Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Arial Black]

If that’s your point we agree. Once the rule allowing multiclassibg gets established the. You don’t tell someone not to use that rule.

Do do you agree that it would be wrong for a player that wants multiclassibg to ask he DM for it after the DM has stated no multiclassibg?

If the DM has already said that he is not allowing the MC rules, then I might (if I felt so inclined) have a friendly conversation as to why, and might even ask if he would change his mind and lay out my case.

But I recognise it as his prerogative, and if he says no then I have no business being horrible to him about it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

If the DM has already said that he is not allowing the MC rules, then I might (if I felt so inclined) have a friendly conversation as to why, and might even ask if he would change his mind and lay out my case.

But I recognise it as his prerogative, and if he says no then I have no business being horrible to him about it.

I can agree there as well. If I as a player that doesn’t like multiclassibg do the same thing but instead in favor of not multiclassing then do you find any fault with that?

 

[Grognerd]

Ok, you really need to let this go...

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...

Yes, words do mean something. And part of that meaning is always contextual. As a trained linguist and a former professional translator, I appreciate that words have meaning as much as anyone here. But the reality is that the meaning of words is always at least somewhat contextual. Always. And in the present context, the meaning of the words in question is to designate D&D classes. Not culture. Not real world analogs. Not your strangely obsessive version of what an urchin must be. In your example, you cited examples of "real world" words that apparently must have the "real world" meaning. This is your supposed support for your pedantic obsession with urchins and barbarians. Yet you blithely list "clerics" while having no problem ignoring that "real world" clerics have absolutely nothing to do with the D&D cleric class, nor has the word cleric ever aligned with the D&D class. At best, the class should be called "clergy" rather than "cleric", and even then the association is fringe and tangental. So if you are expecting to retain any credibility, then I expect that you will immediately remove any clerics from your game. Yet you haven't been arguing that. Which means you are willing to allow the D&D context to impact the meaning of the word "cleric." Your unwillingness to do the same with "barbarian" is a crystal clear demonstration that this is an obsessive personal bias rather than a cogent, reasoned point.

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.

And if you hadn't already sacrificed credibility, this line would absolutely kill it. You mention how barbarian (has to) correspond to "real world equivalents", and immediately proceed to list Conan? Seriously? As if anything in the Conan books is representative of "real world" barbarian cultures? For that matter, since you are so obsessed that the "real" meaning of words be retained against all reasoned arguments to the contrary, then perhaps you need to do the research to recognize that the term "barbarian" was applied by the Greeks to the ANE cultures, so if that is the case I expect that your game world does not include any barbarians that are not from a pseudo-Middle Eastern or Turkish culture.

And for the record, there have been many times that groups of poor, homeless people have been described as living in "barbaric" conditions.

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.

Ok... so we know your games will not include clerics and non-middle eastern barbarians. (And I haven't even approached the issues with bards, druids, et al.)...

 

[S'mon]

So if the DM says that multiclassing IS allowed, then another player has no business being upset if I choose to play a MC PC.

Yup.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Yup.

Agree. The other player would know that MC is allowed when he sits down and can make the choice to play or not. If they choose to play, then they have no business being upset because of another player's choice to use MC.

 

[Xetheral]

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.

Words have meaning, but that meaning is contextual. Consider that the word "spear" in D&D refers to a throwable weapon without reach, limiting it to a small subset of real-life weapons that can be described as "spears". Further, consider the word "elf" which refers to wildly different creatures in different contexts. One can't draw on what one knows of Tolkien or Rowling elves and use that to infer traits of D&D elves, which are described quite differently from either.

Similarly, I see no reason to assume that the class name "Barbarian" corresponds solely to the real world equivalent of barbarian tribes. Much of the text in the PHB talks about barbarians in an uncivilized, tribal sense, but it also allows for other possibilities, explicitly including dwarves, who are not described as tribal or uncivilized in any D&D-related context of which I am aware. Furthermore, that same text includes references to individual Barbarians' opinions of cities and civilization, which earlier you agreed can be freely ignored. The ability to frerly ignore some of the "fluff" text implies that the fluff can't be categorically sacred at your table.

Certain parts of the fluff may still be sacred at your table by your decree, of course. And in practice that is exactly what you are doing when you rely on an extrinsic definition of "barbarian" to decide which parts of the fluff shall be sacred and which can be freely ignored. Importantly, because the definition of "barbarian" is contextual, you can't expect your players (or anyone else) to know which parts of the fluff you consider sacred and which parts aren't unless you explain to them the particular definition you're relying on.

Frankly, I still don't know where you draw the line on Barbarians or Street Urchins. If I come to the table with a "brawny rogue" (explicitly allowed on PHB 11), am I forbidden from taking the Urchin background on the grounds that Urchins can't be brawny? The phrase "Street Urchin" has a meaning to you, but I don't know what that meaning is well enough to know if it prohibits a brawny rogue at your table. And I can't know what that meaning is until you express it.

 

[5ekyu]

Counterpoint- No.

You keep asserting things that you believe should be true, and that you want to be true, and may be true for your game, but are not universal truths. How do I know this? Because that's not how I play. And given that I have also played for a fairly long time, and have a good time doing so, I'm okay with that!

You just have a very different conception of what certain things mean;or, if you don't, then you have the misfortune of staking out an extreme position and reiterating that position very strongly to the extent that other people don't understand your position.

Your positions is just a more subtle version of rule-lawyering, which is to say that the player has to obey the RULES (ahem, as the player understands them?) and the DM can't do anything about it, right? Which, again, is fine! But not all tables play like that.

As I hope you have seen from the HUNDREDS of comments in this thread, there are many people that do play in a way that is similar to yours- YAY! But there are also many people that do not. And that should be okay for you.

You replied to S'mon, but I think you completely missed his point; here, let's try it again-

"If you're at my table at the restaurant, I have an interest in your table manners. If you're at some other restaurant, no.

So, different groups should do what they want. But people within a D&D group should aim for compatible behaviour. That can be aided by the GM setting some table rules. I don't like 5e multiclassing so as GM I don't allow it. If some other group elsewhere wants to use it, I don't care. Likewise I like and allow 5e Feats. If some other group disallows them, fine."

Try and not be so literal! Think of it this way- I allow limited feats (and some custom ones) and I ban MCing unless by special permission. But I also don't care if other tables have full, partial, limited, or DM permission when it comes to rules- so long as they are happy!

Yup...

also to me the part that keeps hitting my GM "trigger wanring alert danger" is something like this "The PC's fluff is the prerogative of the player, not the DM, where 'prerogative' = 'final word'. "

Especially when coupled with a sort of stated "unless explicitly banned before i chose it."

This i have seen in the past as a setup... kind of like when a players asks you a seemingly obvious rules question but in a sort of indirect way with just a little bit of vagueness about the scope and you just know from experience there is another question that they are angling for and using this "obvious case" as a setup to get to what they really want.

leads to me always saying "why do you ask" or even "get to your real question" and emphasizing "case-by-case, depends on specifics and circumstances" in my response to that kind of question.

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.

no sense fighting uphill against that - it just sucks the life out of the game trying to corral it.

 

[Greg K]

The PC's fluff is the prerogative of the player, not the DM, where 'prerogative' = 'final word'.

Only in the sense that if the DM shuts it down, your fluff, your decision is is find something acceptable or find another table.

"The only way a DM could prevent this is to ban the class AND the culture. But as long as the class is available, I can fluff it in any way that makes sense in the world. I could not fluff it as cyberware/lycanthropy without those things being in the world, but I have infinite idea space available to think of something that would apply."

Being raised on the mean streets is available, unless the DM's world has no mean streets on his world anywhere. Okay, no mean streets, no barbarian culture, but the class mechanics ARE available? Okay, I will steal my idea from the Deathstalker books, where Owen Deathstalker and the rest of his noble family have special organs which supply a special cocktail of adrenaline and other battle drugs at will, but they can only produce a limited amount per day. Maybe two lots at 1st level, three lots at 4th, you get the picture.

If there is a barbarian class and no barbarian cultures, I am going to ask the DM what they have in mind for including the class just as I am would ask about the possibility of playing a non-traditional barbarian that grew up in civilized society, but relies upon rage rather than various trained maneuvers for his prowess if that was a concept I wanted to play.

As for your Deathstalker explanation, your ability to come up with an explanation never trumps my prerogative as DM to deny it (and I would based upon the special organ).

 

[5ekyu]

Words have meaning, but that meaning is contextual. Consider that the word "spear" in D&D refers to a throwable weapon without reach, limiting it to a small subset of real-life weapons that can be described as "spears". Further, consider the word "elf" which refers to wildly different creatures in different contexts. One can't draw on what one knows of Tolkien or Rowling elves and use that to infer traits of D&D elves, which are described quite differently from either.

Similarly, I see no reason to assume that the class name "Barbarian" corresponds solely to the real world equivalent of barbarian tribes. Much of the text in the PHB talks about barbarians in an uncivilized, tribal sense, but it also allows for other possibilities, explicitly including dwarves, who are not described as tribal or uncivilized in any D&D-related context of which I am aware. Furthermore, that same text includes references to individual Barbarians' opinions of cities and civilization, which earlier you agreed can be freely ignored. The ability to frerly ignore some of the "fluff" text implies that the fluff can't be categorically sacred at your table.

Certain parts of the fluff may still be sacred at your table by your decree, of course. And in practice that is exactly what you are doing when you rely on an extrinsic definition of "barbarian" to decide which parts of the fluff shall be sacred and which can be freely ignored. Importantly, because the definition of "barbarian" is contextual, you can't expect your players (or anyone else) to know which parts of the fluff you consider sacred and which parts aren't unless you explain to them the particular definition you're relying on.

Frankly, I still don't know where you draw the line on Barbarians or Street Urchins. If I come to the table with a "brawny rogue" (explicitly allowed on PHB 11), am I forbidden from taking the Urchin background on the grounds that Urchins can't be brawny? The phrase "Street Urchin" has a meaning to you, but I don't know what that meaning is well enough to know if it prohibits a brawny rogue at your table. And I can't know what that meaning is until you express it.

Different folks draw different things to place degrees of emphasis or even rigid adherence to - even just a word.

I read the urchin description (not just its background name and Dickens) and see any number of scavenger sub-class type characters from all sorts of fantasy and scifi stories - pretty much a variety of tropes over the years - and many of them do indeed seem very very barbaric and even tribal in their presentation and storylines.

The idea of a huge multi-generational "developed city" with this culture of dispossessed underworld class of tribalized outcasts is extremely fertile story telling ground and especially if one considers prior "town ruins" the current city is built upon.

maybe if they had used the term outcast or something more oblique like "Forgotten one" instead of urchin some people would not be so rigin in their... wait no - who am i kidding - we would just be having a "discussion" over whether a character could be "forgotten" if anyone ever remembers them because since they are called "forgotten" they cannot have former family who remember who they were and are looking for them.