Ophidmancer’s story of how their character added the hexblade/ moon blade and why they chose a level of bard at CL10 are the kinds of story driven steps I like to hear about try to play out. That is good power playing in my eyes.
I'll leave what I feel are some misconceptions or at least over assertions on classroom language instruction vs natural language acquisition, and whether classroom learning models translate well to all D&D class foundations aside (speaking of, where is that thread where folks laid out their "statted" selves, seems the only place to lay out how my bonafides actually translate to some iteration of Scout/Inquisitive Rogue + Whispers/Eloquence/Glamour Bard?), and just add a short note to the discussion.
I think the old school way of doing Dual classes (so humans not races) is punitive to the player and the party (depriving them of the original class if the player is to make headway with the new class). I think it's pretty apparent players have become less bound by class or the limited paths of mastery in favor of player options and the rules have evolved with it.
Simultaneous, I think Ophidmancer and Wildbills characters are great, maybe a bit too intentional for my tastes but that's a matter of tastes. When characters level up in my games we talk about "where do we want to go." First thing we discuss is keeping the present path within class and how the character would grow from there and how that mechanical growth can be reflected in game, there being lots of ways to tell a story even in a single game (thank you Chaucer and Rabalais) I don't have a lot of standards other than the players and I enjoying it what we work out.
Also, I think ironically the Sorcerer is a perfectly sound example of the sort of MC "sudden growth/class acquisition" being viewed askance here. Sorcery as flavor written is an infusion, an imbuement. A lot of the sorcerous origins speak of the power coming from what can easily be recognized as a "greater consciousness" or in Wild Magic's case (which at the get go is not perfectly controlled) a "greater whim." These forces work in mysterious ways and coming to terms with their powers (maybe ultimately talking to said forces if the game wanted to go there) I can see as something to work out after "toggling on" the powers. I'd actually say the same for Barbarians. If a character can claim a right to the ancestral/totemic forces, those forces can imbue themselves in a Barbarian accepting that right. Doesn't even have to be bloodline sort of stuff, I could see Barbarian classes being available to PCs who've been immersed among Barbarians for an extended period of time, not the most politic analogy but a sort of Dances with Wolves thing. These possibilities is also why I don't like overwrought backstories, I mean Skywalker, Potter, Pendragon, how many stories are there of someone discovering there's more to themselves than who they thought they were?
Rogues I also allow quick dips into, as their skillset ... most criminal skills don't take a lot of time training to master, even the "complicated" or "sophisticated" ones like trafficking and money laundering. Basically, if I already have a Rogue in the party, or if they interact with Rogues on the regular, the dips easy. Same with Bards ... I don't like the "College" thing (Bobby Burns was a folklorist who wished he was a Bard, but I think the College organization implied in the fluff text of Bards gets it backwards), if there's a Bard in frequent contact, it's not hard to learn and practice being inspirational (if spell casting access wasn't so widespread in 5e I'd have more pause here) since most Bards are so focused on propagation, they'd relish the flattery of imitation.
So I'd allow "power on" Sorcerers. Barbarians would require some revelation of ancestry or immersion. Rogue/Bards can be got through regular party contact (either a party member or party regularly deals with a guild or personality). Everything else, I'd grant a level if there was an opportunity to mentor within the party. Otherwise, I'd want plausible training including a timeframe allowing said training.
And that leads to something I"m curious and unsettled about, how much time would address a otherwise uncharacteristic, so to speak, leap into another class? Precedent in the rules are curious. No guidance in the PHB. Tool proficiencies (integral to a couple of classes) per Xanathar's are ten workweeks - intelligence modifiers. You can produce the basic training of a federal agent (granting proficiency in fire arms, defensive tactics (arguably), investigation, insight, perception etc.) in 8 weeks (then they move onto agency specific training where they develop a degree of expertise depending on mission focus. So I don't know if Xanthar's is too demanding or not. Of course a fed academy is arguably more intensive (though still bound to labor regulations) but I suppose downtime Tool building assumes the PC is allowed to have a life beyond their training (thought: is intensive training an option in game?). On the other hand and I'd say more howler side of thing Tasha's suggests allowing PCs to switch SUBCLASSES via training time of 2 days per level (so you could go from a 4th level scout rogue to a 4th level Arcane Trickster or Soul Knife in 8 days of training ... I'm a more fluid tolerant DM, there are very few things I've seen in the rules that got me to say "BS" but this is one of them).
I guess with my last point I'm trying to suggest rather than putting the old school dual class sanction on a newly acquired class (which is again I feel a punitive way to earn the class while the party is actively adventuring "in the field") but impose costs on the PC in downtime, balanced with opporutunities the rest of the party gets to indulge while the MCingPC gains their new feature suite ... in cases where it's narratively necessary to allow the growth (since I see plenty of ways where it can be picked up otherwise).
While I do know a couple of players that are prone to multiclassing for the power upgrade without a narrative reason to do so, far more people that I play with on the regular are more interested in multiclassing for the narrative. That isn't to say that they don't consider the costs of multiclassing and at what levels, but the combinations are normally not selected to be "optimal" or to "power game". I do believe that certain multiclass combinations that are powerful also tend to fit together well from a narrative stand point. Meeting a powerful potential Patron or Teacher is not that rare in most D&D games I have played. I do think that it could possibly take a bit of downtime to finish up the learning process, but I don't think restricting existing class abilities are the right way to go.
I think Wizard and Artificer, and to a lesser extent Monk, are the only classes where it’s hard to explain rolling into them without intensive training. If your schtick is power from studying, well, studying takes time. But with the others the main discrepancies would be proficiencies, and acquiring those will for most characters not be so insurmountable. Learning to wear armor competently isn’t that hard, especially with the heavy ones requiring considerable strength. Learning all martial weapons to a meaningful level of competency would take a lot of time, sure, but characters don’t typically use more than a couple and are already proficient with a number of them via their first class: if you know how to wield a quarterstaff that’ll give you something to lean on when learning to use a sword or axe, even if those are very different weapons, and unless you all of a sudden start using a longbow, a longsword, a maul, a whip and a net intermittently there’s no need to explain away training in a whole lot of weapons. That leaves possibly one tool and/or one skill proficiency: not something you’ll learn overnight, but not something that should have to take years either.
If, as the DM, you feel something is unreasonable you can require some training time first (someone multiclassing to rogue might need some time coming to grips with thieves’ tools for instance, though it’s not unlikely they’ll first have to acquire some anyway) or you can ask that players work some kind of preparation/foreshadowing/actual training into their roleplaying in preparation of taking a future level in another class if it wouldn’t make sense to pick up those abilities without meaningful practice. Just cover this in session zero, I don’t think too many players would (never mind should) have a problem with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Golaryn's points made me recognize when we discuss the possibility of MCing at my tables, I find myself more often reminding them of what they're losing by departing from a class (and lowering its peak) and some places where the multi might frustrate. Yes a lot of people do theory craft and competitive builds, but the players I play with tend not to really make "optimal" more just something "more." Maybe they all play level 20 dilettantes at the end, but they like doing it. I guess on the DMs side of the table comes again the need to not relying on narratives where certain peak abilities need to be engaged but rather a way to assess the game so that PCs are optimally challenged/engaged by what the game offers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Good points midnight. The PHB actually does have something to say if slightly off topic. In downtime activities (p187) under training it calls for spending 250 days at 1GP/day to gain proficiency with a new tool or language. I’m with you on that being way too long in most cases. The lapidary class I took years ago was for cabachons and met 1/w for 2 hours for 10 weeks. The intro to silversmithing class was about the same. The field first aide certification course was about the same. Roughly in line with Xanthers. The days to switch subclasses is too quick in my opinion as well. Concentrated intensive courses that are your sole or nearly sole focus can be done in similar time frames - think military boot camp (6-8 weeks), or my year of calculus done in summer school (10 months of 1 hour a day five days a week converted to 10 weeks of 8 hours a day). I think that is the best version to use as a guide - @10 weeks of training: 1-2 hrs/d= basic proficiency in a skill/tool/language (think high level apprentice), 3-5 hrs/d = expertise. 6-10 hrs/ for adding a class or changing a subclass. Cost? I’m willing to go for the PHB value of 1GP/day (10 hrs). at least it gives us a starting point for discussion.
in my head some classes are more suited for multiclassing than others. The 4 I have trouble seeing you switch out of without some really good in game reason and experience are cleric (WHY are you leaving your God’s direct service?), Paladin (same idea), Warlock (WHY is your patron approving this?) and Wizard (after all that time and effort learning to cast spells and building your spellbooks you are doing What?). The 3 easiest are fighter, rogue and sorcerer. The fighter and rogue are always around in the party so exposure and access to training in party are no problem. ( I learned to deal bottoms, seconds and other card mechanic skills in a matter of days in HS after reading some basic instructions in John Scarne’s books) Sorcerer because the innate power just needs a trigger to activate and triggers are part and parcel of an adventurer’s life. I can see bards taking dips - it’s sort of what they do any way. Rangers and Barbarians are somewhere in the middle with Barbarians probably more likely to do at least dips as they experience civilization (think Conan and Fafhard). There are a few exceptions - the elven fighter mage and such.
The 4 I have trouble seeing you switch out of without some really good in game reason and experience are cleric (WHY are you leaving your God’s direct service?), Paladin (same idea), Warlock (WHY is your patron approving this?) and Wizard (after all that time and effort learning to cast spells and building your spellbooks you are doing What?).
Multiclassing with a cleric doesn’t require leaving their direct service. You’re still a cleric. Multiclassing with a paladin doesn’t require forsaking your oath. You’re still a paladin. Multiclassing with a warlock doesn’t require drawing your patron’s ire. You’re still bound to serve. Wizards are the most specialized, but even they can benefit from broadening their skillset.
Multiclassing involves leveling up. Leveling up involves getting better, stronger, more educated, more talented, … regardless of the specifics of your new level. I don’t see any absolute reason why this would hamper your religious service, weaken your oath, sit poorly with your patron or seem like a waste of your time as an arcane scholar. Getting better is a good thing, always.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I disagree Pangurjan. Leaving certain classes is ( or should be) a big deal. Take a look at some real world examples - if you are a catholic priest yes there are things you can do (as a priest) outside of holding services in a church ( one of the great nuclear physicists of the 20th century was a priest). I can see a priest becoming an old style Paladin ( think knights Templar or Hospitalers) but making a pact with another power or learning/acting as a thief would be breaking your vows/oaths/etc and gets you thrown out of the priesthood never to return. notice I didn’t say it was impossible for these classes but because they have made what are supposedly life long commitments to one thing changing it up SHOULD be a big deal. In DnD there are no roadblocks to this sort of power building and as I’ve said I prefer power playing. Can I imagine scenarios where such multiclasses make sense and would be allowed by any reasonable DM (including me) sure - but it should be after at least some sort of discussion between the the player an DM and probably involve at least a small side quest. I realize this is a game but I guess I’m one of those “grittier” DMs that likes even in game actions to have consequences and in game reasons.
The hard classes I pointed out are difficult, at least in part, because DnD worlds are polytheistic and polypowered. That in part means you can create a scenario very easily where a multiclass into something may not only be acceptable but may almost be required. I can imagine that in the Forgotten realms clerics of Mask are required to take 1-5 levels in rogue. Or that a cleric of Finder is required to take a few levels of bard. I can see where a Fey patroned warlock might be allowed to become an oath of the ancients Paladin by their Fey Lord patron. It’s things like a cleric of Lathander taking a level or 3 of hexblade with a fiend or Far Realm patron. Ophidmancers using the Hexblade (shadow fell based) subclass rather than the celestial subclass makes a certain since in terms of what they were reaching for (an Eillistraeean blade dancer) even though it was a deity they were. Pacting with. Hexblades are linked to a shadow realm and so is Ellistreaee as a goddess of the Drow so it all sort of works.
yes any level up brings a power up and yes 5e has essentially no restrictions on multiclassing but I game consequencing of players who go “beyond the pale” in terms of power building without story/gaming backup should feel some pain from the DM.
People like to change things. One of the reasons we play games at all if for a change, it's for a change of place. It's a way to relax and have fun. Multi-classing is a wonderful way to change your character. Warrior types and arcane casters have their sub-classes come online at 3rd level. Divine casters it starts at 2nd level, and Warlocks are unique, as it starts at first level.
On the other hand, as a Warlock, at first level you don't get a whole lot, at 2nd level you get a couple Invocations, which is where a lot of power builds will stop, and then at 3rd level you get your Pact Boon. So it's really the same as those warriors and arcane casters. I'm starting to wonder. Is it really multi-classing that you dislike so much, or is it that you hate Hexblades?
I disagree Pangurjan. Leaving certain classes is ( or should be) a big deal. Take a look at some real world examples - if you are a catholic priest yes there are things you can do (as a priest) outside of holding services in a church ( one of the great nuclear physicists of the 20th century was a priest). I can see a priest becoming an old style Paladin ( think knights Templar or Hospitalers) but making a pact with another power or learning/acting as a thief would be breaking your vows/oaths/etc and gets you thrown out of the priesthood never to return. notice I didn’t say it was impossible for these classes but because they have made what are supposedly life long commitments to one thing changing it up SHOULD be a big deal. In DnD there are no roadblocks to this sort of power building and as I’ve said I prefer power playing. Can I imagine scenarios where such multiclasses make sense and would be allowed by any reasonable DM (including me) sure - but it should be after at least some sort of discussion between the the player an DM and probably involve at least a small side quest. I realize this is a game but I guess I’m one of those “grittier” DMs that likes even in game actions to have consequences and in game reasons.
Taking a level, or taking multiple levels, or even stopping your original progression and dedicating the rest of your levels to the new, is not necessarily disavowing your faith and duty to that faith. While Catholic orders are likely a major archetypal influence on the Cleric class, much moreso in original editions, a diverse pantheon makes what it is to be a devoted servant/leader for a god a lot fuzzier. A trickster god, or a god of Thievery I could actually see the template (temple?) mandating levels in rogue. Same for war gods with martials. Just like some orders of Druids could mandate a level in Cleric to RAW make Holy Water (I kid). So a players choice could actually be made in game at the behest of the ways of their faith, or could be just be about the character's personal relationship with their deity. In other words, Cleric progression to 20 is not always "god's plan."
You are right that Warlocks and Paladin Oaths _could_ be taken "in bad faith" but not exclusively. Good gods may have needs for Celestial Warlocks (I don't particularly care for the Patron concept but the player base seems to disagree with me). Some Palladin Oaths, as I think you acknowledge, fit just fine, as would some ranger paths.
When I first came to terms with 5e MCing, I was confused and initially irritated at what I saw as muchkinny power grabbing, but after seeing the feat system, recognizing the maximization of player options (as opposed to just raw power) orientation of 5e, and just playing a lot more I came to realize, accept, and really like that the classes aren't pillars of the game that need defending by those of us invested in game integrity. Rather the classes are more likes fields which can be well played with interesting options in their own space, but can also lend to otherwise unavailable possibilities if you allow your game to go more Venn diagram or kaleidoscopic with them. There's games where folks will try to Theorycraft "the toughest" or "the most" this or that. But there's also games which see such mechanical choices necessitating integration with the game world, party, and specific character's story. Honestly, I think the coolest thing about D&D 5e is that it's a game system that's equally supportive of both modes and a bunch in between and probably beyond that I haven't seen yet.
I disagree Pangurjan. Leaving certain classes is ( or should be) a big deal. Take a look at some real world examples - if you are a catholic priest yes there are things you can do (as a priest) outside of holding services in a church ( one of the great nuclear physicists of the 20th century was a priest). I can see a priest becoming an old style Paladin ( think knights Templar or Hospitalers) but making a pact with another power or learning/acting as a thief would be breaking your vows/oaths/etc and gets you thrown out of the priesthood never to return. notice I didn’t say it was impossible for these classes but because they have made what are supposedly life long commitments to one thing changing it up SHOULD be a big deal. In DnD there are no roadblocks to this sort of power building and as I’ve said I prefer power playing. Can I imagine scenarios where such multiclasses make sense and would be allowed by any reasonable DM (including me) sure - but it should be after at least some sort of discussion between the the player an DM and probably involve at least a small side quest. I realize this is a game but I guess I’m one of those “grittier” DMs that likes even in game actions to have consequences and in game reasons.
Evil/Chaotic/Trickery deities might approve of your acts of larceny. The pact with another power might be forced upon you rather than voluntary, or it could be a trick you play on a devil with your god's approval. There could be all sorts of circumstances. A paladin breaking their oath of justice to become a vigilante murderer, the cleric renouncing their god to embrace another higher being's teachings, sure, that can't easily be explained away but a) specific instances don't prove a general rule and b) arguably these aren't cases of multiclassing, they're cases of characters abandoning their class in order to become something else entirely, for which they should presumably lose their previous class abilities.
My point is, generally speaking in-game reasons and explanations for multiclassing can be provided. Specific player decisions that don't make much sense don't disprove that, and are a faux pas regardless of whether it involves multiclassing or not - straightlaced, virtuous paladins suddenly deciding to participate in criminal activities because it's convenient or devout clerics suddenly worshipping a higher power antithetical to their deity because it's edgy and dramatic is just bad roleplaying, doesn't matter if the player intends to multiclass or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think your missing my point Pangurjan, I didn’t say that it was impossible for those 4 classes to multiclass. What I said was that, TO ME, they were the 4 most difficult to with good ROLEPLAY because of their life long commitments. Just what those commitments are will vary from case to case just as in the real world but if you are roleplaying your character well you are keeping those commitments in mind not just metagaming for fun and power. We can almost always come up with a combination of reasons/excuses to do what WE want that doesn’t mean we should. Classes have limitations that we (the players) as well as the characters accept in becoming that class. Multiclassing around those limitations shouldn’t be done without careful considerations and for clerics, paladins, warlocks and wizards the barriers are higher than for other classes in my opinion.
I think your missing my point Pangurjan, I didn’t say that it was impossible for those 4 classes to multiclass. What I said was that, TO ME, they were the 4 most difficult to with good ROLEPLAY because of their life long commitments. Just what those commitments are will vary from case to case just as in the real world but if you are roleplaying your character well you are keeping those commitments in mind not just metagaming for fun and power. We can almost always come up with a combination of reasons/excuses to do what WE want that doesn’t mean we should. Classes have limitations that we (the players) as well as the characters accept in becoming that class. Multiclassing around those limitations shouldn’t be done without careful considerations and for clerics, paladins, warlocks and wizards the barriers are higher than for other classes in my opinion.
How they choose to fulfill those commitments is largely up to them, no? And possibly determined by circumstance? Maybe the wizard feels the power to heal would be a useful new field of study. Maybe the paladin agrees to serve a patron on the condition that they'll remain free to pursue the goals their oath sets them. The latter is arguably a big deal, the former is really just a study decision. Again, all multiclassing is leveling up, and all leveling up is becoming better. Becoming better is typically not antithetical to being committed to something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Again, part of commitment to a god of trickery or war or what have you could be MCing. There is no essential reason for a particular god to need level 20 Clerics, the gods calling may in fact be multiclassing, or rather what's mechanically represented by multi classing.
Same reasons why wizards multi classing are equally not inconceivable. A game world could have cultures of warrior mages some of whom may be well represented by Eldritch Knights or Bladesingers, but others forge a path between Wizard and whatever martial they choose. So at least three ways to reflect membership in order or tradition striving to merge the arcane and martial.
I don't see how either of those sets of possibilities somehow imply "abandonment" but if you want to assert strict beyond the character not reaching a classes maximum potential, you can do that. I think that's limiting possibilities for what magic and devotion respectively can be in a game world, but there's nothing wrong with prescriptions if it makes sense with how you want your world to work.
Ok both of you ( Pangurjan, Midnight) don’t seem to be seeing (or be willing to see or at least acknowledge) the point I’m trying to make. According to RAW any class/ subclass can multiclass into any other class/subclass. I’m not fighting that, though I would like it if it recognized that to do so called for some sort of training in most cases before you went out adventuring. In the ROLEPLAY OF THIS Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Sorcerers multiclass easily into any other class and subclass Because there are no special restrictions (Oaths, Pacts, etc) that Should be considered from the character’s point of view as part of the roleplay. Clerics, Paladins, Warlocks and Wizards are not so easy because they do have these restrictions. I don’t agree that any form of growing more powerful is ok that seems to be our main difference and if you guys want to agree to disagree I’m fine with that. But I don’t think power for power’s sake is a good reason for many possible multiclasses with these classes - or for many specific characters within these classes. Yes if your a cleric of Bane adding a level or 3 of hexblade pacted with the Raven Queen is not unreasonable Bane is all about power for power’s sake, Cyric is crazy, his clerics can pretty well do what they want as well. But why would a cleric of Lathander make the SAME pact? if your a Wizard, why would you give up your progress as a Wizard to add a couple of levels of Cleric to get some healing spells when you could use some time to research creating something similar ( a necromantic L1 spell that taps the positive material plane to do 2D4 + your spell casting bonus) or just learn to use the Herbalism kit to brew yourself some healing potions? In other words asking yourself “ does this multiclass make sense from the character’s history and motivations or am I metagaming again and trying to create a cockamamie rationalization for doing this?” Lord knows I’m as guilty as the rest of us of doing that but I’m trying to be better these days.
Neither of our responses discuss power exclusively for powers sake. In fact I don't think I discuss it all. What I'm saying is your view of multi classing seems to stem from some view of the integrity of the class that is best maintained. In the instance of the Cleric you use the Catholic Church as an example. Whereas Pang and I both alluded to the point that for a Trickster/Thieving god may see actually expect its clerics to have some levels in Rogue (they don't even have to "leave the church" to learn the skills since Rogue work is part of the faiths "spiritual practice). Does mean every Cleric of every god would have the same opportunities. Same for Palladins, where leveling elsewhere is actually in service of the oath. Wizards can either ascend to mastery or take the magic they've learned to enhance another field (sort of like there are a lot of lawyers who actually don't practice law, don't really consult on legal matters where they work, but their legal training helps them in their current career and not in any sort of liability protection way ... instead of becoming a level 20 Justice).
If anything I don't see your argument contending with us so much as agreeing with us, just in your world MCing may be a little less common or their are world incentives to remain on the path of one's class, I think?
The game gives broader opportunities for players, if the DM supports those opportunities or finds them consistent with the world. Which is I think the way all three of us and most posters to this thread play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
What I also meant to say was, it's ok to multiclass for pure power, even if you don't have an in character reason, as long as your table is ok with that playstyle. We have many ways to play and enjoy D&D. That was what I was getting at.
I have tendencies to powergame in all games I play, I want to be the best I can, but not when it comes to D&D, in D&D I try to match the ambitions of the table and I maximize the character concept instead. That then becomes my "powergaming" - ie. maximizing my character concept.
I do think I see your point, Wi1dBi11, I just - respectfully - don't agree with it. You think wizards or paladins multiclassing usually involves some monumental decision, I don't think that's true (especially in practice, when wizards multiclassing is almost always limited to 1-2 level dip, and that often in a casting class so they don't lose out on spell slots). Paladins don't even follow deities by default anymore in 5E, they vow to uphold ideals; I've seen plenty characters that were as faithful to an idea as any paladin too, even if they didn't take paladin levels and never swore an oath, so the skills a character may choose to pursue their life's ideals may be paladin-like in nature or something completely different.
When I see multiclassing that feels improbable, it has far more often to do with mechanics than ideas, allegiances or flavor. It's rangers going around wearing armour and using martial weapons for a couple of levels, who then multiclass into monk or barbarian, stop wearing armour and hardly ever pick up that longbow that was their trusty go-to for 2-3 levels before, or sorcerers going the other route and going from a couple of levels basically in pijamas 24/7 to always running around in armour and with a hexblade weapon, or barbarians who after 7 levels of just powering through everything start to surgically cut their enemies apart with sneak attack damage after slipping inside their compound by silently unlocking the back door with a few steel wires and some chicken grease, or a grizzled veteran warrior who'd been surviving half a dozen levels by his skill at arms deciding to choose words over swords and finding a glib tongue and a talent for the bagpipes overnight. All of those can be explained too (and in some cases simply picking up those first subclass benefits, no multiclassing needed, can feel just as jarring if not foreshadowed - Valor Bard or Battle Smith Artificer comes to mind), but to me that's a bigger logical leap than deciding to pursue what you've always been pursuing anyway, just in a less obvious way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Especially if they have played the character into a powerful one not just designed a powerhouse and fitted together a story to link all the parts.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Ophidmancer’s story of how their character added the hexblade/ moon blade and why they chose a level of bard at CL10 are the kinds of story driven steps I like to hear about try to play out. That is good power playing in my eyes.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'll leave what I feel are some misconceptions or at least over assertions on classroom language instruction vs natural language acquisition, and whether classroom learning models translate well to all D&D class foundations aside (speaking of, where is that thread where folks laid out their "statted" selves, seems the only place to lay out how my bonafides actually translate to some iteration of Scout/Inquisitive Rogue + Whispers/Eloquence/Glamour Bard?), and just add a short note to the discussion.
I think the old school way of doing Dual classes (so humans not races) is punitive to the player and the party (depriving them of the original class if the player is to make headway with the new class). I think it's pretty apparent players have become less bound by class or the limited paths of mastery in favor of player options and the rules have evolved with it.
Simultaneous, I think Ophidmancer and Wildbills characters are great, maybe a bit too intentional for my tastes but that's a matter of tastes. When characters level up in my games we talk about "where do we want to go." First thing we discuss is keeping the present path within class and how the character would grow from there and how that mechanical growth can be reflected in game, there being lots of ways to tell a story even in a single game (thank you Chaucer and Rabalais) I don't have a lot of standards other than the players and I enjoying it what we work out.
Also, I think ironically the Sorcerer is a perfectly sound example of the sort of MC "sudden growth/class acquisition" being viewed askance here. Sorcery as flavor written is an infusion, an imbuement. A lot of the sorcerous origins speak of the power coming from what can easily be recognized as a "greater consciousness" or in Wild Magic's case (which at the get go is not perfectly controlled) a "greater whim." These forces work in mysterious ways and coming to terms with their powers (maybe ultimately talking to said forces if the game wanted to go there) I can see as something to work out after "toggling on" the powers. I'd actually say the same for Barbarians. If a character can claim a right to the ancestral/totemic forces, those forces can imbue themselves in a Barbarian accepting that right. Doesn't even have to be bloodline sort of stuff, I could see Barbarian classes being available to PCs who've been immersed among Barbarians for an extended period of time, not the most politic analogy but a sort of Dances with Wolves thing. These possibilities is also why I don't like overwrought backstories, I mean Skywalker, Potter, Pendragon, how many stories are there of someone discovering there's more to themselves than who they thought they were?
Rogues I also allow quick dips into, as their skillset ... most criminal skills don't take a lot of time training to master, even the "complicated" or "sophisticated" ones like trafficking and money laundering. Basically, if I already have a Rogue in the party, or if they interact with Rogues on the regular, the dips easy. Same with Bards ... I don't like the "College" thing (Bobby Burns was a folklorist who wished he was a Bard, but I think the College organization implied in the fluff text of Bards gets it backwards), if there's a Bard in frequent contact, it's not hard to learn and practice being inspirational (if spell casting access wasn't so widespread in 5e I'd have more pause here) since most Bards are so focused on propagation, they'd relish the flattery of imitation.
So I'd allow "power on" Sorcerers. Barbarians would require some revelation of ancestry or immersion. Rogue/Bards can be got through regular party contact (either a party member or party regularly deals with a guild or personality). Everything else, I'd grant a level if there was an opportunity to mentor within the party. Otherwise, I'd want plausible training including a timeframe allowing said training.
And that leads to something I"m curious and unsettled about, how much time would address a otherwise uncharacteristic, so to speak, leap into another class? Precedent in the rules are curious. No guidance in the PHB. Tool proficiencies (integral to a couple of classes) per Xanathar's are ten workweeks - intelligence modifiers. You can produce the basic training of a federal agent (granting proficiency in fire arms, defensive tactics (arguably), investigation, insight, perception etc.) in 8 weeks (then they move onto agency specific training where they develop a degree of expertise depending on mission focus. So I don't know if Xanthar's is too demanding or not. Of course a fed academy is arguably more intensive (though still bound to labor regulations) but I suppose downtime Tool building assumes the PC is allowed to have a life beyond their training (thought: is intensive training an option in game?). On the other hand and I'd say more howler side of thing Tasha's suggests allowing PCs to switch SUBCLASSES via training time of 2 days per level (so you could go from a 4th level scout rogue to a 4th level Arcane Trickster or Soul Knife in 8 days of training ... I'm a more fluid tolerant DM, there are very few things I've seen in the rules that got me to say "BS" but this is one of them).
I guess with my last point I'm trying to suggest rather than putting the old school dual class sanction on a newly acquired class (which is again I feel a punitive way to earn the class while the party is actively adventuring "in the field") but impose costs on the PC in downtime, balanced with opporutunities the rest of the party gets to indulge while the MCingPC gains their new feature suite ... in cases where it's narratively necessary to allow the growth (since I see plenty of ways where it can be picked up otherwise).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
While I do know a couple of players that are prone to multiclassing for the power upgrade without a narrative reason to do so, far more people that I play with on the regular are more interested in multiclassing for the narrative. That isn't to say that they don't consider the costs of multiclassing and at what levels, but the combinations are normally not selected to be "optimal" or to "power game". I do believe that certain multiclass combinations that are powerful also tend to fit together well from a narrative stand point. Meeting a powerful potential Patron or Teacher is not that rare in most D&D games I have played. I do think that it could possibly take a bit of downtime to finish up the learning process, but I don't think restricting existing class abilities are the right way to go.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think Wizard and Artificer, and to a lesser extent Monk, are the only classes where it’s hard to explain rolling into them without intensive training. If your schtick is power from studying, well, studying takes time. But with the others the main discrepancies would be proficiencies, and acquiring those will for most characters not be so insurmountable. Learning to wear armor competently isn’t that hard, especially with the heavy ones requiring considerable strength. Learning all martial weapons to a meaningful level of competency would take a lot of time, sure, but characters don’t typically use more than a couple and are already proficient with a number of them via their first class: if you know how to wield a quarterstaff that’ll give you something to lean on when learning to use a sword or axe, even if those are very different weapons, and unless you all of a sudden start using a longbow, a longsword, a maul, a whip and a net intermittently there’s no need to explain away training in a whole lot of weapons. That leaves possibly one tool and/or one skill proficiency: not something you’ll learn overnight, but not something that should have to take years either.
If, as the DM, you feel something is unreasonable you can require some training time first (someone multiclassing to rogue might need some time coming to grips with thieves’ tools for instance, though it’s not unlikely they’ll first have to acquire some anyway) or you can ask that players work some kind of preparation/foreshadowing/actual training into their roleplaying in preparation of taking a future level in another class if it wouldn’t make sense to pick up those abilities without meaningful practice. Just cover this in session zero, I don’t think too many players would (never mind should) have a problem with it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Golaryn's points made me recognize when we discuss the possibility of MCing at my tables, I find myself more often reminding them of what they're losing by departing from a class (and lowering its peak) and some places where the multi might frustrate. Yes a lot of people do theory craft and competitive builds, but the players I play with tend not to really make "optimal" more just something "more." Maybe they all play level 20 dilettantes at the end, but they like doing it. I guess on the DMs side of the table comes again the need to not relying on narratives where certain peak abilities need to be engaged but rather a way to assess the game so that PCs are optimally challenged/engaged by what the game offers.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Good points midnight. The PHB actually does have something to say if slightly off topic. In downtime activities (p187) under training it calls for spending 250 days at 1GP/day to gain proficiency with a new tool or language. I’m with you on that being way too long in most cases. The lapidary class I took years ago was for cabachons and met 1/w for 2 hours for 10 weeks. The intro to silversmithing class was about the same. The field first aide certification course was about the same. Roughly in line with Xanthers. The days to switch subclasses is too quick in my opinion as well. Concentrated intensive courses that are your sole or nearly sole focus can be done in similar time frames - think military boot camp (6-8 weeks), or my year of calculus done in summer school (10 months of 1 hour a day five days a week converted to 10 weeks of 8 hours a day). I think that is the best version to use as a guide - @10 weeks of training: 1-2 hrs/d= basic proficiency in a skill/tool/language (think high level apprentice), 3-5 hrs/d = expertise. 6-10 hrs/ for adding a class or changing a subclass. Cost? I’m willing to go for the PHB value of 1GP/day (10 hrs).
at least it gives us a starting point for discussion.
in my head some classes are more suited for multiclassing than others. The 4 I have trouble seeing you switch out of without some really good in game reason and experience are cleric (WHY are you leaving your God’s direct service?), Paladin (same idea), Warlock (WHY is your patron approving this?) and Wizard (after all that time and effort learning to cast spells and building your spellbooks you are doing What?). The 3 easiest are fighter, rogue and sorcerer. The fighter and rogue are always around in the party so exposure and access to training in party are no problem. ( I learned to deal bottoms, seconds and other card mechanic skills in a matter of days in HS after reading some basic instructions in John Scarne’s books) Sorcerer because the innate power just needs a trigger to activate and triggers are part and parcel of an adventurer’s life. I can see bards taking dips - it’s sort of what they do any way. Rangers and Barbarians are somewhere in the middle with Barbarians probably more likely to do at least dips as they experience civilization (think Conan and Fafhard). There are a few exceptions - the elven fighter mage and such.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Multiclassing with a cleric doesn’t require leaving their direct service. You’re still a cleric. Multiclassing with a paladin doesn’t require forsaking your oath. You’re still a paladin. Multiclassing with a warlock doesn’t require drawing your patron’s ire. You’re still bound to serve. Wizards are the most specialized, but even they can benefit from broadening their skillset.
Multiclassing involves leveling up. Leveling up involves getting better, stronger, more educated, more talented, … regardless of the specifics of your new level. I don’t see any absolute reason why this would hamper your religious service, weaken your oath, sit poorly with your patron or seem like a waste of your time as an arcane scholar. Getting better is a good thing, always.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I disagree Pangurjan. Leaving certain classes is ( or should be) a big deal. Take a look at some real world examples - if you are a catholic priest yes there are things you can do (as a priest) outside of holding services in a church ( one of the great nuclear physicists of the 20th century was a priest). I can see a priest becoming an old style Paladin ( think knights Templar or Hospitalers) but making a pact with another power or learning/acting as a thief would be breaking your vows/oaths/etc and gets you thrown out of the priesthood never to return. notice I didn’t say it was impossible for these classes but because they have made what are supposedly life long commitments to one thing changing it up SHOULD be a big deal. In DnD there are no roadblocks to this sort of power building and as I’ve said I prefer power playing. Can I imagine scenarios where such multiclasses make sense and would be allowed by any reasonable DM (including me) sure - but it should be after at least some sort of discussion between the the player an DM and probably involve at least a small side quest. I realize this is a game but I guess I’m one of those “grittier” DMs that likes even in game actions to have consequences and in game reasons.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The hard classes I pointed out are difficult, at least in part, because DnD worlds are polytheistic and polypowered. That in part means you can create a scenario very easily where a multiclass into something may not only be acceptable but may almost be required. I can imagine that in the Forgotten realms clerics of Mask are required to take 1-5 levels in rogue. Or that a cleric of Finder is required to take a few levels of bard. I can see where a Fey patroned warlock might be allowed to become an oath of the ancients Paladin by their Fey Lord patron. It’s things like a cleric of Lathander taking a level or 3 of hexblade with a fiend or Far Realm patron. Ophidmancers using the Hexblade (shadow fell based) subclass rather than the celestial subclass makes a certain since in terms of what they were reaching for (an Eillistraeean blade dancer) even though it was a deity they were. Pacting with. Hexblades are linked to a shadow realm and so is Ellistreaee as a goddess of the Drow so it all sort of works.
yes any level up brings a power up and yes 5e has essentially no restrictions on multiclassing but I game consequencing of players who go “beyond the pale” in terms of power building without story/gaming backup should feel some pain from the DM.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
People like to change things. One of the reasons we play games at all if for a change, it's for a change of place. It's a way to relax and have fun. Multi-classing is a wonderful way to change your character. Warrior types and arcane casters have their sub-classes come online at 3rd level. Divine casters it starts at 2nd level, and Warlocks are unique, as it starts at first level.
On the other hand, as a Warlock, at first level you don't get a whole lot, at 2nd level you get a couple Invocations, which is where a lot of power builds will stop, and then at 3rd level you get your Pact Boon. So it's really the same as those warriors and arcane casters. I'm starting to wonder. Is it really multi-classing that you dislike so much, or is it that you hate Hexblades?
<Insert clever signature here>
Taking a level, or taking multiple levels, or even stopping your original progression and dedicating the rest of your levels to the new, is not necessarily disavowing your faith and duty to that faith. While Catholic orders are likely a major archetypal influence on the Cleric class, much moreso in original editions, a diverse pantheon makes what it is to be a devoted servant/leader for a god a lot fuzzier. A trickster god, or a god of Thievery I could actually see the template (temple?) mandating levels in rogue. Same for war gods with martials. Just like some orders of Druids could mandate a level in Cleric to RAW make Holy Water (I kid). So a players choice could actually be made in game at the behest of the ways of their faith, or could be just be about the character's personal relationship with their deity. In other words, Cleric progression to 20 is not always "god's plan."
You are right that Warlocks and Paladin Oaths _could_ be taken "in bad faith" but not exclusively. Good gods may have needs for Celestial Warlocks (I don't particularly care for the Patron concept but the player base seems to disagree with me). Some Palladin Oaths, as I think you acknowledge, fit just fine, as would some ranger paths.
When I first came to terms with 5e MCing, I was confused and initially irritated at what I saw as muchkinny power grabbing, but after seeing the feat system, recognizing the maximization of player options (as opposed to just raw power) orientation of 5e, and just playing a lot more I came to realize, accept, and really like that the classes aren't pillars of the game that need defending by those of us invested in game integrity. Rather the classes are more likes fields which can be well played with interesting options in their own space, but can also lend to otherwise unavailable possibilities if you allow your game to go more Venn diagram or kaleidoscopic with them. There's games where folks will try to Theorycraft "the toughest" or "the most" this or that. But there's also games which see such mechanical choices necessitating integration with the game world, party, and specific character's story. Honestly, I think the coolest thing about D&D 5e is that it's a game system that's equally supportive of both modes and a bunch in between and probably beyond that I haven't seen yet.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Evil/Chaotic/Trickery deities might approve of your acts of larceny. The pact with another power might be forced upon you rather than voluntary, or it could be a trick you play on a devil with your god's approval. There could be all sorts of circumstances. A paladin breaking their oath of justice to become a vigilante murderer, the cleric renouncing their god to embrace another higher being's teachings, sure, that can't easily be explained away but a) specific instances don't prove a general rule and b) arguably these aren't cases of multiclassing, they're cases of characters abandoning their class in order to become something else entirely, for which they should presumably lose their previous class abilities.
My point is, generally speaking in-game reasons and explanations for multiclassing can be provided. Specific player decisions that don't make much sense don't disprove that, and are a faux pas regardless of whether it involves multiclassing or not - straightlaced, virtuous paladins suddenly deciding to participate in criminal activities because it's convenient or devout clerics suddenly worshipping a higher power antithetical to their deity because it's edgy and dramatic is just bad roleplaying, doesn't matter if the player intends to multiclass or not.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think your missing my point Pangurjan, I didn’t say that it was impossible for those 4 classes to multiclass. What I said was that, TO ME, they were the 4 most difficult to with good ROLEPLAY because of their life long commitments. Just what those commitments are will vary from case to case just as in the real world but if you are roleplaying your character well you are keeping those commitments in mind not just metagaming for fun and power. We can almost always come up with a combination of reasons/excuses to do what WE want that doesn’t mean we should. Classes have limitations that we (the players) as well as the characters accept in becoming that class. Multiclassing around those limitations shouldn’t be done without careful considerations and for clerics, paladins, warlocks and wizards the barriers are higher than for other classes in my opinion.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
How they choose to fulfill those commitments is largely up to them, no? And possibly determined by circumstance? Maybe the wizard feels the power to heal would be a useful new field of study. Maybe the paladin agrees to serve a patron on the condition that they'll remain free to pursue the goals their oath sets them. The latter is arguably a big deal, the former is really just a study decision. Again, all multiclassing is leveling up, and all leveling up is becoming better. Becoming better is typically not antithetical to being committed to something.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Again, part of commitment to a god of trickery or war or what have you could be MCing. There is no essential reason for a particular god to need level 20 Clerics, the gods calling may in fact be multiclassing, or rather what's mechanically represented by multi classing.
Same reasons why wizards multi classing are equally not inconceivable. A game world could have cultures of warrior mages some of whom may be well represented by Eldritch Knights or Bladesingers, but others forge a path between Wizard and whatever martial they choose. So at least three ways to reflect membership in order or tradition striving to merge the arcane and martial.
I don't see how either of those sets of possibilities somehow imply "abandonment" but if you want to assert strict beyond the character not reaching a classes maximum potential, you can do that. I think that's limiting possibilities for what magic and devotion respectively can be in a game world, but there's nothing wrong with prescriptions if it makes sense with how you want your world to work.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Ok both of you ( Pangurjan, Midnight) don’t seem to be seeing (or be willing to see or at least acknowledge) the point I’m trying to make. According to RAW any class/ subclass can multiclass into any other class/subclass. I’m not fighting that, though I would like it if it recognized that to do so called for some sort of training in most cases before you went out adventuring. In the ROLEPLAY OF THIS Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Sorcerers multiclass easily into any other class and subclass Because there are no special restrictions (Oaths, Pacts, etc) that Should be considered from the character’s point of view as part of the roleplay. Clerics, Paladins, Warlocks and Wizards are not so easy because they do have these restrictions. I don’t agree that any form of growing more powerful is ok that seems to be our main difference and if you guys want to agree to disagree I’m fine with that. But I don’t think power for power’s sake is a good reason for many possible multiclasses with these classes - or for many specific characters within these classes. Yes if your a cleric of Bane adding a level or 3 of hexblade pacted with the Raven Queen is not unreasonable Bane is all about power for power’s sake, Cyric is crazy, his clerics can pretty well do what they want as well. But why would a cleric of Lathander make the SAME pact? if your a Wizard, why would you give up your progress as a Wizard to add a couple of levels of Cleric to get some healing spells when you could use some time to research creating something similar ( a necromantic L1 spell that taps the positive material plane to do 2D4 + your spell casting bonus) or just learn to use the Herbalism kit to brew yourself some healing potions? In other words asking yourself “ does this multiclass make sense from the character’s history and motivations or am I metagaming again and trying to create a cockamamie rationalization for doing this?”
Lord knows I’m as guilty as the rest of us of doing that but I’m trying to be better these days.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Neither of our responses discuss power exclusively for powers sake. In fact I don't think I discuss it all. What I'm saying is your view of multi classing seems to stem from some view of the integrity of the class that is best maintained. In the instance of the Cleric you use the Catholic Church as an example. Whereas Pang and I both alluded to the point that for a Trickster/Thieving god may see actually expect its clerics to have some levels in Rogue (they don't even have to "leave the church" to learn the skills since Rogue work is part of the faiths "spiritual practice). Does mean every Cleric of every god would have the same opportunities. Same for Palladins, where leveling elsewhere is actually in service of the oath. Wizards can either ascend to mastery or take the magic they've learned to enhance another field (sort of like there are a lot of lawyers who actually don't practice law, don't really consult on legal matters where they work, but their legal training helps them in their current career and not in any sort of liability protection way ... instead of becoming a level 20 Justice).
If anything I don't see your argument contending with us so much as agreeing with us, just in your world MCing may be a little less common or their are world incentives to remain on the path of one's class, I think?
The game gives broader opportunities for players, if the DM supports those opportunities or finds them consistent with the world. Which is I think the way all three of us and most posters to this thread play.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
What I also meant to say was, it's ok to multiclass for pure power, even if you don't have an in character reason, as long as your table is ok with that playstyle. We have many ways to play and enjoy D&D. That was what I was getting at.
I have tendencies to powergame in all games I play, I want to be the best I can, but not when it comes to D&D, in D&D I try to match the ambitions of the table and I maximize the character concept instead. That then becomes my "powergaming" - ie. maximizing my character concept.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I do think I see your point, Wi1dBi11, I just - respectfully - don't agree with it. You think wizards or paladins multiclassing usually involves some monumental decision, I don't think that's true (especially in practice, when wizards multiclassing is almost always limited to 1-2 level dip, and that often in a casting class so they don't lose out on spell slots). Paladins don't even follow deities by default anymore in 5E, they vow to uphold ideals; I've seen plenty characters that were as faithful to an idea as any paladin too, even if they didn't take paladin levels and never swore an oath, so the skills a character may choose to pursue their life's ideals may be paladin-like in nature or something completely different.
When I see multiclassing that feels improbable, it has far more often to do with mechanics than ideas, allegiances or flavor. It's rangers going around wearing armour and using martial weapons for a couple of levels, who then multiclass into monk or barbarian, stop wearing armour and hardly ever pick up that longbow that was their trusty go-to for 2-3 levels before, or sorcerers going the other route and going from a couple of levels basically in pijamas 24/7 to always running around in armour and with a hexblade weapon, or barbarians who after 7 levels of just powering through everything start to surgically cut their enemies apart with sneak attack damage after slipping inside their compound by silently unlocking the back door with a few steel wires and some chicken grease, or a grizzled veteran warrior who'd been surviving half a dozen levels by his skill at arms deciding to choose words over swords and finding a glib tongue and a talent for the bagpipes overnight. All of those can be explained too (and in some cases simply picking up those first subclass benefits, no multiclassing needed, can feel just as jarring if not foreshadowed - Valor Bard or Battle Smith Artificer comes to mind), but to me that's a bigger logical leap than deciding to pursue what you've always been pursuing anyway, just in a less obvious way.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].