take paladin or ranger and Ritual Casting.

[vasilidor]

I am the DM. 5th edition is new to me, but I have played all editions of D&D and Pathfinder 1&2 and a few other not-D&D games like Shadowrun and world of darkness. did not care for world of darkness. but I still say that there are concepts that just flat out work better if one allows multiclassing.

The rituals are something I now need to read now. DMs guide?

[OldTrees1]

The rituals are something I now need to read now. DMs guide?

PHB. Some spells have the Ritual tag. If you have a feature that lets you ritual cast, then you can cast those spells without using a spell slot at the cost of them taking +10 minutes to cast.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Did the on topic posts (mostly page 1-2) help address the issue? Either by relieving some of the pressure to multiclass or quelling some of the shame?
Sort of. It's subsided with some of the classes like Mechanic, but I'm still frustrated with the caster classes because the way they're constructed really discourages multiclassing, to the point where they HAVE a specific archetype geared towards casters who want to go gish (Spell Sergeant) to discourage dipping, but at the same time it's generally regarded as not as efficient as dipping Soldier and losing access to your ultimate class feature.

On a 5e-related sidenote, it does seem to me like there's a Warlock-to-Paladin pipeline that's gotten more and more popular recently (with a certain character from a certain podcast likely being the catalyst). Like, yeah it's relatively decent given both classes rely on CHA, but they're not dipping for power but just like playing through the drama of a Warlock with a dark pact finding salvation through a deity and then becoming a paladin...just an observation. That kind of multiclassing I LIKE! I really, REALLY like because it's integrated into the character's arc and feels more like transitioning from one class to another rather than taking a detour.

[Morty]

On a 5e-related sidenote, it does seem to me like there's a Warlock-to-Paladin pipeline that's gotten more and more popular recently (with a certain character from a certain podcast likely being the catalyst). Like, yeah it's relatively decent given both classes rely on CHA, but they're not dipping for power but just like playing through the drama of a Warlock with a dark pact finding salvation through a deity and then becoming a paladin...just an observation. That kind of multiclassing I LIKE! I really, REALLY like because it's integrated into the character's arc and feels more like transitioning from one class to another rather than taking a detour.

Which exposes the core issue with multiclassing. It's a very rare case where the mechanics of it actually align with a character's themes this way. Most of the time if you combine classes based on your personal vision, you'll end up weaker than if you'd just stuck to a single class. Multiclassing requires planning ahead and combining certain classes with certain other classes to be effective.

[OldTrees1]

Sort of. It's subsided with some of the classes like Mechanic, but I'm still frustrated with the caster classes because the way they're constructed really discourages multiclassing, to the point where they HAVE a specific archetype geared towards casters who want to go gish (Spell Sergeant) to discourage dipping, but at the same time it's generally regarded as not as efficient as dipping Soldier and losing access to your ultimate class feature.

Okay. Since you especially dislike this Soldier dip and losing the capstone feels out of character, it would be really nice if the pressure to dip Solider can be decreased / removed.

I need to learn more about the particular options. However I think our best bet is the ideal of "good enough". Is Spell Sargent good enough for the character concept?

The Soldier dip gives armor proficiency, weapon proficiency, and a small mechanical bonus (best initially appears to be turning your weapon into a +0 magic weapon).

Spell Sergent gives armor proficiency or weapon proficiency.

How is weapon damage calculated in Starfinder? How much less damage does a Spell Sargent (that chose Heavy Armor) do than a Soldier 1 / Spell Sargent X? In 3E D&D we might compare 1d6+12 vs 1d8+1d12 and not see a big difference. In 5E D&D we might compare 1d6+5 vs 1d8+5 and see a bigger but ignorable difference.


On a 5e-related sidenote, it does seem to me like there's a Warlock-to-Paladin pipeline that's gotten more and more popular recently (with a certain character from a certain podcast likely being the catalyst). Like, yeah it's relatively decent given both classes rely on CHA, but they're not dipping for power but just like playing through the drama of a Warlock with a dark pact finding salvation through a deity and then becoming a paladin...just an observation. That kind of multiclassing I LIKE! I really, REALLY like because it's integrated into the character's arc and feels more like transitioning from one class to another rather than taking a detour.

Nice. It sounds like you are quite comfortable following your character concepts if the concepts. Your issues seem to happen when some dip is presented as mandatory (hyperbole) despite being out of character for your character (For example: even if your character never reaches their capstone, they want it as a future goal).

[RandomPeasant]

Which exposes the core issue with multiclassing. It's a very rare case where the mechanics of it actually align with a character's themes this way. Most of the time if you combine classes based on your personal vision, you'll end up weaker than if you'd just stuck to a single class. Multiclassing requires planning ahead and combining certain classes with certain other classes to be effective.

That's not really some unique flaw of multi-classing. It's just really hard to write a system where combining different concepts is balanced with following a single concept. Shadowrun is a classless system, and your hybrid Mage/Street Sam is not going to be as effective as a dedicated Mage or Street Sam would be.

[Xervous]

Jumping off the mention of capstones (as commonly implemented and referenced) I think they’re commonly a failed design feature. For how little most people will get to use it even in games that run to max level, it’s either the superpower for the cinematic fight with the final boss or it’s a T shirt. It’s nigh worthless as an incentive to stay single classed because it simply can’t justify all the incremental steps along the way on its own.

The further you move the benefit back from absolute last level the more alluring it can potentially grow. Consider 9th level spells being accessible at L17, and each spell level justifying the incremental investments.

Or in other words, if you want people to consider staying single classed, put in reasons for them to continue advancing. 5e dropped the ball here on more than a few classes. And of course 3.5e wasn’t aware it was a ball to begin with.

[RandomPeasant]

Or in other words, if you want people to consider staying single classed, put in reasons for them to continue advancing. 5e dropped the ball here on more than a few classes. And of course 3.5e wasn’t aware it was a ball to begin with.

3e has very strong reasons to stay in many classes: spellcasting (and equivalents, like psionics or binding). 3e allows you to PrC out with some freedom, but frankly people should take PrCs, or some equivalent.

[Satinavian]

Which exposes the core issue with multiclassing. It's a very rare case where the mechanics of it actually align with a character's themes this way. Most of the time if you combine classes based on your personal vision, you'll end up weaker than if you'd just stuck to a single class. Multiclassing requires planning ahead and combining certain classes with certain other classes to be effective.

Yes, it is worse than classless systems at providing characters based on ones personal vision/inspiration.

But that should is a reason to ditch classes, not a reason to ditch multiclassing and keep classes.

[Vahnavoi]

Meh. I'm not convinced classless systems are inherently better at giving players the options they want. The customization you have is never the customization the customer wants. :smalltongue: If you draw a Venn diagram where the right circle represent characters possible in a system, and the left circle represents characters your players want to play, it's almost a given that whether the system is D&D or GURPS, the overlapping portion at the middle is tiny in compared to size of the circles.

[RandomPeasant]

Honestly, I think the existence of a multi-classing system creates a temptation to combine things in a way that people might not otherwise try to. If you have a collection of "Artificer" abilities in your classless system, and a separate collection of "Berserker" abilities in that same classless system, people will generally pick Artificer abilities or Berserker abilities. They may combine combine their Artificer abilities with Alchemist or Gadgeteer abilities, but "Artificer/Berserker" is not a concept people naturally want to play. But if you say "here is an Artificer class, here is a Berserker class, combine classes as you see fit", people will be much more tempted to make Artificer/Berserker work.

[Max_Killjoy]

Meh. I'm not convinced classless systems are inherently better at giving players the options they want. The customization you have is never the customization the customer wants. :smalltongue: If you draw a Venn diagram where the right circle represent characters possible in a system, and the left circle represents characters your players want to play, it's almost a given that whether the system is D&D or GURPS, the overlapping portion at the middle is tiny in compared to size of the circles.

Having used HERO 4th and 5th editions extensively, I disagree about the extent of non-overlap. The only time I've not been able to build a character is when the build is just too expensive for the points available, which is an indication that the character is probably too powerful for what's being run, not that the character isn't possible to build.

[Vahnavoi]

I can't comment on HERO specifically since I don't have that game system, but I doubt its awesomeness generalizes across classless systems.

[RandomPeasant]

HERO is, I believe, an effects-based system. That would naturally make it easier to actualize a character concept, because the restrictions it has aren't really at the level of character concepts.

[Max_Killjoy]

HERO is, I believe, an effects-based system. That would naturally make it easier to actualize a character concept, because the restrictions it has aren't really at the level of character concepts.

It is very much a "what is going on here at the character/setting level, and how do we model that into the system mechanics?" thing -- very different from "here's the set of stuff that goes with this concept" or "here are a discrete set of abilities you can choose some from" that even many classless systems are trying to do.

[Jay R]

You have successfully identified the problem, but you've missed what causes it. It is not true that every idea should work in every game.


Meh. I'm not convinced classless systems are inherently better at giving players the options they want. The customization you have is never the customization the customer wants. :smalltongue:

That depends on how you approach the game. I find that I can pretty much always design the superhero I want in Champions (classless), but that's because it's a generic, effects-based system. I can pretty much always design the musketeer-era swashbuckler I want in Flashing Blades (class-based), but that's because I want to play a rogue, soldier, gentleman, or noble. It's a narrow system, and I agree to play within that narrow approach.


If you draw a Venn diagram where the right circle represent characters possible in a system, and the left circle represents characters your players want to play, it's almost a given that whether the system is D&D or GURPS, the overlapping portion at the middle is tiny in compared to size of the circles.

If what the characters want to play isn't defined as a subset of the right circle from the start, then they aren't committed to playing the actual game in front of them. Their starting approach is flawed, and it leads to frustration.

If somebody in the football game wants to use a baseball bat, then the problem isn't that the football system doesn't give the right options; it's that the player hasn't agreed to play football. Similarly, if you want to play a superhero in a Flashing Blades game, the problem isn't the Flashing Blades system.

When you agree to play Paranoia, you have agreed to play a mutant Troubleshooter in a secret society.
When you agree to play Pendragon, you have agreed to play an Arthurian knight.
When you agree to play TOON, you have agreed to play a cartoon character -- and not just any cartoon character, but one who can be defined within the system of Muscles, Zip, Smarts, and Chutzpah, and a very narrow set of Schticks.

The solution to the (very real) problem you are pointing out is to stop coming up with character ideas that are outside the bounds of the game.

Since I started playing D&D in 1975 with just the original three pamphlets, I've always been able to design a character I would love to play -- even when I had to roll 3d6 six times, in order. But that's because I design my character within the system. I never had a desire to play a gnome who simulated fireballs and summoning spells with his illusions until D&D 3.5e came up with the Shadowcraft Mage.

"I have invented a character in my head. This game should let me play it." This approach will lead to frustration and difficulties. Don't start to play checkers and then get frustrated because you wanted to play on the red squares. Plan your strategy knowing you can only play on the black squares."

The right approach is "What cool character can I invent who will be fun to play in this world with these rules?" [And if the game works that way, "with these rolled stats".]

If the system doesn't allow your character conception, then you're trying to play a football player with a baseball bat.

[icefractal]

The right approach is "What cool character can I invent who will be fun to play in this world with these rules?" [And if the game works that way, "with these rolled stats".]If the system doesn't allow your character conception, then you're trying to play a football player with a baseball bat.That's true, but OTOH there's nothing wrong with saying "actually I'd rather play a game which does support these type of concepts, let's do that instead".

Like it's fine to say "I'm going to run a game with only Dwarf Monk and Kobold Truenamer as options", but it's also fine to say "No thanks - but if you opened that up more I might be interested."

[quinron]

Honestly, I think the existence of a multi-classing system creates a temptation to combine things in a way that people might not otherwise try to. If you have a collection of "Artificer" abilities in your classless system, and a separate collection of "Berserker" abilities in that same classless system, people will generally pick Artificer abilities or Berserker abilities. They may combine combine their Artificer abilities with Alchemist or Gadgeteer abilities, but "Artificer/Berserker" is not a concept people naturally want to play. But if you say "here is an Artificer class, here is a Berserker class, combine classes as you see fit", people will be much more tempted to make Artificer/Berserker work.

This is kind of what I was getting at with one of my earlier comments - as certain folkloric and literary tropes get transformed in different ways into the core features of classes, you get more and more kits to bash together to make your concepts. One of my favorite characters I've ever developed was an acrobatic thief who got sinister power from his fiendish great-grandfather; I never would've come up with anything like that if it weren't for the 3.5 Warlock class and its weird new features, the Uncanny Trickster prestige class, and the (really weird and probably not very good) bloodline rules from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana book.

[Second Wind]

If somebody in the football game wants to use a baseball bat, then the problem isn't that the football system doesn't give the right options; it's that the player hasn't agreed to play football. Similarly, if you want to play a superhero in a Flashing Blades game, the problem isn't the Flashing Blades system.

When you agree to play Paranoia, you have agreed to play a mutant Troubleshooter in a secret society.
When you agree to play Pendragon, you have agreed to play an Arthurian knight.
Right, but those are strongly-themed games. D&D is kitchen sink fantasy stuffed with random crud pulled in helter-skelter from popular culture and blended with its own oddball gimmicks. The default setting is deliberately incoherent so that any goofy monster, trap, or treasure could be lurking around the corner. There's no rhyme or reason to which fantasy goes in and which fantasy stays out. So, when a fantasy character concept is prohibited, there's no thematic justification. It just happens not to have rules support. (Maybe in the next book...?)

[Vahnavoi]

You have successfully identified the problem, but you've missed what causes it. It is not true that every idea should work in every game.

I pretty much said the same thing as the italicized parts a few pages ago:
Well duh. There isn't any universal reason for a game to allow any arbitrary character.

Moving on:


If what the characters want to play isn't defined as a subset of the right circle from the start, then they aren't committed to playing the actual game in front of them. Their starting approach is flawed, and it leads to frustration.

[ ... ]

The solution to the (very real) problem you are pointing out is to stop coming up with character ideas that are outside the bounds of the game.

I posited a Venn diagram with small overlap, not one with no overlap. I was riffing on the same problem as you, with the same (implied) solution. We aren't in disagreement over this.

[Morgaln]

Honestly, I think the existence of a multi-classing system creates a temptation to combine things in a way that people might not otherwise try to. If you have a collection of "Artificer" abilities in your classless system, and a separate collection of "Berserker" abilities in that same classless system, people will generally pick Artificer abilities or Berserker abilities. They may combine combine their Artificer abilities with Alchemist or Gadgeteer abilities, but "Artificer/Berserker" is not a concept people naturally want to play. But if you say "here is an Artificer class, here is a Berserker class, combine classes as you see fit", people will be much more tempted to make Artificer/Berserker work.

Most classless systems don't work that way. They don't present "class" packages. They just have discrete abilities that you can mix and match any way you choose; they may have abilities that would be considered "berserker" in a class system, and other abilites that are considered "artificer" in that system, but in the classless system, they are not separate. They all are abilities that are part of the same pool of "abilities a character can learn." Therefore the question of combining "berserker" with "artificer" doesn't even come up. Instead you select abilites you want to have for that character, independent from other abilities.

That can very well lead to a character that can (in a fictional classless version of D&D) fight with his hands as if they were weapons, turn undead, go into a berserker rage and create alchemical bombs to throw, just because I liked all of those abilities and wanted to have them. It's up to me to decide how to make sense of that fluff-wise (of the top of my head, he's a holy man from a monastery that teaches alchemy, and who uses substances that drive him into a battle frenzy). But I can just as well go in with a concept in mind (e. g. "I want to be similar to Conan") and pick abilites that complement that concept(in the Conan example, fighting abilities, burglary skills and some stuff appropriate for sailors). And if I decide to pick up backstab some time later I can do so, without getting everything else that is part of the "rogue" package.

Depending on the system, there's a sliding scale of how this works. If there is some prepackaging, the most common thing to happen is to put "magic" as a distinct package you need to unlock access to during character creation.

[Max_Killjoy]

Most classless systems don't work that way. They don't present "class" packages. They just have discrete abilities that you can mix and match any way you choose; they may have abilities that would be considered "berserker" in a class system, and other abilites that are considered "artificer" in that system, but in the classless system, they are not separate. They all are abilities that are part of the same pool of "abilities a character can learn." Therefore the question of combining "berserker" with "artificer" doesn't even come up. Instead you select abilites you want to have for that character, independent from other abilities.

That can very well lead to a character that can (in a fictional classless version of D&D) fight with his hands as if they were weapons, turn undead, go into a berserker rage and create alchemical bombs to throw, just because I liked all of those abilities and wanted to have them. It's up to me to decide how to make sense of that fluff-wise (of the top of my head, he's a holy man from a monastery that teaches alchemy, and who uses substances that drive him into a battle frenzy). But I can just as well go in with a concept in mind (e. g. "I want to be similar to Conan") and pick abilites that complement that concept(in the Conan example, fighting abilities, burglary skills and some stuff appropriate for sailors). And if I decide to pick up backstab some time later I can do so, without getting everything else that is part of the "rogue" package.

Depending on the system, there's a sliding scale of how this works. If there is some prepackaging, the most common thing to happen is to put "magic" as a distinct package you need to unlock access to during character creation.

For me, perhaps the worst part of the class-based systems is all the junk that doesn't fit the character that has to be picked up along the way, because that's what comes next in the "progression" and is between here and where the abilities that actually fit the character might be.

[RandomPeasant]

This is kind of what I was getting at with one of my earlier comments - as certain folkloric and literary tropes get transformed in different ways into the core features of classes, you get more and more kits to bash together to make your concepts. One of my favorite characters I've ever developed was an acrobatic thief who got sinister power from his fiendish great-grandfather; I never would've come up with anything like that if it weren't for the 3.5 Warlock class and its weird new features, the Uncanny Trickster prestige class, and the (really weird and probably not very good) bloodline rules from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana book.

As the saying goes, restrictions breed creativity. Defining character concepts has value, both in that it provides roleplaying hooks and in that people simply like having defined classes. Getting to say "I'm a Necromancer" and have that mean something has real value to many people.


So, when a fantasy character concept is prohibited, there's no thematic justification. It just happens not to have rules support. (Maybe in the next book...?)

But that happens in classless systems too. Certainly you can cover more ground if anyone can take an ability (though there are advantages to classes that are being ignored), but the book is finite in any case. If D&D was classless, that would allow you to make a Death Knight character in core D&D by taking martial and necromancy options, but it wouldn't allow you to play an Insect Mage, because there isn't any insect magic for you to have.


Most classless systems don't work that way. They don't present "class" packages. They just have discrete abilities that you can mix and match any way you choose; they may have abilities that would be considered "berserker" in a class system, and other abilites that are considered "artificer" in that system, but in the classless system, they are not separate.

I wasn't saying they were. But again, look at Shadowrun. You can take Mage abilities as a Street Samurai or Rigger abilities as an Adept. But people generally don't. Some of that is mechanical incentives, but part of the appeal of multiclassing absolutely is mixing things that aren't intended to mix.


For me, perhaps the worst part of the class-based systems is all the junk that doesn't fit the character that has to be picked up along the way, because that's what comes next in the "progression" and is between here and where the abilities that actually fit the character might be.

Again, that's far from unique to classed systems. Any system is going to group abilities in some way, and that creates the same potential that you might be forced to take abilities you don't want to get ones you do. Maybe attributes are divided up so that you can't be clever without also being agile, or so that your toughness is always proportional to your strength. Maybe skills are grouped in a way that forces you to pick up lying to get sneaking, or so that the only way to know a lot about magic is to be really good at doing magic. Maybe sorcerous disciplines have talents you want locked away after talents you don't. Maybe the key attribute for the skill or magic you want your character to do doesn't line up with the attributes you imagine them having.

[Max_Killjoy]

Again, that's far from unique to classed systems. Any system is going to group abilities in some way, and that creates the same potential that you might be forced to take abilities you don't want to get ones you do. Maybe attributes are divided up so that you can't be clever without also being agile, or so that your toughness is always proportional to your strength. Maybe skills are grouped in a way that forces you to pick up lying to get sneaking, or so that the only way to know a lot about magic is to be really good at doing magic. Maybe sorcerous disciplines have talents you want locked away after talents you don't. Maybe the key attribute for the skill or magic you want your character to do doesn't line up with the attributes you imagine them having.


There are systems that don't group abilities, or require taking them in any particular order, or taking one ability to unlock others (that is, they don't have progression or trees even on discrete unclassed abilities).

However, one of my pet peeves with a lot of systems is that effort to reduce the number of characteristics -- getting so extreme as to have three, such as "physical stuff", "brain stuff", and "social stuff" -- such that you can't be tough without being strong and agile, or you can't be book-smart without being perceptive, or you can't be resistant to manipulation without being good at manipulation.

But as noted, not all systems do that.

Also note that system shortcomings are not the same as setting details. A setting in which sorcery does depend on wits, willpower, and learning isn't making a system restriction by tying sorcery to a "brain stuff" characteristic, it's reflecting the facts of the setting.

[RandomPeasant]

A setting in which sorcery does depend on wits, willpower, and learning isn't making a system restriction by tying sorcery to a "brain stuff" characteristic, it's reflecting the facts of the setting.

But what about a setting where everyone who has gained Earth Shape also has Earth Sense? Any mechanics can be a reflection of the world (and, I would argue, mechanics and the world should reflect each other). It seems to me to be arbitrary to accept "sorcery uses willpower" as a legitimate setting decision, but to reject "you must learn fireball before wall of fire" as junk that doesn't fit the character.

[Max_Killjoy]

But what about a setting where everyone who has gained Earth Shape also has Earth Sense? Any mechanics can be a reflection of the world (and, I would argue, mechanics and the world should reflect each other). It seems to me to be arbitrary to accept "sorcery uses willpower" as a legitimate setting decision, but to reject "you must learn fireball before wall of fire" as junk that doesn't fit the character.

We're not talking about a direct sequence of bigger and bigger variations on the same basic spell.

We're talking about things that are completely unrelated beyond being assigned to the same predetermined supposed "concept", such as "you must take armor-wearing skill to take weapon-using skill" or "you must take Fast Hands to take Supreme Sneak" or "you must take Uncanny Dodge at level 5, before you can take Blindsense at level 14", or "you have to take ability X on the tree to unlock ability Y, even though the two aren't in any way related."

[Satinavian]

But what about a setting where everyone who has gained Earth Shape also has Earth Sense? Any mechanics can be a reflection of the world (and, I would argue, mechanics and the world should reflect each other). It seems to me to be arbitrary to accept "sorcery uses willpower" as a legitimate setting decision, but to reject "you must learn fireball before wall of fire" as junk that doesn't fit the character.
Even many point buy systems use prerequisites for higher grade powers when it seems appropriate. No need for classes just for that.

[RandomPeasant]

We're talking about things that are completely unrelated beyond being assigned to the same predetermined supposed "concept", such as "you must take armor-wearing skill to take weapon-using skill" or "you must take Fast Hands to take Supreme Sneak" or "you must take Uncanny Dodge at level 5, before you can take Blindsense at level 14", or "you have to take ability X on the tree to unlock ability Y, even though the two aren't in any way related."

But isn't that more true of attribute assignments? "You have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" sounds much more like "you have to be able to fly to shoot lightning from your hands" than "you have to be able to shock grip someone in melee to be able to shoot lightning from your hands". Certainly there's a spectrum of reasonability to prerequisites, but as with any spectrum it's very difficult to justify saying "right here, that's where it goes from 'okay' to 'not okay', not anywhere else".

[Satinavian]

As the saying goes, restrictions breed creativity. Defining character concepts has value, both in that it provides roleplaying hooks and in that people simply like having defined classes. Getting to say "I'm a Necromancer" and have that mean something has real value to many people.Still true in a classless system


I wasn't saying they were. But again, look at Shadowrun. You can take Mage abilities as a Street Samurai or Rigger abilities as an Adept. But people generally don't. Some of that is mechanical incentives, but part of the appeal of multiclassing absolutely is mixing things that aren't intended to mix.As someone who has played adepts with implants, mages that were also deckers and had a decker/rigger/streetdoc as one of the lngest played characters i completely disagree that point buy systems lead to people not mixing as much as in class based systems with multiclass options.


Again, that's far from unique to classed systems. Any system is going to group abilities in some way, and that creates the same potential that you might be forced to take abilities you don't want to get ones you do. Maybe attributes are divided up so that you can't be clever without also being agile, or so that your toughness is always proportional to your strength. Maybe skills are grouped in a way that forces you to pick up lying to get sneaking, or so that the only way to know a lot about magic is to be really good at doing magic. Maybe sorcerous disciplines have talents you want locked away after talents you don't. Maybe the key attribute for the skill or magic you want your character to do doesn't line up with the attributes you imagine them having.That can happen, yes. But generally classless systems have far less of this nonsense.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That can happen, yes. But generally classless systems have far less of this nonsense.

Instead they have different kinds of nonsense. One of my strongest heuristics is conservation of annoyance. All game systems have about the same amount of nonsense/annoyance/edge cases. They're just distributed differently, sometimes locked in cabinets where they don't disturb the happy path (at the cost of creating a different happy path).

And not just game systems--physical theories (where I first developed that law), computer OSs, etc. No system is perfect, no system covers all the bases. Especially because "perfect" is subjective in many cases, so what's perfect for you might be highly inadequate and unusable for someone else.

[RandomPeasant]

Still true in a classless system

No, it isn't. A classless system does not have a Necromancer. That's what "classless" means. If I tell you that my 3e character is a Dread Necromancer, you have a very good idea of what that means and what kind of capabilities he has (assuming you know the system well enough to know what a Dread Necromancer is). But if I say that my character in a classless system is a "Necromancer", your knowledge of what I mean is far more limited, because I could have bought or not bought any of the necromancy-related abilities in the system. Can I command undead? Maybe, maybe not. Can I drain the life from others? Maybe, maybe not. Can I shoot blasts of bone or shadow energy? Maybe, maybe not. And that's not to mention the role-protection effect of classes. Part of what "Necromancer" means in a class system is that I don't have the abilities (or at least the unique abilities) of the Assassin or Priest classes, and they don't have the unique abilities of my class.


That can happen, yes. But generally classless systems have far less of this nonsense.

And classed systems have far less of other kinds of nonsense. Yes, "pick whatever you want" results in a greater degree of "having the things you want and not other things". That's true, but that's not really an accurate look at the tradeoffs of classed and classless systems, any more than the fact that the real world scores higher on "can you Google places the players want to go and get useful information" is an accurate look at the tradeoffs of setting a game in "the real world, but with magic" versus "a fantasy world".


All game systems have about the same amount of nonsense/annoyance/edge cases.

That goes too far. It is absolutely possible for systems to be better or worse, not just different. Just as it is possible (if difficult) to fix bugs in software without inducing them, you can make rules better.

[Max_Killjoy]

But isn't that more true of attribute assignments? "You have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" sounds much more like "you have to be able to fly to shoot lightning from your hands" than "you have to be able to shock grip someone in melee to be able to shoot lightning from your hands". Certainly there's a spectrum of reasonability to prerequisites, but as with any spectrum it's very difficult to justify saying "right here, that's where it goes from 'okay' to 'not okay', not anywhere else".


The reasonableness of "you have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" depends entirely on how people gain the ability to shoot lighting from their hands in that setting.

The reasonableness of "you have to be able to backstab people and balance on narrow beams in order to be able to pick pockets or read scrolls" is... well, I can't find a way to make that reasonable.

[Satinavian]

No, it isn't. A classless system does not have a Necromancer. That's what "classless" means. If I tell you that my 3e character is a Dread Necromancer, you have a very good idea of what that means and what kind of capabilities he has (assuming you know the system well enough to know what a Dread Necromancer is). But if I say that my character in a classless system is a "Necromancer", your knowledge of what I mean is far more limited, because I could have bought or not bought any of the necromancy-related abilities in the system. Can I command undead? Maybe, maybe not. Can I drain the life from others? Maybe, maybe not. Can I shoot blasts of bone or shadow energy? Maybe, maybe not. And that's not to mention the role-protection effect of classes. Part of what "Necromancer" means in a class system is that I don't have the abilities (or at least the unique abilities) of the Assassin or Priest classes, and they don't have the unique abilities of my class.And still i have no problem whatsoever of talking about necromancers in classless systems and people having a good grasp what that means. I mean, i literally did that. And people know that the character will have an assortment of whatever the system has in terms of undead mastery, ghost summoning and death magic and that a big chunk of his points have gone there.
Something doesn't need a class to be understood. If i use D&D and say my character is a horse-archer, people understand that as well without needing some horse-archer class.


And classed systems have far less of other kinds of nonsense. Yes, "pick whatever you want" results in a greater degree of "having the things you want and not other things". That's true, but that's not really an accurate look at the tradeoffs of classed and classless systems, Sure. It not complete analysis of the tradeoffs. Just a single point of advantage of point buy. One has to judge for oneself whether the advantages of class based systems (whatever those may be) are woth more or less and then pick a corresponding game.

[RandomPeasant]

The reasonableness of "you have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" depends entirely on how people gain the ability to shoot lighting from their hands in that setting.

The reasonableness of "you have to be able to backstab people and balance on narrow beams in order to be able to pick pockets or read scrolls" is... well, I can't find a way to make that reasonable.

Well, the latter is not something classed systems (even D&D) say, so that's not really a good example. But ultimately, you're not really rebutting the point. It's certainly possible to make claims that violate suspension of disbelief, but you're never going to be able to draw a bright line and say "this right here is the point where you've bundled abilities together too much".


And still i have no problem whatsoever of talking about necromancers in classless systems and people having a good grasp what that means.

If you can't tell the difference between "I have some selection of things that I think is worth calling 'Necromancer'" and "I have these specific necromancy abilities", I don't know what to tell you. There is an obvious difference between those two things, and being able to say the latter does have value. The exact thing you are complaining about classes doing by definition gives them better descriptive density than concepts.


If i use D&D and say my character is a horse-archer, people understand that as well without needing some horse-archer class.

I never said classes are the only thing with descriptive value. But it should be obvious that saying "my character is a horse-archer" tells people a lot less about what your character is doing than saying "my character is a Ranger with the 'Mounted' combat style".

[Tanarii]

And still i have no problem whatsoever of talking about necromancers in classless systems and people having a good grasp what that means. I mean, i literally did that. And people know that the character will have an assortment of whatever the system has in terms of undead mastery, ghost summoning and death magic and that a big chunk of his points have gone there.You left out "psychic who talks to the dead, but otherwise has no other special powers".

Because "Necromancer" is a word that will be both world and system specific. It's not a word that that has very specific meaning, other than some kind of supernatural power related to the dead.



Something doesn't need a class to be understood. If i use D&D and say my character is a horse-archer, people understand that as well without needing some horse-archer class.
Someone who is useless as soon as the adventure goes into urban, underground, or non-plains natural terrain?

[Cluedrew]

One of my strongest heuristics is conservation of annoyance. All game systems have about the same amount of nonsense/annoyance/edge cases. They're just distributed differently, sometimes locked in cabinets where they don't disturb the happy path (at the cost of creating a different happy path).
That goes too far. It is absolutely possible for systems to be better or worse, not just different. Just as it is possible (if difficult) to fix bugs in software without inducing them, you can make rules better.I agree with general idea of both of these statements, you can't make a system good at everything but quality still matters. And if you need any proof annoyance is not conserved, just try and increase it.

To Necromancer: "Speaks to the Dead", or some sort of ghost whisperer is actually the (a?) traditional meaning of the term too. This corpse puppeteer meaning of the term seems to be quite new.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, the latter is not something classed systems (even D&D) say, so that's not really a good example. But ultimately, you're not really rebutting the point. It's certainly possible to make claims that violate suspension of disbelief, but you're never going to be able to draw a bright line and say "this right here is the point where you've bundled abilities together too much".


I am taking these examples straight from the 5e PHB, so don't sit there and tell me that it's "not something classed systems do".

You're trying very hard to elide the clear distinction between "being smart makes you better at doing X", which is no different from "being strong makes you better at lifting things"... and "here's are two unrelated abilities we've decided you have to take both of in order to get either of".

And again, it's not about suspension of disbelief, it's about the relationship or lack thereof between the abilities, and the way the abilities in a class are divorced from specific characters and instead require the player to choose a mechanical package first and then build the character (as in the "fictional person") around that grabbag of unrelated abilities.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree with general idea of both of these statements, you can't make a system good at everything but quality still matters. And if you need any proof annoyance is not conserved, just try and increase it.

To Necromancer: "Speaks to the Dead", or some sort of ghost whisperer is actually the (a?) traditional meaning of the term too. This corpse puppeteer meaning of the term seems to be quite new.

Odysseus uses what was the thing that "necromancy" meant for most of the word's history when he summoned up the shades of the dead. It's literally "divination via contact with the dead".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/necromancy

I'm not exactly sure when the 20th century "necromancy" came to be associated with a caricature of certain faiths (that we can't talk about because).

[Satinavian]

I literally had ghost summoning as the second point in the list. So why this discussion again ?

[Max_Killjoy]

I literally had ghost summoning as the second point in the list. So why this discussion again ?

So you did.

Now I'm not sure why we got that tangent.

[RandomPeasant]

I am taking these examples straight from the 5e PHB, so don't sit there and tell me that it's "not something classed systems do".

That's not even something 5e does. Class skills are on different class lists, so you absolutely can have Decipher Script (or whatever it is in 5e) without having any particular other ability.


You're trying very hard to elide the clear distinction between "being smart makes you better at doing X", which is no different from "being strong makes you better at lifting things"... and "here's are two unrelated abilities we've decided you have to take both of in order to get either of".

That's exactly how being smart works. If you're smart in D&D 3e, you get a bonus to Search and Craft. If you're smart in other systems, you get other bonuses, but the nature of attributes is that they bind together multiple competencies that are not inherently related (consider that different games have different "smart" stats and different relationships between them and skills). You can say you find that less offensive than having to get Sneak Attack to unlock Evasion, but it's a difference of degree, not kind. Saying that "Intelligence Skills" is a justifiable relationship for the game to enforce but "Rogue Abilities" is not is not really a principled distinction. Especially if you look at transitionary things on the spectrum like "Shadow Magic unlocks these abilities in this order because that's how Shadow Magic works".

[Tanarii]

I literally had ghost summoning as the second point in the list. So why this discussion again ?
Because necromancer != ghost summoner

You listed a bunch of things including ghost summoning that are what some people might think of for a necromancer, and others might not.

Which is actually an argument in favor of classless. If the concept had a strong archetype with classic abilities, that'd be an argument in favor a class.

[Vahnavoi]

@RandomPeasant and Max_Killjoy:

It looks to me that you're in perfect agreement that class-based systems with multiclassing encourage weird conceptual chimeras, one of you just likes it while the other dislikes it.

This is distinct from allowing weird conceptual chimeras. I do think that classless systems often allow for more weird combinations, but they don't necessarily make these weird combinations more visible or desireable for play. For example, a Warrior/Cleric/Paladin/Monk from 3.5 D&D, taking descriptions of the classes at face value, implies a very specific background, ethos, limitations and abilities, something you could create in a classless point-buy system, but why would you ever?

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not even something 5e does. Class skills are on different class lists, so you absolutely can have Decipher Script (or whatever it is in 5e) without having any particular other ability.



That's exactly how being smart works. If you're smart in D&D 3e, you get a bonus to Search and Craft. If you're smart in other systems, you get other bonuses, but the nature of attributes is that they bind together multiple competencies that are not inherently related (consider that different games have different "smart" stats and different relationships between them and skills). You can say you find that less offensive than having to get Sneak Attack to unlock Evasion, but it's a difference of degree, not kind. Saying that "Intelligence Skills" is a justifiable relationship for the game to enforce but "Rogue Abilities" is not is not really a principled distinction. Especially if you look at transitionary things on the spectrum like "Shadow Magic unlocks these abilities in this order because that's how Shadow Magic works".


The examples I gave are so clearly NOT about 5e's skills... that I'm having a hard time finding a way to NOT chalk up you referencing them here to deliberate conflation or obfuscation on your part.

[OldTrees1]

The examples I gave are so clearly NOT about 5e's skills... that I'm having a hard time finding a way to NOT chalk up you referencing them here to deliberate conflation or obfuscation on your part.

@Max could you repeat the examples. When I went back to look for them, the ones I found could have been interpreted to be skill adjacent.

Wait were you talking about this one instead of your post about Str, Int, Cha?

We're not talking about a direct sequence of bigger and bigger variations on the same basic spell.

We're talking about things that are completely unrelated beyond being assigned to the same predetermined supposed "concept", such as "you must take armor-wearing skill to take weapon-using skill" or "you must take Fast Hands to take Supreme Sneak" or "you must take Uncanny Dodge at level 5, before you can take Blindsense at level 14", or "you have to take ability X on the tree to unlock ability Y, even though the two aren't in any way related."
Okay that is talking about non skill abilities. But shortly thereafter it sounds like the conversation shifted towards ability scores / skills

The reasonableness of "you have to be smart to shoot lightning from your hands" depends entirely on how people gain the ability to shoot lighting from their hands in that setting.

The reasonableness of "you have to be able to backstab people and balance on narrow beams in order to be able to pick pockets or read scrolls" is... well, I can't find a way to make that reasonable.

I am confused. I was not following the conversation very attentively so some confusion is expected. However maybe 3rd party confusion might be relevant to your judgement.




For example, a Warrior/Cleric/Paladin/Monk from 3.5 D&D, taking descriptions of the classes at face value, implies a very specific background, ethos, limitations and abilities, something you could create in a classless point-buy system, but why would you ever?

An aside:
Warrior/Cleric/Paladin/Monk sounds like a mechanical adjustment (limitations and abilities) to the Paladin/Monk without significantly impacting the background, ethos, etc. If someone else sees this example this way, I recommend we focus on the intended example. The intended example is of a 4 class multiclass where each class significantly impacts the concept.



I agree with you Vahnavoi. Classless systems generally can support the more chimeric character concepts. In general I would assume a classless character to be more likely to be a hybrid but less likely to be a complex combination. Some of this is because the core of a character concept might be easier to implement in the classless system. Whereas a class based system adds additional context onto the character.

To give a mild example. Dun the Dungeon Tour guide was a Rogue and thus knew about vulnerable parts on dungeon denizens that could be exploited in combat (sneak attack). However that is not part of Dun's core character concept. In a classless system Dun would not know sneak attack. In 3E, where Rogues can trades away Sneak Attack, Dun would not know sneak attack. However Dun hails from 5E so Dun does know sneak attack (which adds additional characterization onto the core concept).