Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Satyrn]

I think she would be like a noble barbarian?

Yeah, that would definitely work to capture her time with the Amazons. She's also got levels of monk from her time in Chin; and warlock from her time with Alti. And I think her time as a Valkyrie could be represented with a paladin oath.

She multiclassed a lot.

 

[Arial Black]

Agreed. But by generally disallowing or discouraging MC, I avoid having to make that judgment call.

And thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are pre-banning thousands of character ideas that even you admit you'd be totally okay with being in your campaign.

Instead of pre-banning MCing just in case the fluff turns out to be inadequate, why don't you take the trouble to find out what the fluff actually is and then decide if the fluff is adequate? After all, you have to check out each PC before the game begins anyway, and you already care about fluff enough that you want to know the fluff for every PC, SC or MC.

'Avoiding having to make judgement calls' is not the role of a DM!

 

[Grognerd]

And thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are pre-banning thousands of character ideas that even you admit you'd be totally okay with being in your campaign.

Instead of pre-banning MCing just in case the fluff turns out to be inadequate, why don't you take the trouble to find out what the fluff actually is and then decide if the fluff is adequate? After all, you have to check out each PC before the game begins anyway, and you already care about fluff enough that you want to know the fluff for every PC, SC or MC.

All true. But I have not been very precise with my language. I've been talking in terms of "banning" MC since it is simpler than saying "strongly discouraging MC, and making players convince me to allow it". Perhaps I could split the difference and call what I do a "soft ban" rather than a "hard ban." No MC unless you can show me why there should be one. That's the approach I typically take. Make me like the concept.

'Avoiding having to make judgement calls' is not the role of a DM!

Again, a lack of precision in my language, but your point is well met! Touche!

 

[Satyrn]

Perhaps I could split the difference and call what I do a "soft ban" rather than a "hard ban." No MC unless you can show me why there should be one. That's the approach I typically take. Make me like the concept.

I'd prefer you just outright ban it.

Because I know your girlfriend will convince you, and I won't. Not you, specifically. Specifically that one DM I had some time ago. Ever since I can't see that sort of soft ban as anything but a gateway to favoritism.


. . . It was me. That DM was me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Absolutely correct: I wouldn't enjoy playing with that person. But isn't the point of this discussion to talk about why we would or wouldn't allow/disallow MC and the concurrent differences in playstyles and campaigns? I'm not sure what you are leading to with this?

Just that if you ban MC, the guy at the table who WOULD have powergamed his tri-class munchkin is still going to have that attitude and that playstyle. It just means he's going to play an OP single class build (e.g. GWM/PM Vengeance Paladin).

And if that guy isn't at your table, then it won't hurt to allow MC because anybody who does it will probably do it in a way you like.

 

[Grognerd]

Just that if you ban MC, the guy at the table who WOULD have powergamed his tri-class munchkin is still going to have that attitude and that playstyle. It just means he's going to play an OP single class build (e.g. GWM/PM Vengeance Paladin).

And if that guy isn't at your table, then it won't hurt to allow MC because anybody who does it will probably do it in a way you like.

Good points. That's worth considering.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, as a player who has multiclassed or dual-classed the vast majority of his D&D characters over the past 30+ years and who has only been accused of “power gaming”/“munchkining” once*, my DM style in this area has always been hands-off. Multiclass if you want to. Why should I veto the mechanical core of your concept?

After all, as the DM, I literally have the power to erase a PC from the game at any time. So if the multiclassing powergamer is ruining everyone else’s fun, I can always find a remedy without posting a “No X Allowed!” sign on my campaign’s lawn, thereby spoiling someone’s fun before the fact.






* an accusation proven hilariously false in actual game play

 

[Maxperson]

And thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are pre-banning thousands of character ideas that even you admit you'd be totally okay with being in your campaign.

Instead of pre-banning MCing just in case the fluff turns out to be inadequate, why don't you take the trouble to find out what the fluff actually is and then decide if the fluff is adequate? After all, you have to check out each PC before the game begins anyway, and you already care about fluff enough that you want to know the fluff for every PC, SC or MC.

'Avoiding having to make judgement calls' is not the role of a DM!

I would just let the players know at the outset that the fluff for any multi-class has to match the PCs progress, including backstory and game play. You avoid those judgement calls and place the responsibility onto the players that want to multi-class.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Good points. That's worth considering.

No no no. You're doing teh Interwebz all wrong. You are supposed to question my motives and pick holes in my grammar to undermine my point.

 

[Maxperson]

No no no. You're doing teh Interwebz all wrong. You are supposed to question my motives and pick holes in my grammar to undermine my point.

You misspelled "the" and are therefore, wrong!!