Reasons to Restrict Multiclassing?

[Pex]

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.

For me abilities and characters are two different things. The character is whatever I feel like roleplaying. I give him a personality and motives with the campaign story further shaping him as he reacts and become proactive to the situations that happen. The abilities are whatever cool things I feel like having fun using this time.

Sometimes personality dictates abilities and other times abilities dictates personality. It depends on my mood for the game in question, so I guess I'm really all over the place on this.

[Tanarii]

For me abilities and characters are two different things. The character is whatever I feel like roleplaying. I give him a personality and motives with the campaign story further shaping him as he reacts and become proactive to the situations that happen. The abilities are whatever cool things I feel like having fun using this time.

Sometimes personality dictates abilities and other times abilities dictates personality. It depends on my mood for the game in question, so I guess I'm really all over the place on this.

For me, roleplaying is the decisions I make for my character in the fantasy environment. So things that affect my Roleplaying are the sum total of all things that affect my decision making, which includes both character personality and abilities. Among other things

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

This is the D&D 5e sub forum. If you don't care for the game's basic structure, then simply complaining about it achieves little. Tanarii put a good bow on this discussion:

For me, roleplaying is the decisions I make for my character in the fantasy environment.

Regardless of the nuances or constraints in the system, that is the core exercise of agency in terms of game play.

[Tanarii]

This is the D&D 5e sub forum. If you don't care for the game's basic structure, then simply complaining about it achieves little.

We get a lot of prolific posters around here that don't actually play the game.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is the D&D 5e sub forum. If you don't care for the game's basic structure, then simply complaining about it achieves little.

So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"?

OK.

[KorvinStarmast]

So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"? OK.

When you try to put words into someone else's mouth, Max, the failure to engage in good faith becomes obvious.

What are you trying to accomplish here? This discussion began as a bit of back and forth on multiclassing, and you have turned it into a screed against the mechanics of how classes and archetypes are part of the building blocks of this particular game.

What value are you adding to the conversation by taking it in that direction?

[PhoenixPhyre]

When you try to put words into someone else's mouth, Max, the failure to engage in good faith becomes obvious.

What are you trying to accomplish here? This discussion began as a bit of back and forth on multiclassing, and you have turned it into a screed against the mechanics of how classes and archetypes are part of the building blocks of this particular game.

What value are you adding to the conversation by taking it in that direction?

Agreed. It's totally fine not to like archetypes and classes. It's not fine to claim that those are a flaw or secondary when they're entirely primary to the game. It's like complaining that Train Simulator 2019 doesn't have enough tanks or shooting in it. It's defying the entire premise of the title.

Shoehorning in characters that don't fit into a setting or system is a problem for the doer, not the system. Sure, you can bend a lot of premises. But the core ones (in this case the centrality of strong fantasy archetypes and adventuring)? Doing so just results in a broken mess. And I've seen other people then blame the game for the mess that results, when they broke it by discarding the core.

I'm allergic to people wanting to recreate a character they've imagined in detail, whether original or from some other medium. Or even another edition of D&D, although that's more acceptable. Recreate themes and broad brushstrokes? Fine. Exactly model the character, including backstory and power-set? That does violence to the system and to any settings its employed in. D&D is not, nor is it designed to be, a generic fantasy character emulation engine. Especially in 5e, it's a (relatively) focused game about strong archetypes going on fantasy adventures that involve combat, exploration, traps, and cooperation between people (whether PCs or NPCs). A non-combatant or non-adventurer is not a valid 5e PC. In fact, they're the very definition of an NPC.

[ZorroGames]

One thing I am learning on this forum is to ignore the crybabies, KILLJOYs, and “You must do it this way” posters.

Play the game. Don’t let the game play you.

[2D8HP]

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.

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.

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.

Maybe it shows the limits of my imagination, but for 5e a first level Fighter with the Noble Background, a first level Ranger with an Urchin Background, or a first level Rogue with the Outlander Background already cover 90% of the abilities that my character concepts need, and yes with multi-classing by 3rd level 99% of any concept that I had inspired by fiction is covered (as opposed to reading the rules and saying "That looks cool!").

I really like playing Fighter-Rogues, and I like Ranger's "Natural Explorer" ability (I also like many of the Paladins Oaths Tenets, but I don't need the Paladins abilities to roleplay a PC following them!) but with the Background Features and Racial proficiencies a single class PC may effectively be multi-class (and custom backgrounds are RAW).

And frankly that is why I like first level 5e better than playing first level of any other version of D&D.

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

True.

Ever read Waking Beauty? It has an interesting take on beauty that mixes in a bit of horror. Paul Witcover is the author

I just read a review, and while I already had a stack of books I planned to read or re-read, it's now on my list!

[Max_Killjoy]

When you try to put words into someone else's mouth, Max, the failure to engage in good faith becomes obvious.

What are you trying to accomplish here? This discussion began as a bit of back and forth on multiclassing, and you have turned it into a screed against the mechanics of how classes and archetypes are part of the building blocks of this particular game.

What value are you adding to the conversation by taking it in that direction?

I'm sorry, what words did I try to put in whose mouth?

As for what I was trying to accomplish... that should have been clear.


There was a comment about the relationship between archetype and abilities, and whether 5e can handle either one coming first -- and that players who want abilities to drive archetype would be frustrated by 5e, if it's kinda designed to work in the other direction.

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.

In response to which I tried to point out that for some players, it's not even part of the "equation", and thinking that their frustration comes from a simple arrow flip in the process will entirely mischaracterize and just miss what actually underlies that frustration.

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.

That is, some players want to multiclass because it's the only way to get the character in their head translated into the game's mechanics, and they don't give a fig about what "archetype" the character may or may not be, or what collections and progressions of skills and powers someone else might have lumped together. They want their character to be a person, not a trope.

And trying to make that clear came in the context of a lot of implicit and explicit insulting comments about the supposed motivations behind multiclassing -- multiple ongoing threads have been peppered with comments based on a false assumption that wanting to multiclass must be about trying to manipulate the system to create the most powerful PC possible, etc.

And if you want to claim that no such comments have been made, I'll be "happy" to go through the recent threads and quote them all here.

One thing I am learning on this forum is to ignore the crybabies, KILLJOYs, and “You must do it this way” posters.

Play the game. Don’t let the game play you.

That's funny, because that part I bolded... that's exactly what I'm arguing in favor of.

[Great Dragon]

So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"?

OK.

Well, it's helped me.
---
But to me - looking at only the mechanics (including features of Backgrounds, and stats) and manipulating them to get the most raw power, and ignoring the story/history of the PC is power gaming. (I don't expect a novel’s worth of History, especially for a first level PC)

There are some very nice Histories being posted.

IDK, I seem to not really get a picture of a PC until all of the pieces (D&D includes Class) are in place.

The PC's Personality is what the Player brings to the table.

And seeing all the Class/Subclass features as a list of tools, seems to me that what is desired is that everything (of all Classes/Subclasses) is just put on a list and the Player chooses what they want based on - what?
Again, seems to be very Skill-based to me.

----
A lot of new Players are trying to bring in things that just don't fit into D&D. Anime (Naruto, Bleach) being top of the list, with movies (Pirates-otC) and Podcasts (Critical Role) or TV shows next. Sure, the “Personality” of a given media Character can be used. But their “abilities” either require being High Level and/or Multiclassed, or (usually) simply can't be incorporated by even the nicest DM.

The fact that a lot of the time when new players come to a forum (not just this one), the first thing they see are advice for max-building their Characters - and usually no History advice.

Those of us who are not prone to do so are (at least in my case) late to the thread, or drowned out. The Playground does seem to have more helpful Members, though.

[Willie the Duck]

We get a lot of prolific posters around here that don't actually play the game.

One thing I am learning on this forum is to ignore the crybabies, KILLJOYs, and “You must do it this way” posters.

I am in general agreement with the reasoning that D&D is not flawed by embracing archetypes, classes, and not trying to be a generic fantasy emulator. I do, however, think these responses are taking things too far. Claiming that other posters on the forum don't actually play the game is perilously close to 'your argument doesn't count, not because the argument is wrong, but because you don't really have standing to complain.' Likewise, any time we have one of these big devolve-into-bickering threads, both sides end up walking away considering the other side crybabies.

Max_Killjoy has made his gaming position very clear -- he is coming back to D&D gaming, and not sure he really likes 5e, but is giving it a go. I agree that in some ways he's trying to convert a minivan into an ambulance and complaining about the constraints (when ambulances exist for sale), but he's been straightforward about what he's trying to accomplish the whole time.

[Xetheral]

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.

Thank you for refining your statement! I disagree that 5e was specifically designed to promote one approach to character building over any other (and I think the intent of the designers is, in any case, less relevant than how the product is used in the wild), but there is plenty of room for us to disagree on that point.

Thanks again--I really appreciate that you took the time to respond to my objection.

[Max_Killjoy]

Agreed. It's totally fine not to like archetypes and classes. It's not fine to claim that those are a flaw or secondary when they're entirely primary to the game. It's like complaining that Train Simulator 2019 doesn't have enough tanks or shooting in it. It's defying the entire premise of the title.

Shoehorning in characters that don't fit into a setting or system is a problem for the doer, not the system. Sure, you can bend a lot of premises. But the core ones (in this case the centrality of strong fantasy archetypes and adventuring)? Doing so just results in a broken mess. And I've seen other people then blame the game for the mess that results, when they broke it by discarding the core.

I'm allergic to people wanting to recreate a character they've imagined in detail, whether original or from some other medium. Or even another edition of D&D, although that's more acceptable. Recreate themes and broad brushstrokes? Fine. Exactly model the character, including backstory and power-set? That does violence to the system and to any settings its employed in. D&D is not, nor is it designed to be, a generic fantasy character emulation engine. Especially in 5e, it's a (relatively) focused game about strong archetypes going on fantasy adventures that involve combat, exploration, traps, and cooperation between people (whether PCs or NPCs). A non-combatant or non-adventurer is not a valid 5e PC. In fact, they're the very definition of an NPC.

Who's arguing in favor of non-combatants or non-adventurers as valid PCs?

(I have, in the recent past, nearly railed against players trying to play an NPC as their PC, regardless of system or setting or campaign.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, it's helped me.
---
But to me - looking at only the mechanics (including features of Backgrounds, and stats) and manipulating them to get the most raw power, and ignoring the story/history of the PC is power gaming. (I don't expect a novel’s worth of History, especially for a first level PC)

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

[Great Dragon]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

Indeed.
********
Question about mixing class Features:

Would it be possible for someone starting with Class/Subclass - but only wanting a specific ability from another class be allowed to take that as a feat close to the level of the target class's ability?

Like a Wizard that wanted Sneak Attack, giving up their 4th level ASI. If so, does SA stay at 1d6 or scale to level?

This would change the game, but still be close enough?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Who's arguing in favor of non-combatants or non-adventurers as valid PCs?

(I have, in the recent past, nearly railed against players trying to play an NPC as their PC, regardless of system or setting or campaign.)

That wasn't directed only at you, but at the many others who I've seen make the exact same claims in other occasions. You've been good about that part in these discussions, but you do tend to reject the core premise of D&D and then fault D&D for not accommodating your taste. Which is the rest of the issue.

Edit:

Question about mixing class Features:

Would it be possible for someone starting with Class/Subclass - but only wanting a specific ability from another class be allowed to take that as a feat close to the level of the target class's ability?

Like a Wizard that wanted Sneak Attack, giving up their 4th level ASI. If so, does SA stay at 1d6 or scale to level?

I would not allow that. Class features are "balanced" both thematically and holistically. Sneak attack doesn't have a fixed value that can be judged in isolation (and compared to a feat, for example). No class feature does. It only has value in context. For example, there's already a feat that grants a few battlemaster maneuvers and a couple superiority dice. It's routinely panned as not useful for anyone. Without the rest of the chassis, it's pointless. On the other hand, Magic Initiate gives you a heavily nerfed spell-casting ability (2 cantrips, one 1st level/day) and is widely considered one of the better feats.

[Xetheral]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

Echoing this, when I "optimize" a multiclass character I'm doing so to maximize the degree to which the mechanics and the concept reinforce each other, rather than for "raw power". This is a recursive process where I explore different mechanical combinations to try to best fit the concept and also tweak the concept to best fit the available mechanics. Oftentimes this will result in ultimately selecting between several dfferent takes on the same character, with me picking the mechanic/thematic combination that I think has the tightest fit (and thus will be the most fun for me to play).

[Pex]

Agreed. It's totally fine not to like archetypes and classes. It's not fine to claim that those are a flaw or secondary when they're entirely primary to the game. It's like complaining that Train Simulator 2019 doesn't have enough tanks or shooting in it. It's defying the entire premise of the title.

Shoehorning in characters that don't fit into a setting or system is a problem for the doer, not the system. Sure, you can bend a lot of premises. But the core ones (in this case the centrality of strong fantasy archetypes and adventuring)? Doing so just results in a broken mess. And I've seen other people then blame the game for the mess that results, when they broke it by discarding the core.

I'm allergic to people wanting to recreate a character they've imagined in detail, whether original or from some other medium. Or even another edition of D&D, although that's more acceptable. Recreate themes and broad brushstrokes? Fine. Exactly model the character, including backstory and power-set? That does violence to the system and to any settings its employed in. D&D is not, nor is it designed to be, a generic fantasy character emulation engine. Especially in 5e, it's a (relatively) focused game about strong archetypes going on fantasy adventures that involve combat, exploration, traps, and cooperation between people (whether PCs or NPCs). A non-combatant or non-adventurer is not a valid 5e PC. In fact, they're the very definition of an NPC.

It's equally not fine to say those who enjoy the various archetypes, class abilities, and the combinations that result through multiclassing are only interested in the numbers game of optimization power gaming. Not everyone is saying that, and I'm not even saying you said that, but there have been some and use that as a reason not to allow multiclassing. It's an old accusation that continuously happens that predates 5E by a long shot. It happened in 2E with people pooh-poohing those who had an 18 for their character. If it's not multiclassing it's using dice rolling for ability score generation or playing a particular race for a particular class or whatever means a player uses to have a character who is very good at something.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's equally not fine to say those who enjoy the various archetypes, class abilities, and the combinations that result through multiclassing are only interested in the numbers game of optimization power gaming. Not everyone is saying that, and I'm not even saying you said that, but there have been some and use that as a reason not to allow multiclassing. It's an old accusation that continuously happens that predates 5E by a long shot. It happened in 2E with people pooh-poohing those who had an 18 for their character. If it's not multiclassing it's using dice rolling for ability score generation or playing a particular race for a particular class or whatever means a player uses to have a character who is very good at something.

I wasn't discussing anything about numbers or multiclassing there. Just the basic point of archetypes themselves. You can have great mixed archetypes. Yes, even the dreaded Paladin/Warlock mix. You can play off archetypes, subverting or inverting them. But if you reject archetypes entirely, you're rejecting a core premise of 5e. And that never goes well.

I'm totally fine with multiclassing. My players don't, but not because they can't. They just choose not to. In large part because they built the character around the archetype, not tried to jam a pre-existing character into a foreign framework.

Heck, I play a very "kitchen sink" style. The only restrictions are as to races, as not all races have been discovered in the main play area yet. They're somewhere in the world, just not there. When a group discovers them and makes peaceful contact, they'll become playable.

[Corran]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

In lack of a better phrase, I think this mentality (or at least, what I can imply from your quote) is part of the problem. Mechanically, there might be several ways one could go about bringing a character to life. One of them could be multiclassing. Under the assumption that multiclassing neither adds nor substracts anything substantial to and from the concept I have in mind, I don't consider it an inferior way to go about building my character. Why one may prefer it then? One reason could be that it leads to a more powerful character. Some people take issue with that (ie with someone enjoying and toying with the mechanical aspects of the game). Or they may even think that multiclassing always takes value away from the concept, somehow. That's their opinion and I respect it, however incomprehensible it is to me. And when they want to play their own characters, they are free to follow their own unwritten sacred rules (as we all do, I guess). Personal preferences and all. Anything further than this, and no matter how you dress it up, all I can personally see is a badwrongfun argument.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm sorry, what words did I try to put in whose mouth?

You started with the "so-assertion-dishonestly-presented-as-a- question" form. The structure of your post, that I responded to, is dishonest rhetoric. (Perhaps a symptom of your frustration with the discussion so far ...)
Your words were this:

So it doesn't help anyone to understand that there are reasons people disagree over how to treat the Classes in terms of mechanics vs actual in-fiction "archetypes" that go far deeper than the lobbed insults about "power gaming" and "treating the character like a bag of stats"? OK.

And if you want to claim that no such comments have been made, I'll be "happy" to go through the recent threads and quote them all here.

Not sure what series of people may have made any such claim, and you are more than welcome to waste your time doing that. It does not help the multiclassing discussion at all (at this point).

I have a piece of advice for you: Play the game in front of you. If the game is Monopoly, don't try to play Chess. (Unless everyone else at the table is trying that same variant, in which case have at it and have fun!)

As to your frustration, as an experienced player: this edition of D&D attempted, in its structure, to lower the barriers to entry to this game, and by conesequence to the hobby. That leads to a structure that has classes and archetypes in it - that model has been successful before. What you are complaining about may be informed by your long experience with the RPG hobby, and thus your having no need for the "low barrier to entry feature" that is built into this edition of the game.

I've been playing RPGs for a long time too, off and on, and do not let such things frustrate me. I play the game in front of me.

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, ... then we're good.

We are in violent agreement on this.

[Yunru]

Indeed.
********
Question about mixing class Features:

Would it be possible for someone starting with Class/Subclass - but only wanting a specific ability from another class be allowed to take that as a feat close to the level of the target class's ability?

Like a Wizard that wanted Sneak Attack, giving up their 4th level ASI. If so, does SA stay at 1d6 or scale to level?

This would change the game, but still be close enough?

The DMG happily advises you to swap class features as an when you want.

[2D8HP]

As long as you understand that "to get the most raw power" isn't what some players are doing when they want to multiclass, etc, and that instead they're doing it to embrace -- not ignore -- the history and personality and abilities of the character... then we're good.

I enjoy playing multi-class 5e D&D characters, and I get wanting the customization possible with GURPS/HERO/Mutants & Masterminds type systems (though I find character creation to be too much of a chore), but other than power and ability limits what character concepts aren't really available with 5e?

Say I want to play a sneaky warrior with outdoor survival skills, and a bit of magical ability - an Outlander Background High Elf has you covered even without a Class yet as you get:

Cantrip (magic)

Stealth (sneaky)

Longbow proficiency (warrior)

Longsword proficiency (warrior)

Wanderer (outdoor survival)

"But I want to play a human!"

A third level Human Eldrich Knight Fighter with the Urchin background and survival skill nets similar goodies.

So what concepts don't we have single class?

[Max_Killjoy]

I enjoy playing multi-class 5e D&D characters, and I get wanting the customization possible with GURPS/HERO/Mutants & Masterminds type systems (though I find character creation to be too much of a chore), but other than power and ability limits what character concepts aren't really available with 5e?

This has been asked and answered quite a lot lately -- in this thread, the "homebrew cringe" thread, and the "thematic options" thread.

[Corran]

So what concepts don't we have single class?

The skeleton of every concept can possibly be shoehorned in just 2 classes most likely.
Why have all of barbarian, fighter, paladin, rogue, ranger, when we can just have a fighter and just roleplay the extra sauce? Why do we have cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, wizard, when we could just have a class called magic user?
Sometimes a character idea is specific enough that it needs specific mechanical support. When making such a character, it is more important to have access to mechanics that help bring your concept to life, than forcing yourself in a pointless exercise to shoehorn your concept into a predetermined set of mechanics (that's what a class is). That aside, your question implies (and correct me if I am wrong on this one) that you find it problematic if someone can understand and wants to enjoy the mechanical side of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

The skeleton of every concept can possibly be shoehorned in just 2 classes most likely.

Delta was onto this some years ago, even though he also chose to include thieves as the 3rd class. (Daniel Collins)

Sometimes a character idea is specific enough that it needs specific mechanical support.

Which is kind of how cleric came to OD&D.

It is very easy to take a character concept and make it into bloat. Paladin and Ranger were two cases of that in their original package, as were dozens of "classes" and "character concepts" in Dragon Magazine for the first 10 years of its existence.

Because there are also a certain number of game balance constraints in the current idea of how to produce an RPG, that wide open "try anything" philosophy won't withstand those constraints for long.

The other issue is "does this character grow as the campaign grows" (D&D) or does it come preloaded? (Original Traveller for example)

[2D8HP]

The skeleton of every concept can possibly be shoehorned in just 2 classes most likely.
Why have all of barbarian, fighter, paladin, rogue, ranger, when we can just have a fighter and just roleplay the extra sauce?

Except for Paladin, all those classes nominally don't have magic (unless you get that ability to work magic from a racial bonus including a Feat with variant humans) and a case may be made that first level Paladins are still primarily mundane warriors, so sure.

Why do we have cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, wizard, when we could just have a class called magic user?

Sure, I'm down for that (and in the first version of D&D I played the only spell casters were Clerics and Magic-Users, and if they were no undead encountered to "turn" Clerics were pretty much a limited Fighter at first level as they didn't have spells), but people like different flavors of magic.

Sometimes a character idea is specific enough that it needs specific mechanical support. When making such a character, it is more important to have access to mechanics that help bring your concept to life, than forcing yourself in a pointless exercise to shoehorn your concept into a predetermined set of mechanics (that's what a class is).

But without already knowing the mechanics how do you have a concept that demands a specific mechanic?

In broad strokes (mostly uses swords or mostly uses sorcery) D&D already has options (and always did!).

Unless you have a rulebook that has billions of pages I can't see how to have mechanics for every minute concept, and I don't think many concepts would even exist divorced from looking at the available mechanics - how would one want this Druid feature, with that Warlock ability without having first seen them?

That aside, your question implies (and correct me if I am wrong on this one) that you find it problematic if someone can understand and wants to enjoy the mechanical side of the game.

Well if I do then I'd have to admonish myself 'cause my first reaction to reading the "Swashbuckler" sub-class features was "Hot Damn!".

[Man_Over_Game]

Except for Paladin, all those classes nominally don't have magic (unless you get that ability to work magic from a racial bonus including a Feat with variant humans) and a case may be made that first level Paladins are still primarily mundane warriors, so sure.




Sure, I'm down for that (and in the first version of D&D I played the only spell casters were Clerics and Magic-Users, and if they were no undead encountered to "turn" Clerics were pretty much a limited Fighter at first level as they didn't have spells), but people like different flavors of magic.




But without already knowing the mechanics how do you have a concept that demands a specific mechanic?

In broad strokes (mostly uses swords or mostly uses sorcery) D&D already has options (and always did!).

Unless you have a rulebook that has billions of pages I can't see how to have mechanics for every minute concept, and I don't think many concepts would even exist divorced from looking at the available mechanics - how would one want this Druid feature, with that Warlock ability without having first seen them?




Well if I do then I'd have to admonish myself 'cause my first reaction to reading the "Swashbuckler" sub-class features was "Hot Damn!".

I think there's really only like 2-3 "archetypes", and everything else is just a scale of one thing vs. another.

A Paladin is mostly just a Fighter with some light magic.
A Cleric is like a Paladin, but more magic than Fighter.
A Druid is mostly just a Cleric with a focus on Nature than Light.
There's not enough of a difference between Paladin and Fighter to make them separate classes, as well as Paladin and Cleric, but there is enough of a difference between Cleric and Fighter. Would a Fighter + Druid be much different than a Ranger?

I'd be interested to see something like this emulated in a system. Something like this:

• Fighting
  
  • Savagery
  • Finesse
  • Ranged
  • Protector
• Skill
  
  • Persuasion
  • Knowledge
  • Alchemy
  • Dexterity
• Magic
  
  • Holy
  • Dark
  • Nature
  • Arcane

Level into specific selections of specific groups, then choose your abilities based on what thresholds you meet. Ranged Fighting + Arcane Magic basically makes you an Arcane Archer. Dark Magic + Protector Fighting would be a Conquest Paladin. Dark Magic + Persuasion Skill would be a Mastermind Rogue with some magic tied in.


Even with this 5 minute example, if you limited it so that you paired two options from different groups (so you can't have Holy and Dark magic), that still leaves 96 possibilities. 5e has 12 classes and about 6 subclasses each, leaving about 72 non-multiclass builds.

There's not a lot that can't really be emulated with a decent, modular system, and you can still keep things in a mechanically oriented, "classful" system. I don't think it'd take "billions" of pages. Just from these 12 you get almost 100 options, and that's with limiting things to pairs.

My point is, it doesn't have to be strictly locked in like 5e has it so that we can settle for the sake of balance, and it doesn't need to have a billion pages. It just needs to be planned out.


On another topic, does someone know of a TTRPG system that works something like this? I'd be very interested in finding out.

[KorvinStarmast]

On another topic, does someone know of a TTRPG system that works something like this? I'd be very interested in finding out.

The one you are writing, surely? Seeing it soon on a kickstarter near us, one hopes.