Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[TwoSix]

Nah, I agree strongly with you here -- fluff is malleable around mechanics especially for class/background -- but the idea of playing a 5 INT genius is like playing a 5 STR strongest man in the world -- it's farce, the mechanics don't support the fluff. While I love respinning mechanics, whatever fluff that comes up shouldn't contradict the mechanic without good reason. Most of the 'builds' you proposed in that scenario where 'geniuses' hobbled by crippling disabilities, which belies the concept of functioning genius when you can't actually do the INT things well. So, I think there's room for 'refluff' and 'I don't think a 5 INT genius is a coherent concept'. YMMV, and, obviously, did!

Now, you can do farce, for sure, but I don't really prefer that much farce in my games.

Oh man, if we're going to rehash "Geniuses with 5 Int", let me know so I can order in tonight.

Maybe we can move on to "Do you care about setting canon?" or "Fighter versus spellcasters" after that.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

That's the main reason I do very little prep work on the setting until we do a character creation session 0. Most players I know already have an idea what they want to play way before the game actually starts; they're not really interested in looking at pages of house rules that make a lot of their ideas unusable.

 

[S'mon]

But I think it is more plausible that this lack implies a desire to make it easier for DMs to decide to enforce fluff as sacrosanct at their tables, rather than an unspoken 180 degree reversal from the idea that fluff is mutable.

Seems reasonable. Yes, they want to empower GMs to say "IMC all paladins are virtuous knights who strive to defeat Evil" - without wanting to ban the Paladin of Asmodeus some player AND HIS GM thinks is a cool idea.

 

[S'mon]

Most players I know already have an idea what they want to play way before the game actually starts; they're not really interested in looking at pages of house rules...

That's certainly true!

 

[5ekyu]

Isn't choosing to play a Paladin the rough equivalent of not only putting a "Kick Me" sign on your own back, but then spending the rest of the day trying to connect your foot with your posterior?

Not that i have seen.

 

[smbakeresq]

From the Paladin class, "If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide."

Mist I have been saying that, but some responses have essentially been “Since it’s not specifically spelled out in the rules and fluff means nothing (if it’s bad for my idea) any DM that does it is being an unfair tyrant that won’t let me play my way!!”

I also pointed out that I don’t allow Oathbreaker from the beginning as you haven’t been a Paladin long enough to break your oath. From the text it appears, but isn’t specifically said, that you start out as a Paladin of another bent then through your actions either be forced out of the class or into the oathbreaker.

To me Oathbreaker means an alignment change also, where you used to lose levels IIRC except under certain circumstances, but then alignment has been tossed also.

 

[smbakeresq]

That's certainly true!

They also have ideas about how the DM should play the game for their PCs also, or so it seems...

 

[TwoSix]

They also have ideas about how the DM should play the game for their PCs also, or so it seems...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nah, I agree strongly with you here -- fluff is malleable around mechanics especially for class/background -- but the idea of playing a 5 INT genius is like playing a 5 STR strongest man in the world -- it's farce, the mechanics don't support the fluff. While I love respinning mechanics, whatever fluff that comes up shouldn't contradict the mechanic without good reason. Most of the 'builds' you proposed in that scenario where 'geniuses' hobbled by crippling disabilities, which belies the concept of functioning genius when you can't actually do the INT things well. So, I think there's room for 'refluff' and 'I don't think a 5 INT genius is a coherent concept'. YMMV, and, obviously, did!

Now, you can do farce, for sure, but I don't really prefer that much farce in my games.

Ok, I'll bite:

The Strongest Man in the World became too proud and (insert some god) struck him down with debilitating joint pain. He can barely lift a mug of beer without experiencing crippling agony. So he doesn't.

The Strongest Man in the World accidentally killed (insert somebody he loved). He swore an oath to never use his great strength again.

That's all I got off-hand. Admittedly it's tougher to do this for attributes that have outwardly obvious, physical manifestations.

But, regardless, what's wrong with those character concepts? While they could be played farcically, I don't think they are inherently so. As long as you trust your player to not suddenly say, "Ok, I guess I'll use my great strength" it's functionally equivalent to having 5 Strength. (If I recall correctly, one of Max's objections was exactly this. I.e., that players couldn't be trusted not to try to exploit the fluff as mechanics.)

 

[5ekyu]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

To me its neither good or bad.

Its not uncommon that i ask players or encourage players to provide story hooks in even more explicit form than most games seem to suggest - down to even asking for "what kind of conflicts would this character come to life in?" not from a mechanical utility aspect but from a "things they are about".

But as always whether some preference or idea is good or bad comes down to execution and circumstances. if it comes across in a way that limits the game and the other players in it unduly and/or is presented with a lack of flexibility it can be a bad for the game as a whole.

A good example is a character whose "thing" is "hate magic, magic users and especially wizards and kill them whenever possible" or "devout follower of the true god Puff-n-Preach and i work against all other gods and non-believers" then having ideas as to how the Gm should be playing the game for this character might be a bit of a problem.