Midnight I’m not saying that clerics, paladins, warlocks and wizards shouldn’t multiclass. I’m not saying that for any given character of these classes there aren’t multiclasses that make sense both in terms of mechanical interaction and in terms of the CHARACTER’S persona. What I am trying to say in way that can be heard is that for these classes not only are there multiclass choices that are bad for them mechanically there are also multiclass choices that are bad for that specific character because of the persona and restrictions the persona imposes.
i multiclass most of the time. I like multiclasses because as one of you pointed out it makes the character multi talented and as I’ve pointed out in several threads I like to think of myself as a very multitalented guy so playing a multitalented character works for me. But while I might play a cleric/ sorceror multiclass im a lot less likely to play a cleric Wizard multiclass - not because it impossible but because the character is having to always be deciding how much of their time is dedicated to their deity and how much is dedicated to spell research and item creation. So in the FRs (where I DM mostly) a cleric/Wizard multiclass makes sense if your deity is Azuth, Mystra, Shar or Correllon but makes much less sense if it’s Lathander or Malar.
So in the FRs (where I DM mostly) a cleric/Wizard multiclass makes sense if your deity is Azuth, Mystra, Shar or Correllon but makes much less sense if it’s Lathander or Malar.
Then it's not all wizards and clerics, it's some wizards and clerics - which isn't all that different from character personalities getting stretched a little thinly.
Lathander is the god of creativity, art, culture and the betterment of the self. I don't see how that's hard to reconcile with spell research and item creation. Malar's a bit more difficult, unless your wizardly research focuses on curses, transformation and spells that make you a better hunter. It's not the classes that matter here, it's the character concept and how the classes apply to that concept.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Your getting there Pan. It’s just those jarring transitions that I’m talking about really. Where even a 1 level dip is really out of character for THAT SPECIFIC character. My experience is that no matter the edition when that kind of switcheroo occurs it almost always has more to do with power building than with power playing once you get the player really explaining why they want it. If you want to try something like that in my games you should be talking to me in advance about what you want and why. If I think is reasonable and fits with how you’ve played the character ( the persona as seen from the outside if you will) I’m more than happy to arrange something in game to give you the detour you need to make the change. I’m not happy when you spring it on me and you may find unexpected problems because of it.
So in the FRs (where I DM mostly) a cleric/Wizard multiclass makes sense if your deity is Azuth, Mystra, Shar or Correllon but makes much less sense if it’s Lathander or Malar.
Then it's not all wizards and clerics, it's some wizards and clerics - which isn't all that different from character personalities getting stretched a little thinly.
Lathander is the god of creativity, art, culture and the betterment of the self. I don't see how that's hard to reconcile with spell research and item creation. Malar's a bit more difficult, unless your wizardly research focuses on curses, transformation and spells that make you a better hunter. It's not the classes that matter here, it's the character concept and how the classes apply to that concept.
Wizards, clerics, warlocks and Paladins are harder (as classes) to create multiclasses for because as individuals there ways of stretching the persona that don’t really work. The other classes can have this problem but it is generally less severe or problematical for the individual character.
So in the FRs (where I DM mostly) a cleric/Wizard multiclass makes sense if your deity is Azuth, Mystra, Shar or Correllon but makes much less sense if it’s Lathander or Malar.
Then it's not all wizards and clerics, it's some wizards and clerics - which isn't all that different from character personalities getting stretched a little thinly.
Lathander is the god of creativity, art, culture and the betterment of the self. I don't see how that's hard to reconcile with spell research and item creation. Malar's a bit more difficult, unless your wizardly research focuses on curses, transformation and spells that make you a better hunter. It's not the classes that matter here, it's the character concept and how the classes apply to that concept.
Your finally getting it Pangurjan.
This isn't really any different from what I've been saying all along, because this isn't a multiclassing issue. It's a character issue that can be applied to multiclassing, but that doesn't make it a multiclassing issue. And if it isn't a multiclassing issue, I don't think it can be argued it's a bigger issue multiclassing with X, Y or Z class than any others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You have a point about Lathander Pan he probably isn’t the best example. Perhaps Ilmater or Helm would be better (or kelemvor the “good” god of death)
on the other hand while he is the deity of dawns and new beginnings that would fit more with losing the old life to start the new than adding something onto the old (which would be yesterday’s life not Today’s?)
So in the FRs (where I DM mostly) a cleric/Wizard multiclass makes sense if your deity is Azuth, Mystra, Shar or Correllon but makes much less sense if it’s Lathander or Malar.
Then it's not all wizards and clerics, it's some wizards and clerics - which isn't all that different from character personalities getting stretched a little thinly.
Lathander is the god of creativity, art, culture and the betterment of the self. I don't see how that's hard to reconcile with spell research and item creation. Malar's a bit more difficult, unless your wizardly research focuses on curses, transformation and spells that make you a better hunter. It's not the classes that matter here, it's the character concept and how the classes apply to that concept.
Your finally getting it Pangurjan.
This isn't really any different from what I've been saying all along, because this isn't a multiclassing issue. It's a character issue that can be applied to multiclassing, but that doesn't make it a multiclassing issue. And if it isn't a multiclassing issue, I don't think it can be argued it's a bigger issue multiclassing with X, Y or Z class than any others.
Let’s put it this way - I think of it as a multiclassing issue because it shows up primarily when a player starts trying to multiclass for fun and power without regard for the character they are “playing”. It is typically much less of a problem with a single class character.
I feel W1ldB1ll you're trying to win an argument where when it comes down to it your practice is almost identical to what ever. The logic for multi classing you put out for your own play and presumably your campaign worlds is sound, but not the exclusively so. I think there's just the preconception that a move into taking on additional class features is a "breach" or "break" from some sort of path where fidelity to the class is the greater reward (which is very Catholic in the philosophical sense... ahem, anyway). Of course service to some deities/domains/oaths/patrons aren't going to make sense. However, Lathander I could easily see finding worthy servants whose path lead them through Cleric and Bard levels (Lathanader being sorta Apolloinan in their conception, maybe a bit less mathematically rigid but definitely in promoting the standards of human virtues in the culture).
I agree with Pang, single class selections can be as poorly thought or ill conceived as multi-class. We all want good playing, I don't believe multi-class options put players or games at any greater risk than subclass selection, or spell preparation, or weapon choice, or being stingy with inspiration. We all want sensible games, that's basically it, right? Every choice in the game is best if done with consideration to the game. I don't see MC ing as a unique challenge to that consensus.
Let's also back track to the presumptions of mono classing being the natural order in game or whatever you want to call mono classing maintains that multi classing risks. I think I used game integrity earlier. Class isn't necessarily "in game identity." We use class and subclass names to help give players a sense of who we are, but in game don't discuss folks as "level ten fighters" or even "fighters." Referring to an NPC as a rogue or ranger or whatever isn't necessarily immersive, rather it's meta narrative shorthand to give players a sense of capabilities. So given that a class in world terms isn't really a "thing" (unless you create structures in your world to contain them) and mechanically is basically a table of power progression, I just don't see the need to insist upon or advocate faithful adherence to class if the role suggests other possibilities in level development. Maybe they never get to cast 9th level spells, but they do have that trick where they walk away unscathed from Dragons breath if they make their save. Coupled with their magic, that's cool too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No, not trying to win anything. I’ve figured out that you can’t on here. But I was trying to get my point across so that it was actually heard and considered and eventually Pan at least got what I was saying, he disagreed but that is fine. For a number of posts it felt like we were talking past each other (as often happens on here it seems) without actually having both sides understand the other’s points. That can be very frustrating.
also, thanks to your posts and the others I was able to get a few ideas worked out in my own head which is what I really wanted - so thank you!
No, not trying to win anything. I’ve figured out that you can’t on here. But I was trying to get my point across so that it was actually heard and considered and eventually Pan at least got what I was saying, he disagreed but that is fine. For a number of posts it felt like we were talking past each other (as often happens on here it seems) without actually having both sides understand the other’s points. That can be very frustrating.
also, thanks to your posts and the others I was able to get a few ideas worked out in my own head which is what I really wanted - so thank you!
So where are you at then? I believe you began the thread somewhat suspicious of the ease of what is now called multi classing vs what AD&D at least called dual classing. I think you were questioning the wisdom of players who did MC, were sort of on the fence about how much you'd allow it in your own games and speculated imposing sort of punitive measures like the OG leveling and embargo on original class abilities. Now I believe you're tolerant of MCing if it makes sense. Is that basically it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I was always tolerant of multiclassing. I was pointing out that under older rules you had to either put a lot more thought into switching classes because of the penalties or be a non human character who always had 2 or 3 classes and split experience between them. The latter is nearly the same as what we do today with a preplanned roughly evenly leveled multiclasss. The former did indeed punish you for trying to do quick dips for alternate powers but it also forced you to think more thoroughly about what you were doing and why. I played both back in the day and while there was no lack of power gaming but between the general lack of subclasses the use of multiclassing to try to build overpowered characters was limited. I was trying to think through how to get that thought built into today’s gaming but I suspect that without the DM providing substantial in game consequences for out of character power building there is no way to get folks to think in character more than in player in many cases (which is what I suspected to begin with). I think we all agreed that there are multiclass builds that should not occur both for mechanical reasons and for appropriate character motivation reasons. Thanks for the input.
If that's how they like to play and they're not hurting anyone else's fun, what's the issue?
Presumably an implied intent to apply restrictions to multiclassing, or at least the promotion of the idea that such a restriction would be better for the game (which I disagree with, and which would affect everyone in that DM's group). That's the vibe I was initially getting, at least. Seems sorted out now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I was always tolerant of multiclassing. I was pointing out that under older rules you had to either put a lot more thought into switching classes because of the penalties or be a non human character who always had 2 or 3 classes and split experience between them. The latter is nearly the same as what we do today with a preplanned roughly evenly leveled multiclasss. The former did indeed punish you for trying to do quick dips for alternate powers but it also forced you to think more thoroughly about what you were doing and why. I played both back in the day and while there was no lack of power gaming but between the general lack of subclasses the use of multiclassing to try to build overpowered characters was limited. I was trying to think through how to get that thought built into today’s gaming but I suspect that without the DM providing substantial in game consequences for out of character power building there is no way to get folks to think in character more than in player in many cases (which is what I suspected to begin with). I think we all agreed that there are multiclass builds that should not occur both for mechanical reasons and for appropriate character motivation reasons. Thanks for the input.
I think the greater fluidity between classes allowed by 5e, and the game worlds that embrace it (and maybe even the "game piece" games that encourage it) doesn't necessarily lead to an inferior form of consideration in comparison to the more old school punitive rule. Again because of the number of classes and subclasses, as I think you point out, there's actually more to consider beyond the "wrist slap". I think the present rules facilitate player imagination more than the original rule sets and allow more to be done with the game. I think that's a win, but I also understand folks wanting to preserve some sort of work to earn mode, I just found those aspects of the game a drag when they were rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
While I grant that 1-3 level dips mostly look like power building rather than roleplaying even I don’t go quite that far. I want to see a good backstory for such things and reasonable use of other options. As an example your fighter/rogue instead of a 1 level dip into fighter to get the whip, I would have offered a L1 feat for weaponmaster allowing you to take whip and maybe flail, scimitar and net as your 4 weapons. When I’m looking over a character I sort of keep the FR’s Elminster in mind 4 classes 3 of which are 1-3 level dips (fighter, rogue, cleric). But based on his story each transition makes good sense at that stage of Elminster’s life and from Elminster’s point of view. That it also builds a lot of basic capability and options into the character is actually incidental. For most 1 level dips, especially at L1 you can probably find (or homebrew) a starting feat to provide the main piece hey want. Other good storied multiclasses to look at are Conan (barbarian, rogue, fighter), Fafhard (barbarian, rogue, fighter) and Grey Mouser (fighter, wizard, rogue).
Another way to think abou your own creations (and to try to find out about players creations) is to look at the design process if the first question: if I mix these x subclasses will I have a powerful build? If the answer is yes and your second question is: ok now how do I create a backstory to justify this mix then you are power building. If your first thought is I want to play a character like X that should be fun. And your second question is: ok now how can I put that together (where would he have started and how does he grow). Then you are actually ROLEplaying and I’m much happier. We all (yes me too) do some of both. especially after starting to play the character I want to see that the character evolves because of the actions in the game so a class change should have same basis in events. I also want the player to talk to me BEFORE any major changes like a class switch/addition, often well before. You want to play a rogue/bard multiclass that starts as a rogue and later changes to bard I’m not opposed, and am amenable to putting some bard NPCs into the game to help the character story along and provide reason for the change when it comes. You spring the change on me suddenly from out of nowhere I’m not happy and your character WILL suffer consequences. Yes, as Geann said in a private msg I’m strict about some things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Midnight I’m not saying that clerics, paladins, warlocks and wizards shouldn’t multiclass. I’m not saying that for any given character of these classes there aren’t multiclasses that make sense both in terms of mechanical interaction and in terms of the CHARACTER’S persona. What I am trying to say in way that can be heard is that for these classes not only are there multiclass choices that are bad for them mechanically there are also multiclass choices that are bad for that specific character because of the persona and restrictions the persona imposes.
i multiclass most of the time. I like multiclasses because as one of you pointed out it makes the character multi talented and as I’ve pointed out in several threads I like to think of myself as a very multitalented guy so playing a multitalented character works for me. But while I might play a cleric/ sorceror multiclass im a lot less likely to play a cleric Wizard multiclass - not because it impossible but because the character is having to always be deciding how much of their time is dedicated to their deity and how much is dedicated to spell research and item creation. So in the FRs (where I DM mostly) a cleric/Wizard multiclass makes sense if your deity is Azuth, Mystra, Shar or Correllon but makes much less sense if it’s Lathander or Malar.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Then it's not all wizards and clerics, it's some wizards and clerics - which isn't all that different from character personalities getting stretched a little thinly.
Lathander is the god of creativity, art, culture and the betterment of the self. I don't see how that's hard to reconcile with spell research and item creation. Malar's a bit more difficult, unless your wizardly research focuses on curses, transformation and spells that make you a better hunter. It's not the classes that matter here, it's the character concept and how the classes apply to that concept.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Your getting there Pan. It’s just those jarring transitions that I’m talking about really. Where even a 1 level dip is really out of character for THAT SPECIFIC character. My experience is that no matter the edition when that kind of switcheroo occurs it almost always has more to do with power building than with power playing once you get the player really explaining why they want it. If you want to try something like that in my games you should be talking to me in advance about what you want and why. If I think is reasonable and fits with how you’ve played the character ( the persona as seen from the outside if you will) I’m more than happy to arrange something in game to give you the detour you need to make the change. I’m not happy when you spring it on me and you may find unexpected problems because of it.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Your finally getting it Pangurjan.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Wizards, clerics, warlocks and Paladins are harder (as classes) to create multiclasses for because as individuals there ways of stretching the persona that don’t really work. The other classes can have this problem but it is generally less severe or problematical for the individual character.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
This isn't really any different from what I've been saying all along, because this isn't a multiclassing issue. It's a character issue that can be applied to multiclassing, but that doesn't make it a multiclassing issue. And if it isn't a multiclassing issue, I don't think it can be argued it's a bigger issue multiclassing with X, Y or Z class than any others.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You have a point about Lathander Pan he probably isn’t the best example. Perhaps Ilmater or Helm would be better (or kelemvor the “good” god of death)
on the other hand while he is the deity of dawns and new beginnings that would fit more with losing the old life to start the new than adding something onto the old (which would be yesterday’s life not Today’s?)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Let’s put it this way - I think of it as a multiclassing issue because it shows up primarily when a player starts trying to multiclass for fun and power without regard for the character they are “playing”. It is typically much less of a problem with a single class character.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I feel W1ldB1ll you're trying to win an argument where when it comes down to it your practice is almost identical to what ever. The logic for multi classing you put out for your own play and presumably your campaign worlds is sound, but not the exclusively so. I think there's just the preconception that a move into taking on additional class features is a "breach" or "break" from some sort of path where fidelity to the class is the greater reward (which is very Catholic in the philosophical sense... ahem, anyway). Of course service to some deities/domains/oaths/patrons aren't going to make sense. However, Lathander I could easily see finding worthy servants whose path lead them through Cleric and Bard levels (Lathanader being sorta Apolloinan in their conception, maybe a bit less mathematically rigid but definitely in promoting the standards of human virtues in the culture).
I agree with Pang, single class selections can be as poorly thought or ill conceived as multi-class. We all want good playing, I don't believe multi-class options put players or games at any greater risk than subclass selection, or spell preparation, or weapon choice, or being stingy with inspiration. We all want sensible games, that's basically it, right? Every choice in the game is best if done with consideration to the game. I don't see MC ing as a unique challenge to that consensus.
Let's also back track to the presumptions of mono classing being the natural order in game or whatever you want to call mono classing maintains that multi classing risks. I think I used game integrity earlier. Class isn't necessarily "in game identity." We use class and subclass names to help give players a sense of who we are, but in game don't discuss folks as "level ten fighters" or even "fighters." Referring to an NPC as a rogue or ranger or whatever isn't necessarily immersive, rather it's meta narrative shorthand to give players a sense of capabilities. So given that a class in world terms isn't really a "thing" (unless you create structures in your world to contain them) and mechanically is basically a table of power progression, I just don't see the need to insist upon or advocate faithful adherence to class if the role suggests other possibilities in level development. Maybe they never get to cast 9th level spells, but they do have that trick where they walk away unscathed from Dragons breath if they make their save. Coupled with their magic, that's cool too.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
If that's how they like to play and they're not hurting anyone else's fun, what's the issue?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, not trying to win anything. I’ve figured out that you can’t on here. But I was trying to get my point across so that it was actually heard and considered and eventually Pan at least got what I was saying, he disagreed but that is fine. For a number of posts it felt like we were talking past each other (as often happens on here it seems) without actually having both sides understand the other’s points. That can be very frustrating.
also, thanks to your posts and the others I was able to get a few ideas worked out in my own head which is what I really wanted - so thank you!
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
So where are you at then? I believe you began the thread somewhat suspicious of the ease of what is now called multi classing vs what AD&D at least called dual classing. I think you were questioning the wisdom of players who did MC, were sort of on the fence about how much you'd allow it in your own games and speculated imposing sort of punitive measures like the OG leveling and embargo on original class abilities. Now I believe you're tolerant of MCing if it makes sense. Is that basically it?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I was always tolerant of multiclassing. I was pointing out that under older rules you had to either put a lot more thought into switching classes because of the penalties or be a non human character who always had 2 or 3 classes and split experience between them. The latter is nearly the same as what we do today with a preplanned roughly evenly leveled multiclasss. The former did indeed punish you for trying to do quick dips for alternate powers but it also forced you to think more thoroughly about what you were doing and why. I played both back in the day and while there was no lack of power gaming but between the general lack of subclasses the use of multiclassing to try to build overpowered characters was limited. I was trying to think through how to get that thought built into today’s gaming but I suspect that without the DM providing substantial in game consequences for out of character power building there is no way to get folks to think in character more than in player in many cases (which is what I suspected to begin with). I think we all agreed that there are multiclass builds that should not occur both for mechanical reasons and for appropriate character motivation reasons.
Thanks for the input.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Presumably an implied intent to apply restrictions to multiclassing, or at least the promotion of the idea that such a restriction would be better for the game (which I disagree with, and which would affect everyone in that DM's group). That's the vibe I was initially getting, at least. Seems sorted out now.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Agreed, playing with such people as another (immersion) player can be draining too.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I think the greater fluidity between classes allowed by 5e, and the game worlds that embrace it (and maybe even the "game piece" games that encourage it) doesn't necessarily lead to an inferior form of consideration in comparison to the more old school punitive rule. Again because of the number of classes and subclasses, as I think you point out, there's actually more to consider beyond the "wrist slap". I think the present rules facilitate player imagination more than the original rule sets and allow more to be done with the game. I think that's a win, but I also understand folks wanting to preserve some sort of work to earn mode, I just found those aspects of the game a drag when they were rules.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
While I grant that 1-3 level dips mostly look like power building rather than roleplaying even I don’t go quite that far. I want to see a good backstory for such things and reasonable use of other options. As an example your fighter/rogue instead of a 1 level dip into fighter to get the whip, I would have offered a L1 feat for weaponmaster allowing you to take whip and maybe flail, scimitar and net as your 4 weapons. When I’m looking over a character I sort of keep the FR’s Elminster in mind 4 classes 3 of which are 1-3 level dips (fighter, rogue, cleric). But based on his story each transition makes good sense at that stage of Elminster’s life and from Elminster’s point of view. That it also builds a lot of basic capability and options into the character is actually incidental. For most 1 level dips, especially at L1 you can probably find (or homebrew) a starting feat to provide the main piece hey want. Other good storied multiclasses to look at are Conan (barbarian, rogue, fighter), Fafhard (barbarian, rogue, fighter) and Grey Mouser (fighter, wizard, rogue).
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Another way to think abou your own creations (and to try to find out about players creations) is to look at the design process if the first question: if I mix these x subclasses will I have a powerful build? If the answer is yes and your second question is: ok now how do I create a backstory to justify this mix then you are power building. If your first thought is I want to play a character like X that should be fun. And your second question is: ok now how can I put that together (where would he have started and how does he grow). Then you are actually ROLEplaying and I’m much happier. We all (yes me too) do some of both.
especially after starting to play the character I want to see that the character evolves because of the actions in the game so a class change should have same basis in events. I also want the player to talk to me BEFORE any major changes like a class switch/addition, often well before. You want to play a rogue/bard multiclass that starts as a rogue and later changes to bard I’m not opposed, and am amenable to putting some bard NPCs into the game to help the character story along and provide reason for the change when it comes. You spring the change on me suddenly from out of nowhere I’m not happy and your character WILL suffer consequences. Yes, as Geann said in a private msg I’m strict about some things.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.