Multi Class: Do you require it to make sense during a campaign?

What I mean by the title is this.

When a player wants to multi class, do you require that the class in question make sense during the course of the game?

Like if you are in the middle of a dungeon and a rogue wants to multi class into a Wizard but hasn't mentioned anything about magic during the course of the game, nor has he taken interest in the party's Wizard so would you allow hm to take a level in Wizard if he can't explain how and why he went Wizard, besides the mechanical advantage?

Now the Sorcerer is a lot easier to explain but some other classes are not so easy because of it's background and theme.

No. Player owns character.

No. Player owns character.

Explain what you mean.

One way to GM it is to say that the rogue has studied arcane magic for years but had never been able to master it until he experienced... whatever he's experienced lately. There's no requirement for someone to mention publicly what their character is interested in.

On the other hand, if he suddenly claims to have a spellbook and a familiar or bonded object that weren't on his character sheet before, that is questionable.

What I mean by the title is this.

When a player wants to multi class, do you require that the class in question make sense during the course of the game?

Like if you are in the middle of a dungeon and a rogue wants to multi class into a Wizard but hasn't mentioned anything about magic during the course of the game, nor has he taken interest in the party's Wizard so would you allow hm to take a level in Wizard if he can't explain how and why he went Wizard, besides the mechanical advantage?

Now the Sorcerer is a lot easier to explain but some other classes are not so easy because of it's background and theme.

All leveling takes place between adventures in my game. It eliminates a lot of this type of confusion. Even better, I don't even use XP any more.. I use PFS-style milestone leveling. I ask players when they do level what they are aiming for next level and work with that.

In my games, if are going to multi class then you need to at least have a legit in game reason. Suddenly waking up 8 hours later and you are now a decked out cleric of X then I want to know how and why.

shallowsoul wrote:

What I mean by the title is this.

When a player wants to multi class, do you require that the class in question make sense during the course of the game?

Like if you are in the middle of a dungeon and a rogue wants to multi class into a Wizard but hasn't mentioned anything about magic during the course of the game, nor has he taken interest in the party's Wizard so would you allow hm to take a level in Wizard if he can't explain how and why he went Wizard, besides the mechanical advantage?

Now the Sorcerer is a lot easier to explain but some other classes are not so easy because of it's background and theme.

All leveling takes place between adventures in my game. It eliminates a lot of this type of confusion. Even better, I don't even use XP any more.. I use PFS-style milestone leveling. I ask players when they do level what they are aiming for next level and work with that.

I like that method as well.

most GMs work with their players when it comes to making role playing choices and decisions

you shouldnt be punishing your players and taking things away from them so much, do they even have fun playing with you?

I have had DM's who handled it both ways, one wanting a more organic progression for characters where your RP was heavily involved in what options were available to you, ranging to another who viewed it as purely mechanical and could care less.

I think if you have a concept in mind that requires dual/multi classing from the start.. it is a little silly to require some huge flowery RP to take your level of wizard at second level to go with your level of Fighter at first. But if you want to make big change that is not part of the original concept, like changing to Paladin after several levels of Barbarian there should be some time spent and acknowledgement to that polar shift in game.

I wouldnt expressly forbid the change to rob a player of their fun, but I might dangle a carrot of some sort to get them to put that effort in. For example if your a life long Rogue in concept and we are 5 levels in and you want to start mucking about as a wizard..If you put the time in to RP it a bit I might drop you a free feat that is a prereq for a synergistic prestige class.

I agree with Dragon up there. If I started telling my players how they could build their characters and how they couldn't, I wouldn't have players for much longer. However, Mathhew has a point. If you're without a spellbook in the middle of a dungeon and level up as a wizard, you still don't have a spellbook. To prevent this from happening, just do what I do: award XP after the adventure.

Majorly ninjad. This happens when you surf the forums on a phone. Anyway, Lazurin brought up a good point. While punishment has its place, it's much better to reward your players.

Funniest time I ever saw it happen was in a campaign where the wizard player continually played up the "mysteries of the arcane" and his years of study, etc. Then the rouge dipped into sorcerer. His explanation: "I decided I wanted to learn to cast some magic last night. Why are you always pretending this is such a big deal?"

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

No. Player owns character.

Explain what you mean.

The fundamental social contract of this game is "The GM owns the world, the player owns the character."

GMs should not be telling players how to build their characters. If a player wants to multiclass into wizard in the middle of a dungeon, the GM should work with him to make it happen, not work against them to make sure it doesn't.

I had a DM once, when you made a level you had to decide what you were going to take NEXT level so you could be practicing/learning the whole time.

So you couldnt wake up at 2nd level and say "hey, I now speak Orc". But you could wake up and second level and say "I want to start learning Orc" and then take it at 3rd level. We could still use the time between adventures to learn another thing instead, like if we found an exotic weapon and the fighter wanted to learn it instead of what he'd originally planned.

Felt a little clunky at first but once we realized it was simply building our character 1 level ahead of where we were it made sense to us.

...the GM should work with him to make it happen, not work against them to make sure it doesn't.

Hmm, yes. Perhaps an unlucky wizard died in the dungeon, and his spellbook just happens to contain all the spells the multiclassing player wanted, within the rules for spells known.

Deylinarr, I prefer that type of role playing too, but that's a flavor thing, not a game social contract thing. I see no reason to punish a player because the group doesn't game that way. As a GM I'll retcon if I have to. I want my player to play the character they want to play. I am assuming that's a major reason for him/her wanting to play at all.

My role as the GM is to provide a stage for the players to play the characters they want to play. Telling player A "no, you can't take a level of wizard because you haven't been studying" while telling player B "Sure you can take a level of sorcerer, no problem" just seems arbitrary to me.

Sure you can make all sorts of arguments about how "realistic" it is. And that will just get you the "but..... dragons" response.

Oh, the amount of retconning in my game is staggering, even when I try to keep it to a minimum. Being a first-time GM is tough.

Sure you can make all sorts of arguments about how "realistic" it is. And that will just get you the "but..... dragons" response.

Ha! I'm going to have to remember that one. And I totally agree. The GM's top priority, in my opinion, is to make sure the players are having fun. There are exceptions, of course (the player would surely find it fun to have a ring of infinite wishes at character creation), but actively squashing a player's desired course of action simply because you can't think of how it would work is something GMs should stay away from like the plague.

Yes,I require it to make sense.

That's not the question you're really asking, though.

You're asking: Who gets to decide what makes sense and what doesn't?

The player does. If, something is SO egregious, that it disrupts the feel of the story you are COLLABORATIVELY creating, then look to the table for consensus. Does anyone feel that choice would inhibit their fun, verisimilitude, etc? Listen, engage, and discuss. Allow for possible answers. You should WANT them to have an awesome answer as to how they suddenly know magic. Don't dictate player choice. Don't stifle creativity.

Edit: And as an aside on the XP conversation, I am strongly in favor of raw numbers. James Jacbobs has made the compelling case many times in the past.Being transparent with XP and what gets them XP will facilitate the gamestyle you want to see at your table.

"You killed the pack of goblins, 200 XP"
"Man, loved the way you introduced your arcane background by describing how it was triggering flashbacks when you saw the runes etched on the dungeon wall! 200 XP for that."

When you create incentive, you create motivation.

XP, just say no.

Given how Pathfinder rewards characters who stick to a single class, if I were DMing I would treat multiclassing as I would any other dumb thing that a player might want to do. In other words, when he mentions that he wants to multiclass at his next level, I would ask, "Are you sure you want to do that?" If he says "Yes", then I let him do it.

I would pretty much take it for granted that he has in mind some way that the 1st level abilities of his new class fit in as "growth" from whatever he was. He is probably nerfing himself, but if he is gaining any sort of synergy from the two classes, who is to say that that wasn't the core of his character concept to begin with?

I agree with Dragon up there. If I started telling my players how they could build their characters and how they couldn't, I wouldn't have players for much longer. However, Mathhew has a point. If you're without a spellbook in the middle of a dungeon and level up as a wizard, you still don't have a spellbook. To prevent this from happening, just do what I do: award XP after the adventure.

This works as long as your adventures are short and discrete enough. If you're playing a "trapped in the mega-dungeon" game or the 1st module of Serpent's Skull, it doesn't work so well.

Same as the usual arguments against requiring downtime.

Here is a short, from memory, list of items I used to have on my GM screen back in the day:

1. I am not writing a novel, I am running a game.
2. I own the world, the players own their characters.
3. The primary goal is for everyone to have fun.
4. Arguing "that doesn't make sense" is sort of silly in a game with dragons.
5. It's a game. A game. A GAME.

I do kinda require the new class choices to make sense, but it is the player that decided what makes sense for thier character. I also ask where a character build is going before the game starts, and ask them to keep me informed if they change thier minds. Like I have one player who really likes playing eldritch knights, and when he makes his first level fighters, he also tells me the relevant part of his backstory where he's spent a few years in a mages college or apprenticing to a wizard. Then at second level he's already got his spellbook on hand and ready to go.

I make small exceptions for new players who honestly don't know what kind of character they are building from level to level.

I actually have a character myself that either requires tons of in game roleplay, or to start after 5th level. His first 4 levels you see are in monk, plain old vanilla monk. And how he is met is in a bar, completely drunk as much as he can manage, and trying to forget the trauma that destroyed the monestary where he practiced his art until not long ago. Now the multiclass varies depending on what the gm is allowing but it's usually something very un monk ish. So big changes from paladin or monk or druid or other classes with roleplay type restrictions, but as long as the player lets me know where he's going with it and/or roleplays it on thier own then it both makes the game smoother and more enjoyable for most players.

Asta
PSY

Here is a short, from memory, list of items I used to have on my GM screen back in the day:

1. I am not writing a novel, I am running a game.
2. I own the world, the players own their characters.
3. The primary goal is for everyone to have fun.
4. Arguing "that doesn't make sense" is sort of silly in a game with dragons.
5. It's a game. A game. A GAME.

I love this, I am going to print it out and glue it to my screen.

I admit it: I'm lazy. I kind of hate slogging through low levels. It's boring to me as a GM, it's frustrating to players who want to get on with the heroics...

So my typical campaign starts at 5th level, and usually runs through about 15th. My players are informed of this (or know it already for the die-hards who keep joining my campaigns).

This means that (a) PCs may start the game multiclassed or (b) there's plenty of "time in grade" in the backstory to justify most choices for multiclassing later in the game.

I do talk with each player about what they want to run, and will have an idea of what their progression plan is, from the start. Sometimes plans change, but usually I get heads up from a player who's concept is shifting. And if I don't, well, it's not the end of the world.

TL;DR: Sense is what you make it in a fictional setting. "But... dragons" is just the tip of the iceberg.

No, unless I think the campaign would be better served by it.

I just ask my players to give me some heads up on what they plan for their characters. If the rogue wants to take levels of wizard, great, let me know and we'll make it happen. Some players get really into making their characters and love to write back story (making my job easier). Others love numbers and have difficulty with the story aspect, that's fine too, means a little more work for me, but we'll figure out why your barbarian wants levels of wizard, or whatever.

I am of the opinion that the player should be able to make the character they want, but be willing to inform the GM ahead of time so that everything makes sense in game, which tends to make the world feel more alive and fun.

I usually would like some kind of in-game explanation, but that's as easy as when the character is created, having the player answer the question of how they see the character developing, and working the occasional rp comment into the campaign to reflect that. I like the idea of having the characters actually plan ahead a level, at least a little bit, for the same reason. In both cases, even if the player changes their mind on what they want to do, at least there is some seeds for it planted already to smooth any transition and make sure that the players have any gear, i.e. a spellbook, they might need for the new class with as little fuss as possible (I can retcon equipment magically appearing, but I much prefer to keep retconning in general to a minimum, so it's definitely not my favorite approach).

Here is a short, from memory, list of items I used to have on my GM screen back in the day:

1. I am not writing a novel, I am running a game.
2. I own the world, the players own their characters.
3. The primary goal is for everyone to have fun.
4. Arguing "that doesn't make sense" is sort of silly in a game with dragons.
5. It's a game. A game. A GAME.

Nice. Especially 3 and 4.

Recently, in rise of the runelords, our oracle decided that he wanted to alter self into a goblin and infiltrate a room in thistletop.
He did not speak Goblin. Fortunately, Shalelu (under my control) did. After eavesdropping on the room, Shalelu had the oracle memorize a phrase to speak once inside. In goblin: "Ladies, Ripnugget says you're my reward."
The oracle entered ripnuggets harem room completely unprepared for what lay inside. The party listened through the door as the oracle repeated the phrase again and again at higher pitch and intensity. Eventually, Shalelu could no longer hold in her laughter, and the goblins were killed as she rolled on the floor laughing.

The next day, after leveling, the oracle wanted to take Goblin as a language. I had to refuse, because one day is that comedy of errors and the next is fluency? Nope. Sure, dragons, but c'mon...

I do want some amount of sense, but I don't want to stifle a player who wants to pick up something for his character. So I'll ask the player "but HOW did you learn that?"

Then it's up to the player to come up with a short story. It doesn't have to be Shakespeare. It doesn't even have to be very probably - it just has to be possible. After all, real people make wacky career moves. The odds of that happening may be small, but since you're the PC, you're the guy that's in the 1% of strangest careers. The unlikely things happen to you.

The story shouldn't contradict the "facts" as established during the preceding story, not too much. But there's wiggle room in everything we didn't establish as fact. So you can take a part of your character's background story that was kinda vague, and fill it in; "yeah, back then I hung around a lot with wizards. It never made sense back then, but now that I've been looking at this spellbook that I inherited from my cousin, the pieces are starting to come together. I can do some of these spells now."

You can also retroactively claim to have been working on these new skills all alone during the quiet parts - puzzling with that spellbook while keeping watch, looking over the party wizard's shoulder when he prepares spells in the morning.

It's a lot like a flashback scene in a TV series that explains some skill that a character had "all along", or a training montage. Some of these things make more sense if there's some downtime in which to pick up the new skills. I'm not a fan of leveling up in the middle of the dungeon...

Of course it helps if the player has an idea of what he wants to be next level. That way he can already RP working towards it. That's nice and should be encouraged, and hopefully it's actually FUN for the player. I don't think it needs a rule.

I'm also lenient with my players on the contents of the story. As long as it isn't too absurd - no great wyrms swining by that no other PC noticed - and doesn't give an unreasonable advantage - a spellbook with some free high-level spells that he just got for free - then I'll be easygoing.

It's retroactively assumed you've been studying for the multiclassing.

I let characters level as the players want. However, I could see "in the middle of a dungeon" requiring some limitation.

I once played a vivisectionist alchemist in a very hardcore wilderness campaign. Every night our PCs had to camp out and find their own food. Every session was filled with horrible ambushes both in camp and as we traveled on foot. Survival, Knowledge: Nature, and resistances to environmental troubles became paramount, in addition to having to fight tooth and nail in every session. Our characters became cynical, angry and simply strove to live for one more day each session, Man (elf, dwarf, etc.) vs. Wild.

When I leveled from four to five, I told the GM that I would like to take a level of Barbarian, as a compliment to my 4 alchemist levels

he looked at me and said, "No way, how would your character suddenly know how to become a barbarian, it makes no sense!"

does it really matter that the rogue gained a bit of arcane talent at level 4?

maybe by studying over the wizard's shoulder and reverse engineering his formulae, he learned to copy the wizard's spells and apply formulae for producing similar spells. having a decent intellect and wisdom. thus turning his old travel diary into a spellbook.

I voice my belief to my players that the storyline is richer if character-building decisions make sense and are attuned to the setting and campaign. But I don't make a bright-line rule.

Instead, I plot behind my screen, waiting for the day the player will rue going against my plans, and hope for a Natural 20 confirmed critical hit that will destroy the multi-classed fool who dipped one level of monk...

I think I might be the only person in my party who multi-classes, and mine aren't even that crazy. My barbarian has two levels of (guess what?) fighter. GM doesn't regulate it at all, but he makes fun of me a little for it.

As long as it doesn't become a problem (e.g.: taking Paladin levels in a evil campaign), I don't really care what the players do wih their character builds.

If they can spin me a good yarn about what their character has been doing 'off camera' to warrant the build, sure, I'll allow it. If I'm going to have some min-maxers in my game, they should damned well be entertaining ones.

rogue multi-classing into wizard = arcane trickster.
wizard does the same into fighter = eldritch knight.

One thing to ask first is "aiming for a PrC?" if so, problem solved.

Couldn't care less. They can take what they want upon leveling, but for the most part they don't seem to want to multiclass much. Now, back in 3.5, it was happening so much it actually made me nauseous. These days, just doesn't happen. I think it has something to do with the base classes being far more flexible than they ever were before. They can respond to what the DM throws at them.

My Pathfinder games tend to focus on the players interacting with each other more than anything else. Ends up building a lot of close friendships.

Now, when I run Dark Ages Vampire, my games are MUCH more story and NPC intensive, so we really DO need to work together to justify character decisions. Since it's a points based game, there's no sudden leveling, which means you normally find out the player's goals well in advance of spending their banked xp.

It's retroactively assumed you've been studying for the multiclassing.

Damn it. I was going to link that.

Well, if you're not happy assuming retroactive study, you could always use a montage.

Most multiclassing seems to be a 'mechanical' way to get the 'character' you want... If my goal is a melee Caster, there are numerous ways I could go...

My opinion is the first 5 levels or so are all 'background'. I was studying to be priest, or Mage, or my daddy was a ranger... or something and I'm just starting to figure it out. Most of my character concepts SUCK at level 1... it takes a Few levels and a few feats to actually shape them where I want to be. I would be annoyed if the DM stood in the way of that.

I'll admit that the 'wakes up and became a wizard' REALLY bothered me about pathfinder/3.x when i transfered over... but there are a LOT of rules that arent' logical or 'good'....

I find it best not to let them get in the way of a fun time. if the mage is tired of getting beat up.... grab a level of monk. More power to ya. :)

Well you have a character concept, let's say an arcane trickster. At SOME point the character is going to have to muliclass in order to realize the character concept.

This is generally an announced concept, i.e. "I want to play an arcane trickster" , your 1st evel is going to have to be a caster or a rogue...

Then there is an impromptu multiclass, something that just got decided in campaign possibly through RP.

What I don't allow is a mechanical concept, that requires dipping to achieve some kind of exploit and at X level I need Y class.

If you want to achieve that, you aren't going to spontaneously "Monk" in the middle of your ranger in a dungeon the group has been in for quite some time, never having been in contact with a monk, having seen a monk or made any previous attempt to practice or declare interest in this new class. If you want to "hold the level" and when you get back to civilization, look up and study under a monk to get your mechanical exploit level, fine.

Im pretty lenient with that in most cases really, I don't like exploits, or people who just assume they can, for example make a barbarian/monk/paladin and change alignments mystically at the appropriate level for the convenience of their "build" solely for mechanical reasons. Then I dont rule too favorably.

I don't worry about multi-classing, really. Fluff is fluff. I'll take the Ranger into Monk thing. He doesn't have to be a monk. Hell, no one needs to know in character that he even took that level.

Just because it says Ninja on your sheet, it doesn't mean you're Asian, wear black pajamas and need to be slinking off into the dark.

Just because it says Ninja on your sheet, it doesn't mean you're Asian, wear black pajamas and need to be slinking off into the dark.

I know it's not your point but ninjas never did that (you have actors to blame for that).

I encourage it, but don't require it.

If you care about it and want to work it into your story, go ahead and justify it and have fun with it. If not, no skin off my nose, I'm not going to make you wait 4 levels to multiclass while you find an Assassin to train you or force you to write something into your backstory when you don't want to, since there's no real point in it.

I do know I personally enjoy doing it, especially with my Monk. Back when i was planning to multiclass Alchemist on him I was coming up with all sorts of approved refluffs that would allow him to replicate Alchemist extracts, Mutagens, and Discoveries with Ki power (helped along since he was a Qinggong Monk anyway) and applied use of "Ki enhancing minerals and chemical extracts".

So "Tumor Familiar" becomes a sort of Ki spirit that lives in him, that he can detach when he wants to, Wings becomes a sort of Ki energy framework of wings that can bear him aloft (much like the flying apparatus used once in the Voyage of the Shadowmoon if I remember correctly), Vestigial Arm/Tentacle is an applied use of Ki energy used in a sort of psychokinetic manner.

Of course I'd been using that bit of fluff for a while since my guy wasn't the sort to tear people open with his fingernails (using Tiger Style), so he was using his Ki as a covering for his hands that acted as a sharp barrier bare inches from his skin.

Somewhat off-topic but an example of how easily things like that can be fluffed without requiring intensive planning and justifying.

does it really matter that the rogue gained a bit of arcane talent at level 4?

maybe by studying over the wizard's shoulder and reverse engineering his formulae, he learned to copy the wizard's spells and apply formulae for producing similar spells. having a decent intellect and wisdom. thus turning his old travel diary into a spellbook.

It actually made perfect sense. The harsh conditions that your characters were exposed to forced your character to tap into a feral state that lies in the bottom of being. The basic instinct of Survival.

RipfangOmen wrote:

Just because it says Ninja on your sheet, it doesn't mean you're Asian, wear black pajamas and need to be slinking off into the dark.

I know it's not your point but ninjas never did that (you have actors to blame for that).

One of the many reasons why I don't like Ninja. They didn't have magic abilities, they didn't dress in black bathrobes, they didn't have large organizations, and for the most part they never used fancy tools. They were nothing more than assassins. They didn't even have super acrobatics, since all it takes is some woman or man dressed as a servant to sneak up and kill a target. That's it. And as such they are represented just fine by the Assassin prestige class.

Except the Pathfinder class is not based on historical ninjas, but the pop culture lore of the ninja which has been incorporated into Golarion.

I don't have a problem with a character taking something odd (suddenly leveling into Wizard, for instance). You have to remember that it is a game, not a simulation of the real world.

I wouldn't require it, but encourage a reason for it.

My friend is building a gunslinger / wizard (spellslinger) / eldritch knight. He's an arcane student who experiments with casting spells using guns. However, an accident destroyed his spellbook and he was banished from casting spells. When he gets his first level of wizard, the ban will be lifted and he'll find a new spellbook.