Multiclassing/Dipping Shame

[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'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'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.