Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Guest 6801328 · Sep 17, 2018

Maxperson said:
Words mean something. D&D uses many, many words that correspond to the real world. Barbarian, cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, sword, dagger, mace, spear, elf, dwarf, human, and on and on and on and... Barbarian corresponds to the real world equivalent of barbaric tribes, Conan, etc. At no time in the real world were street urchins considered to be barbarian hordes.

If you want to change the meaning for your game, have at it. Enjoy. For my games, I'm going to retain the intended meanings of those words.

Funny, this reminds me of the "Geniuses with 5 Int" debate from two years ago, in which Max simply couldn't wrap his head around the idea. He was stuck on the commonly accepted definition of "Intelligence", and couldn't see any distinction between that and a game stat with the same name. Rather than see the fun to be had with a character who abided by the mechanical limitations of 5 Int without being bound by the most obvious interpretation of it, he insisted that 5 Int had one and only one meaning.

(EDIT: Actually, I want to amend that. It wasn't just that he/they thought 5 Int had one meaning, they felt it had to be roleplayed in a specific way. Or, more accurately, within a very, very narrow range of ways...which I assume they perceived as a wide range. E.g., stupid and loud, stupid and meek, stupid and goofy, stupid and overly confident, etc. To paraphrase Henry Ford: "You can have it in any personality you want, as long as it's stupid.")

I got so frustrated with Max (and a few others) that I partially succumbed to the Dark Side and got myself banned from my own thread.

Ah, good times.

TwoSix · Sep 17, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
Funny, this reminds me of the "Geniuses with 5 Int" debate from two years ago, in which Max simply couldn't wrap his head around the idea. He was stuck on the commonly accepted definition of "Intelligence", and couldn't see any distinction between that and a game stat with the same name. Rather than see the fun to be had with a character who abided by the mechanical limitations of 5 Int without being bound by the most obvious interpretation of it, he insisted that 5 Int had one and only one meaning.

I got so frustrated with Max (and a few others) that I partially succumbed to the Dark Side and got myself banned from my own thread.

Ah, good times.

Man, that thread was the best. And I agree the controversies both here and in that thread are conceptually related.

lowkey13 · Sep 17, 2018

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 · Sep 17, 2018

*Deleted by user*

The Crimson Binome · Sep 17, 2018

Arial Black said:
But as long as the class is available, I can fluff it in any way that makes sense in the world.

You never answered, but why do you believe this? Where in the PHB, or in the basic rules document, does it suggest that the description of a class is any more optional than its mechanics? Is it something that you're bringing in from another game, or another edition? Is it just a local tradition, around the circles you grew up playing in?

Follow-up question: Who decides whether it makes sense in the world?

S'mon · Sep 17, 2018

5ekyu said:
The idea that the Gm has to provide a comprehensive list of everything they would object to or that everything illegal must be specifically banned etc is the playground of rules lawyers and has been since the dawn of rules.

Yes.

While as DM I would allow an 'urban savage' barbarian in most campaign settings (a few lack
cities or the cities are too nice to produce 'barbarians'), I would appreciate the player clearing it
with me first. I would tolerate it if they did not, but I would definitely not like a player telling me it was their prerogative to 'fluff their PC's background' however they wished. I think I would tell that player
to move to another DM's group - David is nice.

S'mon · Sep 17, 2018

The Feral Kids in Mad Max 2 & Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome would make pretty good Barbarians. I think the one in MM2 Road Warrior is more an Assassin, though.

S'mon · Sep 17, 2018

Hussar said:
Heck, I just ran a campaign with no classes with cantrips. Any class with a cantrip was off the table. I was trying an experiment (and it worked pretty well too) and I made that very clear to the players - I wanted to see if 5e works as a low magic game. It does. That being said though, I did run into a LOT of resistance. Three of the six players tried to "one off" caster characters as their concept. It did get kinda frustrating. And, in the end, because we wound up with like 3 rangers and a paladin, there was still a fair bit of spell casting going on.

That reminds me of the time I pitched a low-magic, swords vs sorcery campaign, & asked for PCs 'like Conan' - so of course I got a Tiefling Warlock, a Revenant Warlock, a Goliath Warden... the only PCs that really worked were the two human Fighters I created as pregens.

Guest 6801328 · Sep 17, 2018

Saelorn said:
You never answered, but why do you believe this? Where in the PHB, or in the basic rules document, does it suggest that the description of a class is any more optional than its mechanics? Is it something that you're bringing in from another game, or another edition? Is it just a local tradition, around the circles you grew up playing in?

Do you actually think that in 5e the fluff...or, rather, choosing from one of the various fluffs offered in each case...is non-optional? That, by RAW, you must use their fluff?

Or are you just arguing this point...because?

You aren't asking me, but my answer would be "there is nothing in the rules that states you must use their fluff, thus it is not a rule."

Follow-up question: Who decides whether it makes sense in the world?

This is a more sensible question. I will disagree with those who say it's 100% the player, as well as with those who say it's 100% the DM. I'll even go further and suggest that anybody who thinks they need to invoke 100% for either is probably at the wrong table.

This is really simple, guys:
Player: "Hey, I have this idea..."
DM: "Hmm, that won't really work because..."
Player: "Well, how about if I..."
DM: "Could you tweak it so that..."
Player: "Yeah, that works."
DM: "Cool."
Player: "Cool."

If your conversation does NOT resemble that, you are either playing with the wrong people or in the wrong hobby entirely.

Kobold Boots · Sep 17, 2018

Re: Comprehensive list of everything objected to ..

S'mon said:
Yes.

While as DM I would allow an 'urban savage' barbarian in most campaign settings (a few lack
cities or the cities are too nice to produce 'barbarians'), I would appreciate the player clearing it
with me first. I would tolerate it if they did not, but I would definitely not like a player telling me it was their prerogative to 'fluff their PC's background' however they wished. I think I would tell that player
to move to another DM's group - David is nice.

It's the place of the DM to provide a campaign primer so that players know what is explicitly allowed based on the story being told. It is the place of the player to ask the DM if they look at the primer and don't see what they wish, if what they want to play is allowed.

Not providing players with enough information to logically ask questions is the playground of lousy DMs and has been since the dawn of DMs.

2c
KB