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.

"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.

"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.