No More Multi-Classing

[green slime]

You are coming at this from a game rules perspective, whereas I'm looking at it from a campaign perspective.

The D20 game system allows for anything. This is good, for a basic rule set. But it is, IMO, bad for a campaign, to allow everything. Restrictions and limitations provide flavour. IF there is nothing to contrast against, it is all very bland. If you disagree with this statement, then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Interesting thread. First off, let me mention that the topic itself is all opinion. As we all know, there's no wrong way to play D&D, or enjoy D&D, or want to play D&D. We all have our various preferences which make the game fun for us. So, that said, I won't quote anyone else's responses, because I'm not trying to debate preferences, but merely add my own to the discussion.

Regarding the "antagonistic playstyle" mentioned by Reynard, I think that a true competition is impossible. Ultimately, the DM holds all the cards, so how can a true competition ever actually occur? If the PCs die, the DM has won. If the PCs don't die, it's because the DM has allowed the players to win. In either case, no real struggle can exist so long as the DM is also the final arbiter of the game.

That said, I am one of two DMs in our group, (we alternate between our two games each week). We often joke around about killing off PCs, curse when a PC narrowly avoids some horrifying fate, etc. But while that kind of joking amuses us, each of us believes that the DM's true challenge is not to kill the PCs, but rather to provide enough difficulty to push the PCs to their limits, without actually TPKing them each week.

My proudest campaign came a few years back, when I ran a game overseas. Each week, one of my players would say as she left my apartment, "Thank you for not killing us." Every week they fully believed they'd be killed. And each week, they somehow managed to come out of it alive. I never did kill off one of the PCs, and yet the feeling of lethality was heavy the entire time.

The players should feel that their PCs are not secure. They should also feel that their PCs are not pointless. It is the DM's job and joy to see that the game treads this fine line.

Regarding multiclassing, I've always treated classes as purely mechanical reflections of in-game background. As such, I have no problem with it so long as it fulfills that function. I've had wizard/rogues. I've had fighter/ranger/barbarians. Bard/fighters. And more. The in-game background is always simple "a thief who wields magic on his capers," or "a travelling troubador who picked up fencing while serving as skald on a pirate ship." Then the mechanical representation of that.

I've disallowed one-level dips for a specific ability that weren't justified by the character in-game. But on the whole, I don't see a problem with multiclassing in general. I could easily see Aragorn from LotR represented as a fighter/barbarian/rogue. It's not what's written on a character sheet that breaks the mood, it's how its presented in-game.

Regarding a DM's right to restrict classes, etc. I've always felt that a DM does have that right, but he also has the responsibility to work with the players to get them what they want to play, as much as possible. Just saying, "no, there are no ninjas in my campaign" is not enough. The DM needs to make a good faith effort to find a place for ninjas in his campaign and, if it simply isn't possible, work with the player to try and get him something as close to what he wants as he can.

 

[RFisher]

Each class had its area of expertise and was necessary for the success of the party.

I've certainly learned over the years that there is some wisdom in the way the D&D classes were originally designed to fit together. While a fighter/wizard/thief might make a good protagonist for a novel, the game is often better when you distribute the hero's abilities among the party.

As we used to say in my old group when playing Gurps or Hero: "I don't want to step on anyone's toes." (Meaning, we each wanted to create a PC that had a different-enough skillset than the other PCs to try to avoid anyone feeling overshadowed or redundant. We ended up learning to emulate what classes did without classes.)

In the classic D&D game I'm running for my Monday night group, the players (who are all 3.5 players on Saturdays) happily embraced the choices in the book. (Fighter, Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Magic-user, & Thief) There has been no grumbling about the classes being too limiting or whatever. I'd actually be fine with house-ruling multiclassing or letting someone play a class not in the book, but there have as of yet been no requests for such.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If you disagree with this statement, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Fine

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I think that a true competition is impossible.

It's a fact.

If the DM plays to win, he wins. Unless he allowed the players to create munchkin characters, he can just use an enemy tailor-made to counter the players' strengths and exploit the weaknesses, and he can arrange it so the terrain favours the enemies.

 

[Ghendar]

As with many versions of this kind of advice, it is one thing to suggest but another thing entirely to sell players on it. I can't imagine a more difficult "sell" with my group than "Okay, we're going to play 3.5 because it is a solid game system, but we're going to play it without multiclassing or PrCs, with racial class/level limits and with a focus on adventure for adventure's sake."

I am not saying there aren't people out there who wouldn't leap on that pitch. I just don't know any of them. Even those gamers I know who like the 'old school' feel in their adventures want the full options list for their PCs.

I feel your pain. That can be a very tough sell. I have no problems with prestige classes unless they become munchkin power gaming type builds, but I think the level progression system is too fast. On the other hand, 1st and 2nd ED was too slow, imo.

 

[Ghendar]

Being a fellow denizen of that selfsame not-so-hallowed state, I can attest to the validity of this statement. But hey, thanks to you and I, we can now say that approximately 28% of the gaming population of Connecticut is present on ENWorld.

You can add me to that list as well. If anyone is looking for players in CT, PM or email me.

 

[Ghendar]

But I think a DM does have that right. I think a DM can say "dwarves can't be arcane casters" because dwarves, in the game he wants to run, just don't act like that, don't feel like that and on't improve the setting by being arcane casters.

I tend to agree. Just the idea of a dwarf wizard feels wrong to me. On the other hand, I have no problem with a dwarf sorcerer. Why? Because although dwarves may not take well to studying and learning the wizardly arts, sorcerers are chosen regardless of the wishes of the individual. I view wizardry differently. It's kind of like psionics, you don't pick it, it picks you.

For me it's a matter of campaign flavor. In my campaign, I don't like the idea of dwarf wizards. Done, end of story.

You are coming at this from a game rules perspective, whereas I'm looking at it from a campaign perspective.

The D20 game system allows for anything. This is good, for a basic rule set. But it is, IMO, bad for a campaign, to allow everything. Restrictions and limitations provide flavour. IF there is nothing to contrast against, it is all very bland. If you disagree with this statement, then we have nothing further to discuss.

I also view this argument from a campaign perspective rather than a rules perspective. I have a problem with just allowing everything.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Just the idea of a dwarf wizard feels wrong to me. On the other hand, I have no problem with a dwarf sorcerer. Why? Because although dwarves may not take well to studying and learning the wizardly arts, sorcerers are chosen regardless of the wishes of the individual. I view wizardry differently. It's kind of like psionics, you don't pick it, it picks you.

So wizardry never picks a dwarf, even though they're better suited to be wizards than sorcerers, with their low charisma and all? No dwarf can be studious enough to try at wizardry?

You call it flavour, I call it overly stereotyping. It degrades into a computer game, where you can only choose "the dwarf", "the fighter", or "the sorceress".

For me it's a matter of campaign flavor. In my campaign, I don't like the idea of dwarf wizards. Done, end of story.

I like a more plausible approach: The humanoid races have tendencies, no enforced behaviour.

But then again, in my campaigns not all dwarves are anti-social racists who can't do nothing but kill and make weapons and armour, my halflings aren't all thieves, my elves aren't all arrogant supremists, and my gnomes don't tend to blow themsevles up twice per day.

But to each his own.

I also view this argument from a campaign perspective rather than a rules perspective. I have a problem with just allowing everything.

Have you read my posts? It's not "just" allowing everyting. Players still have to do viable character concepts that fit into the campaign. Dwarf wizard might not be a common occurance, and they have to come up with reasons for their preference, they have to explain how they deal with others of their race (and how others deal with them - and they can't just say that even though the clan they're from is extremely prejudiced, they made an exception for them), but I don't just say "I can't think of a reason a dwarf would be a wizard after half-heartedly thinking about it for two seconds, so Instead of engaging my brain I just forbid you to."

 

[Ghendar]

So wizardry never picks a dwarf, even though they're better suited to be wizards than sorcerers, with their low charisma and all? No dwarf can be studious enough to try at wizardry?

Of course not. Certainly there could be studious dwarves who can indeed become wizards and truth be known as long as they are exceedingly rare I have no problem with dwarven wizards. If only one in 10,000 dwarves actually becomes a wizards I find that more interesting than one on 1 in 10, or 1 in 100. This is a conscious choice for me as a DM. I don't expect you to agree with it or understand it and that's fine. You have your game and I have mine.

You call it flavour, I call it overly stereotyping. It degrades into a computer game, where you can only choose "the dwarf", "the fighter", or "the sorceress".

Yes, I do call it flavor. You don't. Fine, you have your game I have mine.

I like a more plausible approach: The humanoid races have tendencies, no enforced behaviour.

But then again, in my campaigns not all dwarves are anti-social racists who can't do nothing but kill and make weapons and armour, my halflings aren't all thieves, my elves aren't all arrogant supremists, and my gnomes don't tend to blow themsevles up twice per day.

But to each his own.

Tell me something, what is and is not plausible in a game where everything is totally implausible. Wizards throwing fireballs, dragons eating whole towns, sentient constructs walking about, warriors with glowing magical swords? To call anything plausible or not plausible in a game that consists of entirely made up things is.........well, implausible.

Btw, dwarves in my games are not all "anti-social racists who can't do nothing but kill and make weapons and armour." In fact dwarves in my world tend to travel quite a bit and even are on friendly terms with elves. How about that? Dwarves actually being friendly with elves. What a concept.

Have you read my posts? It's not "just" allowing everyting. Players still have to do viable character concepts that fit into the campaign. Dwarf wizard might not be a common occurance, and they have to come up with reasons for their preference, they have to explain how they deal with others of their race (and how others deal with them - and they can't just say that even though the clan they're from is extremely prejudiced, they made an exception for them), but I don't just say "I can't think of a reason a dwarf would be a wizard after half-heartedly thinking about it for two seconds, so Instead of engaging my brain I just forbid you to."

Have I read your posts? yeah, at first I did but then I stopped. Look, it may be a totally alien concept for you to understand my p.o.v. and that's fine. You have your game and I have mine. I'm not going to change your mind anymore than you're going to change mine but please don't make the insulting assumption that I don't allow stuff like this simply because I don't like to engage my brain. Please <rolleyes>

A previous poster said to you something to the effect that we have nothing more to talk about. Have a nice day