Reasons to Restrict Multiclassing?

[Max_Killjoy]

that was me, my bad, big fan of dragons

Not your fault, just me not paying enough attention.

[Great Dragon]

I have seen in your posts some aspersions as to the motives of players who multiclass, such as "power characters" and "Mary Sues" *, and assertions that multiclassing strains verisimilitude, and that characters all end up the same if multiclassing is allowed, and so on.

Umm. Ok. I try to not guess their motives, but maybe I project a little at times. Eh, the drawbacks of being a (minor) Grognard.

Yes, I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to someone making an obvious (to me) "Power Character". Min/Max, best Race pick, etc. Multiclassing kinda adds to that. Especially if they just crunched the numbers (or copycatted), and present the PC with everything else about the PC as a blank sheet. Sure, the Player put a Background on their page, but only because it gave an obvious bonus (I'm looking at you, Outlander Rangers), or had synergy for at least one Class - and skipped the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

The "Mary Sue" PCs tend to be based on a high Cha and some Social Skills (that are more Roll-play, the Roleplay), with so-so combat abilities. But they expect everyone to just automatically love them, despite the fact that they are trying to hog the spotlight in every situation.

But, this is because I've seen these kind of PCs so many times over the last 30+ years, they tend to stand out to me.
---
Now, getting good Rolls for stats, and putting them where it helps the PC be the best they can, is fine. But, choosing a Race just for bumping the biggest number rolled/bought to get their Prime Stat as close to 20 at first level as possible, not so much.

Mostly it's the lack of putting in the effort to come up with History for the PC, that irks me.
----
But then, I've gotten to the point where I will actually make an un-oppomized Character, just for the fun of it.

Some examples are:
(Name: TBD) Rock Gnome Berserker Barbarian having a Criminal Background: because he lost his temper and accidently killed his provoker in a (you guessed it) bar brawl; with a 14 Str, 16 Con, 12 Dex, 16 Int, 15 Wis, and 10 Cha.

Hyrt Umer - Hobgoblin Enchanter Wizard having Noble Background (he's the second child of one of the Ruling Families in the Hobgoblin City) 13 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 17 Int, 11 Wis, 12 Cha.
(I'm too tired right now to type in his History)

I actually like making Histories for Characters.

But I went looking for where I thought you'd actually said you don't allow it at all, because it's usually just a power grab and you just don't like it... and now see that it was someone else with the same avatar you use.

I see. Well, these things happen.

@Lance Tankmen: I'm also a huge (long term) fan of Dragons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Multiclassing is not a de facto change in focus. It can be a change in focus, but it's not one necessarily.

It has to be organic to who the character is; I don't DM games where a player is a bag of stats. Thus, in response to your point, in my campaign world, yes it is; it is very much a change in focus or a new direction the character takes since their previous profession, and progress in that profession, had a certain path to personal growth woven into it.

You mention that "adventuring is a job" and I disagree (though I appreciate the point you are going after there).

I see adventuring as a calling, and a profession. There is a non trivial difference between a job and a profession. (Well, that's how I was raised). It is also a narrative device. If an adventure wasn't needed to be undertaken, the character would do whatever his background has him or her doing: sail, entertain, be a criminal or spy, a soldier, a sage, etcetera.

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.

[Pex]

You can ban multi-classing while fully understanding that there’s nothing wrong with multi-classing.

The problem with discussions like this is that it all comes down to degree, which is a matter of taste.

There are the Core rules, and if a DM wants, he can even restrict Core options. For example, no Dwarves, or no Bards. Someone who plays Core may find that restrictive. Or you could play Core-only, meaning no optional races (drow, Dragonborn, gnomes) or feats or multi-classing*. Someone who plays with those options will find Core restrictive.. And then there is a suite of optional rules. Someone who plays with all of those finds “feats and multi-classing only” too restrictive. Some DMs ban splatbooks. People who use them find that restrictive.

Then there’s the monstrous races... then UA... then homebrew... then Gestalt...

The point is, everyone has a limit at some point, and there’s no better or worse answers. You might as well argue over whether pickles or tomatoes taste better, because it’s simply a matter of taste.

* undoubtedly someone will argue that this not what Core means. It doesn’t matter - I don’t care what you want to call Core, as long as I know what you mean by it - my point remains.

What the DM says goes. If he says enough unreasonable stuff the players go too.

Yes, of course the DM can ban anything he wants for any reason. Being allowed to doesn't mean it was a good idea. A player can choose to accept the bans and play the game. He can also choose to say that's male bovine feces and not play. If we're to be that basic then there's no point in having a discussion about anything. It's not enough to say the DM can do something. It's equally important to know why the DM does something. The discussion is about people's opinions about the why.

[Max_Killjoy]

It has to be organic to who the character is; I don't DM games where a player is a bag of stats. Thus, in response to your point, in my campaign world, yes it is; it is very much a change in focus or a new direction the character takes since their previous profession, and progress in that profession, had a certain path to personal growth woven into it.

You mention that "adventuring is a job" and I disagree (though I appreciate the point you are going after there).

I see adventuring as a calling, and a profession. There is a non trivial difference between a job and a profession. (Well, that's how I was raised). It is also a narrative device. If an adventure wasn't needed to be undertaken, the character would do whatever his background has him or her doing: sail, entertain, be a criminal or spy, a soldier, a sage, etcetera.

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.

Race, then Background, then Class, should have been the order of entries in the PHB for 5e. Race comes at birth, Background comes during youth, Class comes last.

But me... I'm choosing the small-B background, the history, the personality, the ideal set of capabilities, etc, etc, etc... and then looking for how that can be translated / mapped into the game's mechanics.

As far as I'm concerned, restriction to a single Class, and treating that Class as anything more than one tool in a kit, is what reduces the character to a bag of stats, putting the Class ahead of the character. The character is not the stuff on the paper, the character is the "person who could be real" who lives in the "world that could be real" of the game's setting.

With Class shoved to the forefront and made an in-setting thing, and no multiclassing, the character is a Fighter, and that's that, for the rest of his life, no atter what happens. He's just a mechanical contrivance with some fluff tacked on for show.

He's not, as one quick example, Robert Whitesmith, son of a mildly successful silver dealer, who studied swordplay in the local "gymnasium" on days he wasn't learning to do the books and read letters... until it was discovered he had a talent for magic and they shifted his studies to academic magery, which might get mapped into the game with Human, the Sage or Guild Background, and one level each of Fighter and Wizard.

[Tanarii]

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.

When I was playing AL I usually went Race, Background, Class*. For some characters, that feels like the natural order, for others it feels back to front. For example a Noble or Outlander ("lifestyle" backgrounds) are probably inherent to who you are and where you grew up, so they'll almost certainly have been who you were for a long time.

It's important to remember that most 5e 1st level characters, while clearly a cut above the average commoner and destined for greatness (if they live), are still relative babes-in-the-woods in terms of their class. Most of them have probably only very recently either been invested with power (warlocks, clerics, sorcerers) or completing a fairly short apprenticeship (fighters, rogues, rangers), or both (druids, paladins).

*I also made and played more than a few characters by randomly dicing these things. Lets just say it's interesting to play a Dragonborn Wizard Soldier who staffs things more than cast spells. Interesting and pretty quickly fatal.

[Corran]

It has to be organic to who the character is; I don't DM games where a player is a bag of stats. Thus, in response to your point, in my campaign world, yes it is; it is very much a change in focus or a new direction the character takes since their previous profession, and progress in that profession, had a certain path to personal growth woven into it.

You mention that "adventuring is a job" and I disagree (though I appreciate the point you are going after there).

I see adventuring as a calling, and a profession. There is a non trivial difference between a job and a profession. (Well, that's how I was raised). It is also a narrative device. If an adventure wasn't needed to be undertaken, the character would do whatever his background has him or her doing: sail, entertain, be a criminal or spy, a soldier, a sage, etcetera.

Which brings me to character generation: how often do you choose a background before you choose a class? I've done that a few times during chargen and I like how that "feels" for the process.

About two months ago I was thinking of a character. Ended up creating him so I can play him some time in the future. Now, this character was loosely based on an existing fictional character, so I had a good base idea for what I was going. Before long, I had figured out most of what I wanted of the character. I know why he is out adventuring. I know his motivations, hopes and dreams. I know his fears. I know how he reacts when he is happy, scared, angered. I know when he will lie and when he'll speak his mind. I know what kind of people he likes and hates. I know if he is generous or greedy, selfish or altruistic, compassionate or cruel. I even write down a few phrases I want him to use in certain occasions. A class will tell me little to nothing about these things, that is, about the character of my character.

Choosing a background comes naturally. I have not even started thinking of the class yet. I think of the character once again (I think about the fictional character that served as inspiration too). What do I know? That he is most definitely a spellcaster. More specifically, I want my character to definitely have 3 specific abilities. Thankfully, there are 3 dnd spells that imitate these abilities fairly well. Let's call them spell 1, spell 2 and spell 3. I do a quick search. I find out that there are 4 classes (in two cases I must lock the archetype as well) that give me access to spell 1, 2 and 3. Bard, druid, warlock and wizard. I skip bard, because the prospect of roleplaying one intimidates me somewhat, so I will avoid playing one for a long campaign (I know it sounds silly but it's true). After thinking it for a while, I decide that he will be a warlock, so now I know my class. Each class would fit. Each class would just give a slightly different spin to a character that for the most part was already defined. The fact I chose warlock was not because it fitted best, but because it was slightly less of an obstacle. If I had to multiclass in order to get access to the 3 spells, that's what I would do, because it's important to me to have the mechanical tools that bestow my character a small part of his identity (or rather, that facilitate justifying his identity).

Bottom line, mechanics exist to serve my inspiration, not to limit it. And what's organic and what's not, is purely subjective. What feels organic to you might not feel to me, and vice versa. Is it more important that a character feels organic to the one playing them, or to the one dm'ing them? Or is it that you can only dm for characters that you would like to play yourself?

[Max_Killjoy]

Bottom line, mechanics exist to serve my inspiration, not to limit it.

Exactly.

As long as the character actually fits the setting, the mechanics should facilitate, not dictate.

And if the mechanics keep facilitating things that don't fit the setting, then there's a bigger dissonance that is far more important to address than a single character being a "setting mismatch".

[Corran]

Exactly.

As long as the character actually fits the setting, the mechanics should facilitate, not dictate.

And if the mechanics keep facilitating things that don't fit the setting, then there's a bigger dissonance that is far more important to address than a single character being a "setting mismatch".

Yes. They must fit the setting, their motivation must allow them to pursue the main story if there is one, they must play well with the other characters. Generally, I am assuming a non-disruptive player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's important to remember that most 5e 1st level characters, while clearly a cut above the average commoner and destined for greatness (if they live), are still relative babes-in-the-woods in terms of their class. Most of them have probably only very recently either been invested with power (warlocks, clerics, sorcerers) or completing a fairly short apprenticeship (fighters, rogues, rangers), or both (druids, paladins).

This is true. I find that too often, having a clear micro-concept for the character (beyond the very broad brush-strokes) entails having too full a backstory for a level 1 character.

Example backstories that work (mechanical bits in bold):

Human Folk Hero Fighter (SnB): Bob is a farm-boy who dreamed of becoming a swordsman one day and chafed at the boringness of farm life. After his chores he practiced with the local militia, and became quite good. After a militia encounter with some bandits in which he played a noble role, he set off looking for adventure with his reward for the deed--a battered but functional sword, shield, and suit of chain.
Personality: open and naive.
Ideal: Protect the weak.
Bond: I'm going to be a big hero some day!
Flaw: Easily lured by promises of valor or by fake cries for help.

Human Noble Fighter (ranged/dex): Jane grew up in a border-noble's extended household, the 3rd daughter of a collateral branch. Like all border-marchers, weapons and warplay were part of every-day life. She rode and hunted with the men, shot arrows with the guards, and studied tactics and diplomacy by night as much as needlework or poetry. With no grand inheritance waiting for her when she came of age, she decided to strike out and make her own fortune and name.
Personality: bold and forceful.
Ideal: Noblesse oblige.
Bond: My family is important to me.
Flaw: Stubborn to a fault.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes. They must fit the setting, their motivation must allow them to pursue the main story if there is one, they must play well with the other characters. Generally, I am assuming a non-disruptive player.

Of course. There are "meta requirements" for a PC, and you list three important ones.

They are however orthogonal to single vs multi class builds -- I've seen them happen regardless of system.

(The one that bugs me the most, I think, is the character who fits the setting but is intentionally built to be inept, particularly regarding the most common activities of the campaign. See, the guy who builds a VTM vampire character, and then intentionally lowballs the Attributes and Abilities that determine the die pools for all his Disciplines, and those that would are almost demanded by his backstory and concept, even where they overlap... and then makes noises about it being bad to "rollplay instead of roleplay", and about "realistic characters", when asked about it... Thank you, lit-fic, for aggrandizing the inept do-nothing character as "the most realistic" and "best characterized".)

[Pex]

Of course. There are "meta requirements" for a PC, and you list three important ones.

They are however orthogonal to single vs multi class builds -- I've seen them happen regardless of system.

(The one that bugs me the most, I think, is the character who fits the setting but is intentionally built to be inept, particularly regarding the most common activities of the campaign. See, the guy who builds a VTM vampire character, and then intentionally lowballs the Attributes and Abilities that determine the die pools for all his Disciplines, and those that would are almost demanded by his backstory and concept, even where they overlap... and then makes noises about it being bad to "rollplay instead of roleplay", and about "realistic characters", when asked about it... Thank you, lit-fic, for aggrandizing the inept do-nothing character as "the most realistic" and "best characterized".)

I dislike those types of players a lot. It can get worse. Some of them then get upset the rules won't let them do what they want to do. It's not about failing a task because they have a low plus number for the d20 roll. In the heat of the moment of play they spontaneously think of something so appropriately in character to do, but they can't do it by the rules. The character doesn't have the ability, they're too low a level for the ability, the result they want doesn't happen the way the game rules say they happen, or some reason it doesn't work. They get upset and have a hissy fit. They want free form play. They don't want any rules.

[Great Dragon]

@Max_Killjoy and Pex.
Right. It should not be a requirement for the PC to shoot themselves in the foot to be considered a "valid" Character.
Both extremes are bad.

These are the main reasons I normally avoid PbP.

[KorvinStarmast]

Race, then Background, then Class, should have been the order of entries in the PHB for 5e. Race comes at birth, Background comes during youth, Class comes last.

Yeah, that's my thought for some of the chargen process. But, that requires the DM to have a bit of the world already presented to the players so that they get a feel for how and where they fit into the world. Not all DMs do that.

But me... I'm choosing the small-B background, the history, the personality, the ideal set of capabilities, etc, etc, etc... and then looking for how that can be translated / mapped into the game's mechanics.
As far as I'm concerned, restriction to a single Class, and treating that Class as anything more than one tool in a kit, is what reduces the character to a bag of stats, putting the Class ahead of the character. The character is not the stuff on the paper, the character is the "person who could be real" who lives in the "world that could be real" of the game's setting.

Class is a piece of this game, and has been since 1974. I see no point in fighting that structural piece. There are enough games without it that one can choose that game when one wants a classless PC experience.

FWIW, one of the more successful dungeon crawl games ever (Diablo, the original game, late 1990's) was during its original design phase intended to work with a classless character concept; the player build came from choices as they leveled up. They ended up using classes. The game was a great success and Had Great Replay Value. (They learned among other things that the min max would be even worse with a classless character concept). Class is a useful tool, structurally, in adding variety to the gaming experience. It isn't the only way to do that, but it is a way to do that.

@Corran: thanks for your dissertation. There isn't or wasn't infinite design space in this, nor most, games. (Though one wonders of GURPS represents something approaching that). I'll stop there after pointing out that if you are spending too much time fighting the mechanics, or being frustrated by them, it might be time to move to another game. We are very fortunate in the present time: over 5000 RPGs are available for play. (Back when this all started, that kind of variety simply didn't exist).

[Astofel]

I'm of the opinion that, at least for 5e, you should be designing a character with the system in mind, rather than imagining a character and then trying to squeeze them into the system. The latter tends to lead to frustration when the abilities you imagine come from three different classes across 9 levels, so your character can't have all of them until very high level, if ever, and they come with a whole host of other abilities you never wanted, and which might not fit the character you had in mind at all.

That's part of the reason I want class fluff to matter in my games. It helps players approach the game in terms of "I want to play a rogue with this type of personality" rather than "I want to play a character with this specific personality and who has x, y, and z abilities". Nothing wrong with the latter, but if that's what you want out of an RPG that's not the experience that 5e offers.

But all of the above has nothing to do with how I restrict multiclassing, which I more or less don't. As an example of how I view multiclassing, a hypothetical conversation between me and a player who wants to make a multiclass character.
Them: I imagine my character being able to shoot magic lasers from their fingers and fire from their hands, and also being martially proficient and able to imbue their weapon strikes with power, so I've decided to make a warlock/paladin.
Me: Sounds neat, but I'll need a bit more than that. How did they become a warlock, and how did they become a paladin? In my game the classes are more than just a set of powers, they detail the means by which you obtained them.
Them: Oh, I hadn't really thought about that.
Me: That's okay, I'll work through it with you. How about...

And then some time passes, and at the end of it we have a character who made a pact with a devil for power, but then did some things they regretted and swore an oath to redeem both themself and others, but the devil patron still lurks over their shoulder, tempting them with an offer of more power for just a little favour, surely the power I offer could be used in your crusade for good. NPCs in a game with this character wouldn't point at them and say "this person has more than one class," or even "this person is a warlock/this person is a paladin." Those who are knowledgeable about certain types of powers would be able to say "this person has powers that are obtained through a pact with a fiend, and also powers arising from dedication to an oath of redemption," but that's the extent to which NPCs in my games think of class.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm of the opinion that, at least for 5e, you should be designing a character with the system in mind, rather than imagining a character and then trying to squeeze them into the system. The latter tends to lead to frustration when the abilities you imagine come from three different classes across 9 levels, so your character can't have all of them until very high level, if ever, and they come with a whole host of other abilities you never wanted, and which might not fit the character you had in mind at all.

well said, and more concisely putting into words what I was thinking. *tips cap*

[Man_Over_Game]

Bottom line, mechanics exist to serve my inspiration, not to limit it. And what's organic and what's not, is purely subjective. What feels organic to you might not feel to me, and vice versa. Is it more important that a character feels organic to the one playing them, or to the one dm'ing them? Or is it that you can only dm for characters that you would like to play yourself?

In the end, though, the mechanics are what are going to determine what your character is capable of doing. Your personality, background, race, all of those things may dictate how you do things, or what your preference is, but there is little preference with the mechanics that you have.

It does not matter how smart your Barbarian is or how high his Wisdom is. He cannot cast spells while he Rages. A Paladin doesn't have much support as a ranged character. Just because you have the idea of a Sorcerer using magic to deflect attacks while he hits people in melee combat with his mind does not mean that the game is able to let that work.

In the end, the mechanics are the limiting factor. Of course, you could make a character concept, choosing the class last, but you'll almost always find yourself disappointed about an ability you want but can't have, or a concept that you'll never see come to fruition.

Personally, I think people should recognize how they want to play the game first, then make everything work around that. Because, at the end of the day, your tragic backstory and heroic upbringing won't be nearly as relevant as your Cleric levels in determining how you play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

well said, and more concisely putting into words what I was thinking. *tips cap*

I agree with this. Thumbs up Astofel. Let the archetypes speak, and then build that way instead of trying to shoehorn a character into an archetype.

[Boci]

And then some time passes, and at the end of it we have a character who made a pact with a devil for power, but then did some things they regretted and swore an oath to redeem both themself and others, but the devil patron still lurks over their shoulder, tempting them with an offer of more power for just a little favour, surely the power I offer could be used in your crusade for good. NPCs in a game with this character wouldn't point at them and say "this person has more than one class," or even "this person is a warlock/this person is a paladin." Those who are knowledgeable about certain types of powers would be able to say "this person has powers that are obtained through a pact with a fiend, and also powers arising from dedication to an oath of redemption," but that's the extent to which NPCs in my games think of class.

And would you allow a warlock/paladin without conflict between the two sides? Celestial patron/oath of devotion? Fey patron/oath of the ancient? Fiend patron/oath of tyranny?

[Yunru]

It does not matter how smart your Barbarian is or how high his Wisdom is. He cannot cast spells while he Rages. A Paladin doesn't have much support as a ranged character. Just because you have the idea of a Sorcerer using magic to deflect attacks while he hits people in melee combat with his mind does not mean that the game is able to let that work.

One of these is correct, one of these isn't the point you're trying to reinforce, and the last implies something that's incorrect.
You're better than this man.

[Great Dragon]

And would you allow a warlock/paladin without conflict between the two sides? Celestial patron/oath of devotion? Fey patron/oath of the ancient? Fiend patron/oath of tyranny?

For me, yes. Even the idea that Astofel had, where they started out Fiend Patron and then went Devotion Paladin. But, like Astofel said, the Fiend would watch to see how often the PC used the Pact powers, and try to temp them with more. Now, because Paladins are not overseen by a Deity, using the Pact powers won't cause them to fall, but using those dark powers might cause Subtle changes. (Working with the Player on what these changes are, and not forcing them on the PC).

Maybe the Paladin seeks out a new Patron to increase their Warlock abilities and powers, and this can change their Pact (Subclass).

A later Plot Hook for the Paladin could be that their old Friend Patron claims their soul on a technicality, and the rest of the party now needs to go to the rescue. While the the Pally's player uses a new PC.

If either the Player or the Party aren't interested, then so be it.

[Astofel]

And would you allow a warlock/paladin without conflict between the two sides? Celestial patron/oath of devotion? Fey patron/oath of the ancient? Fiend patron/oath of tyranny?

Of course. I just chose a particularly infamous example of an "inherently conflicting" multiclass to show that things like that won't stop me from helping the player to figure out how to make it work.

[FaerieGodfather]

One of my absolute favorite characters of all time-- and one of the few Paladins I will play under any circumstances-- is an Ancient Paladin/GOOlock with no specific conflict between his patrons for both classes because they are, in fact, the same being.

A terrible, alien deity of love, beauty, and extreme body modification. It is beyond any sense of human morality, of course, but its servitor is a committed Neutral Good.

[Xetheral]

I'm of the opinion that, at least for 5e, you should be designing a character with the system in mind, rather than imagining a character and then trying to squeeze them into the system. The latter tends to lead to frustration when the abilities you imagine come from three different classes across 9 levels, so your character can't have all of them until very high level, if ever, and they come with a whole host of other abilities you never wanted, and which might not fit the character you had in mind at all.

That's part of the reason I want class fluff to matter in my games. It helps players approach the game in terms of "I want to play a rogue with this type of personality" rather than "I want to play a character with this specific personality and who has x, y, and z abilities". Nothing wrong with the latter, but if that's what you want out of an RPG that's not the experience that 5e offers.

I don't know if it was your intent, but your final claim above comes across to me as the equivalent of "my way or the highway". I think that's being unnecessarily exclusionary. In this thread multiple posters have expressed that they use 5e for exactly the experience you claim it doesn't offer. I think that's strong evidence that 5e offers a wider range of experiences than you're giving it credit for.

I think it's beautiful that the game we love can be used to bring enjoyment in so many different ways. I see no purpose in implying that 5e is only suited to your particular approach to character building.

In the end, though, the mechanics are what are going to determine what your character is capable of doing. Your personality, background, race, all of those things may dictate how you do things, or what your preference is, but there is little preference with the mechanics that you have.

At my table I would argue that a character's goals and motives are more important than that character's abilities in determining what the character accomplishes during the campaign. For example, the entire shape of my campaign can depend on whether the characters opt to work with a local ruler, skip town, or actively work to overthrow them. The characters' abilities determine the means at their disposal, which may influence their decision, but the goals and motives matter much, much more.

So, exactly contrary to your assertion, I would argue that in my experience goals and motives (i.e. personality and backstory) determine what a character does, with the available mechanics influencing how they do things. For example, a character of any class can decide to work to overthrow a local ruler. The characters' class(es) is/are only involved in determining the means at their disposal.

Admittedly, I tend to run games that are closer to the sandbox end of the spectrum, where the characters' strategic choices determine the course of play. Because tactical choices tend to be more mechanical in nature, at a table where tactical decisions determine the course of play I can understand how the choice of class(es) takes on a relatively more prominent role.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At my table I would argue that a character's goals and motives are more important than that character's abilities in determining what the character accomplishes during the campaign.

I agree with this. Mechanics don't drive narratives, personalities and choices do. If needed, you can hire or find someone to handle the mechanics unless you're hopelessly outclassed. Who you are matters much more than what mechanical buttons you can push.

[Shuruke]

My only issue with multi classing os
(Atleast in my experience)
There is to many people wanting to be min maxed or etc and hyper focusing on the paper and pen part of the game.

Most of my players know

Don't worry about optimization just take what makes sense for your character and their story.

And even saying that , and carefully crafting campaign so everyone can shine and etc. Theirs still people worried about being the tankiest tank
Or having insane a.c
For sake of the stats. Not the narrative or story of character and dont want any kind of narrative or story having to do with the class (ie Warlocks wanting to hand wave pacts etc)


In the end I don't care either way to be honest. As long as they are having fun with it and dont complain when things don't go their way even when % wise it was in their favor.



Note: I don't dm cuz I like it, for long time I dreaded it. However the part of dming I enjoy is when the players are thinking in character or stating what their character is thinking or reacting. And the fun memories made along way.

[KorvinStarmast]

One of my absolute favorite characters of all time-- and one of the few Paladins I will play under any circumstances-- is an Ancient Paladin/GOOlock with no specific conflict between his patrons for both classes because they are, in fact, the same being.

A terrible, alien deity of love, beauty, and extreme body modification. It is beyond any sense of human morality, of course, but its servitor is a committed Neutral Good.

I love where you went with this.
(Ever read Waking Beauty? It has an interesting take on beauty that mixes in a bit of horror. Paul Witcover is the author)

[Pex]

My only issue with multi classing os
(Atleast in my experience)
There is to many people wanting to be min maxed or etc and hyper focusing on the paper and pen part of the game.

Most of my players know

Don't worry about optimization just take what makes sense for your character and their story.

And even saying that , and carefully crafting campaign so everyone can shine and etc. Theirs still people worried about being the tankiest tank
Or having insane a.c
For sake of the stats. Not the narrative or story of character and dont want any kind of narrative or story having to do with the class (ie Warlocks wanting to hand wave pacts etc)


In the end I don't care either way to be honest. As long as they are having fun with it and dont complain when things don't go their way even when % wise it was in their favor.



Note: I don't dm cuz I like it, for long time I dreaded it. However the part of dming I enjoy is when the players are thinking in character or stating what their character is thinking or reacting. And the fun memories made along way.

Banning multiclassing won't change people only interested in the numbers.

[Astofel]

I don't know if it was your intent, but your final claim above comes across to me as the equivalent of "my way or the highway". I think that's being unnecessarily exclusionary. In this thread multiple posters have expressed that they use 5e for exactly the experience you claim it doesn't offer. I think that's strong evidence that 5e offers a wider range of experiences than you're giving it credit for.

I think it's beautiful that the game we love can be used to bring enjoyment in so many different ways. I see no purpose in implying that 5e is only suited to your particular approach to character building.

You're right, I can see how that could come off as exclusionary, although that wasn't my intention. To refine that statement, I don't think that 5e was designed for an abilities>archetypes style of character building and if that's what I wanted I'd use a system designed with that in mind. If using 5e this way works for some people that's great! It is wonderful that the game can bring joy to all sorts of groups and playstyles. But for this playstyle in particular I more often see frustration that the system doesn't work quite the way they wanted.

[Max_Killjoy]

You're right, I can see how that could come off as exclusionary, although that wasn't my intention. To refine that statement, I don't think that 5e was designed for an abilities>archetypes style of character building and if that's what I wanted I'd use a system designed with that in mind. If using 5e this way works for some people that's great! It is wonderful that the game can bring joy to all sorts of groups and playstyles. But for this playstyle in particular I more often see frustration that the system doesn't work quite the way they wanted.

It's further than that.

The style some of us want, even if we know D&D won't ever do it, is character -> abilities -> mechanics. Archetype doesn't even exist in that thought process or that style.