Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Guest 6801328]

That concept doesn't work with the game mechanics, though. Your phrase "So he doesn't." implies that he can, but he can't, because he only has a 5 strength. <br>


See above.

What happens if the PC is charmed or dominated and the NPC(who doesn't know the backstory reasons for the PC's choice) and required to use that visibly tremendous strength that each of those PCs possess? Those concepts are mechanically broken. Much like your 5 int geniuses.

If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun. It's only when somebody at the table is determined to prove that another player is having badwrongfun that things gets difficult.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here are simply emotionally scarred from playing with selfish, uncooperative rules lawyers, and are now afraid of anything that might give those players an opening to be disruptive.

Anyway, let's look at what happens:
- Evil NPC charms/dominates strongman who refuses to use his strength
- Evil NPC orders strongman to tear open the bars
- Strongman rolls, with his -4 penalty, and fails. (Or possibly succeeds, in which case the whole table erupts in cheers.)
- Evil NPC first mocks the PC ("I thought you were this Colossus?"), and finally rages impotently against these useless puppets he wastes his precious time dominating.

Where's the problem?

 

[Maxperson]

If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun.

I play NPCs and PCs by doing what they would do in situations they come across, not by contriving unbelievable scenarios in order to preserve broken concepts. I wouldn't go out of my way to use your strength(read:not being a douche) that exists, yet does not exist(read:Schrodinger's Strength), but I wouldn't avoid it, either.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I play NPCs and PCs by doing what they would do in situations they come across, not by contriving unbelievable scenarios in order to preserve broken concepts. I wouldn't go out of my way to use your strength(read:not being a douche) that exists, yet does not exist(read:Schrodinger's Strength), but I wouldn't avoid it, either.

Good on you. Read my edits.

Oh, one more step:
- Player narrates how his sorrow over his lost love is so powerful that some tiny portion of his self resists the spell, and that's why he was able to avoid helping the bad guy.

The DM does the right thing in having the NPC act that way, because the NPC would look at this musclebound hero and assume he can use that strength. So the player's originality and creativity and...yes...silliness in creating this character ended up giving the heroes a benefit without altering any of the game mechanics. I think that's awesome, but YMMV.

EDIT:
And I have to re-quote this:

I play NPCs and PCs by doing what they would do...

Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense. NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into. So what you are really doing is what you want them to do. Maybe you think you're choosing the most probable course of action, but it is your brain, influenced by all sorts of factors, many of which you are not even aware, making that decision.

Me, I try to choose a course of action that will lead to the most fun, as long as it's reasonably justifiable and in-character.

 

[Maxperson]

If everybody at the table is on board with the concept (read: "not being a douche") then not only are there always solutions to any situation you can contrive, but finding and roleplaying those solutions is part of the fun. It's only when somebody at the table is determined to prove that another player is having badwrongfun that things gets difficult.

Sometimes I wonder if some of the posters here are simply emotionally scarred from playing with selfish, uncooperative rules lawyers, and are now afraid of anything that might give those players an opening to be disruptive.

Anyway, let's look at what happens:
- Evil NPC charms/dominates strongman who refuses to use his strength
- Evil NPC orders strongman to tear open the bars
- Strongman rolls, with his -4 penalty, and fails. (Or possibly succeeds, in which case the whole table erupts in cheers.)
- Evil NPC first mocks the PC ("I thought you were this Colossus?"), and finally rages impotently against these useless puppets he wastes his precious time dominating.

Where's the problem?

"Anyway, let's look at what happens:
- Evil NPC charms/dominates strongman who refuses to use his strength
- Evil NPC orders strongman to tear open the bars or lift a 160 pound sack of potatoes, which anyone with a strength of 8 or higher would find easy as pie.
- Strongman rolls, with his -4 penalty, and fails. (Or possibly succeeds, in which case the whole table erupts in cheers.)
- Evil NPC first mocks the PC ("I thought you were this Colossus?"), and finally rages impotently against these useless puppets he wastes his precious time dominating."

Why'd you stop at tearing open bars? Why not make it lifting a mountain or other such feat of strength? As long as you were going to make a ridiculous example, you might as well have gone completely over the top. There are tons of feats of strength that your character would fail at, that would require no roll whatsoever for anyone with an 8 or higher strength, and yet you're concept fails because it is broken.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, one more step:
- Player narrates how his sorrow over his lost love is so powerful that some tiny portion of his self resists the spell, and that's why he was able to avoid helping the bad guy.

If you want to create a house rule where players can negate portions of spells because they feel it violates their concept, go for it. There is no such step in RAW.

Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense. NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into.

When I play a character(NPC or PC), I treat is as if it were a real person to the best of my ability.

 

[S'mon]

Me, I try to choose a course of action that will lead to the most fun, as long as it's reasonably justifiable and in-character.

Me, I roll a d6. Possibly 2d6, if it's a Morale or Reaction check.

 

[5ekyu]

Good on you. Read my edits.

Oh, one more step:
- Player narrates how his sorrow over his lost love is so powerful that some tiny portion of his self resists the spell, and that's why he was able to avoid helping the bad guy.

The DM does the right thing in having the NPC act that way, because the NPC would look at this musclebound hero and assume he can use that strength. So the player's originality and creativity and...yes...silliness in creating this character ended up giving the heroes a benefit without altering any of the game mechanics. I think that's awesome, but YMMV.

EDIT:
And I have to re-quote this:


Saelorn says stuff like that, too, and I think it's utter nonsense. NPCs and PCs are not real people, so there's no such thing as "what they would do", and if they were real people it would be impossible to know for certain what they would do, especially in the sort of novel, unpredictable, high-stress situations heroes get themselves into. So what you are really doing is what you want them to do. Maybe you think you're choosing the most probable course of action, but it is your brain, influenced by all sorts of factors, many of which you are not even aware, making that decision.

Me, I try to choose a course of action that will lead to the most fun, as long as it's reasonably justifiable and in-character.

Count me in the "npcs are characters I run as gm, not pawns on my chessboard" camp.

I have found over time that helps me create setting and characters the players and characters can understand and expect, not just fools for whatever the gm sees needed for the next act to come off.

I would also refer you to many many authors who have commented that some of their best most interesting and enjoyable characters and moments came when they saw their character basically refuse to do what the author had planned - since you seem to want to dismiss this idea as nonsense wait mo "utter nonsense",

 

[5ekyu]

If you want to create a house rule where players can negate portions of spells because they feel it violates their concept, go for it. There is no such step in RAW.



When I play a character(NPC or PC), I treat is as if it were a real person to the best of my ability.

This make me recall those power gaming days where in HERO one built susceptable to being controlled or otherwise mind controlled - 3d6 stun per phase.

You got like 20 pts for bigger powers for the disad and when the inevitable "charmed/compelled to do bad, you knocked yourself out in under a minute thwarting the controller trying to use your ability"

"My character would like to run from your fear spell, but he thinks he can only run 5 feet."

 

[pemerton]

the people I game with have more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat in the game.

This doesn't really seem relevant to the question of whether or not MCing is allowed (either in general, or of clerics with warlocks with paladins).

I mean, I've never heard it suggested that someone would (say) forbid the players playing PCs who hail from Greyhawk City because the game is more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat. The two things seem completely orthogonal to one another.

Whether people like it or not, I do not always run using the 5e goal of anyone can be anything and everyone gets a gold star just for participating. To paraphrase a quote from a certain movie: in a world where everyone is special, no one will be.

The only game system I know that uses gold stars is Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant, and they're not an award "just for participating".

But anyway, how does your table decide which of the players does and which doesn't get to play a "special PC"?

 

[5ekyu]

This doesn't really seem relevant to the question of whether or not MCing is allowed (either in general, or of clerics with warlocks with paladins).

I mean, I've never heard it suggested that someone would (say) forbid the players playing PCs who hail from Greyhawk City because the game is more fun when there is some challenge outside of combat. The two things seem completely orthogonal to one another.

The only game system I know that uses gold stars is Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant, and they're not an award "just for participating".

But anyway, how does your table decide which of the players does and which doesn't get to play a "special PC"?

Regarding choosing who gets the special and who gets "the rest" it can fit certain rpg/setting.

Buffy rpg had clear distinctions between the slayer and white hats. Very different roles. Very different mechanics.

Similarly, Ars magica had its "minions" (frogs? I forget) basically muggles and each player had one mage and one or more minions and any given arc might only have one or two playing mages and the rest muggles and it rotates around as arcs end and new ones start ( oversimplified).

But I doubt that's what the poster actually meant by the sound byte.