Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Warpiglet · Sep 13, 2018

lowkey13 said:
So, at the risk of being somewhat controversial, I will answer the question of, "Why would we not help a player have more fun" with an extended digression.

Let's talk about team sports! See, in team sports, it is entirely possible for one person to maximize their own fun to the detriment of other people's fun (we might call this person, for example, a Ball Hog, or a late-career Kobe Bryant). Conversely, it is also possible that by sublimating your own fun every now and then, you maximize the group's fun, and when the group's fun is maximized, your own fun becomes greater than if you were simply pursuing your own fun.

*whew* Now, D&D isn't teams sports (HA!). But the principle remains. I'll give you an easy example- let's say someone really, really, really enjoyed killing other PCs. Now, let's say that the rest of the table really didn't like that. By sublimating his own fun (not killing other PCs), the overall group fun would be maximized, and, maybe, that individual would end up have a better session (because other people wouldn't be angry at him for killing them, and so on).

Which is why people on these boards talk about communication. It's not just about "helping a[n individual] player have more fun." It's about maximizing the table's fun- that player's fun, the rest of the players' fun, and the DM's fun. And everyone should be on the same page.

If a player is ever in the situation where he is demanding to the other players (and the DM) that something should happen because it is HIS FUN, then something has gone horribly wrong, just as wrong as if the DM is saying, "NO, BECAUSE I SAY SO."

I guess I skip past this consideration since I don't play with ass-hats. But this is true.

We played with one player who enjoyed PC vs. PC conflict. We don't anymore.

Everything I am arguing comes with the assumption we play well together are concerned about eachother's fun and simply want to do something off book in terms of fluff. I am arguing against reactive conservative assumptions about fluff in the book and NOT at the expense of shared fun, cooperation and so forth.

When anyone, even in the Gygaxian AD&D 1e days proposed a fun idea, DM and players alike rolled with it because its about shared fun. When playing villains in 1e a friend took an evil centaur-hating wood elf who belonged to an anti-centaur cult. He did not have an assigned deity but prayed to the darker forces of nature.

Fluff was broken but game was not. Level-limited evil half orc cleric made use of a giant hammer. DM made the stats for it (believe it was 2d6?) after we watched Conan the Barbarian. The DMs world was not negatively impacted at all.

But yes, DM was involved. If it was too gonzo, he would have rightly said something. That I think is the point I try to make however. Things should not be so restrictive that any deviation is seen as gonzo. Live a little. Make some sh*t up. Collaborate. Don't let coal in your anus become a diamond. Or, consistent with my OP, don't let diamond butt-ism forbid most multiclassing unless you simply don't use the optional rule to begin with.

TwoSix · Sep 13, 2018

lowkey13 said:
Now, you might say that in this particular example, nothing bad would happen at Maxperson's table. But you're not there- you don't know, and I don't know. Maybe his other players/DM would be annoyed? Maybe they have an informal understanding of what a Barbarian "is," and this would violate their understanding? Different strokes, and all that.

This kind of feels like the D&D version of the divide between grammar prescriptivism and descriptivism. "Classes mean X!' versus "It's how you use the class that matters!"

lowkey13 · Sep 13, 2018

*Deleted by user*

TwoSix · Sep 13, 2018

lowkey13 said:
That's a pretty good analogy!

"The katana is the class which kills all things" versus "I use the katana class when I want to kill all the things."

shadowoflameth · Sep 13, 2018

In 3E the assumption was that taking a prestige class made you more powerful and often it did. But in every case, and in every edition when you take a level of Y you lose that chance to take that same level of X. That remains the trade off. Especially in 5E where levels cap at 20 you lose higher level abilities and gain a symmetry with an odd combination of lower level powers. With thousands of people discussing char op for years I haven't heard anyone say here's a one level dip you must take or your character will be under powered. In the end, I've had few people multi-class in any edition and none have broken the game. A paladin in heavy armor may be a terror on the battlefield and a few levels may add a lot of combat utility and you slay the demon patrol you encounter in the abyss without breaking a sweat, but when it's time to scale the obsidian walls of Everlost in darkness and silence to steal the wand of Orcus, you're going to want your rogue thief to handle it and maybe not wear heavy armor at the time. In the end, no character can do everything and the design is intended that way. It deliberately supports parties over solo ubermenches.

smbakeresq · Sep 13, 2018

Arial Black said:
The 5e devs deliberately wrote out any power-removing mechanic (they have a power-swapping option with Oathbreakers), because they have realised for years that it is inherently unfair for some players to be penalised just because their player chose one of the allowed classes, while other classes can do what they like and don't get punished in the metagame by removing the mechanical abilities of the class.

The devs want players to pick whatever class and available power for ANY class, not just the ones unconnected to a god/patron/whatever.

I hate DMs who slaver at the mouth when they hear that a player has chosen a cleric or a paladin because the DM thinks he has carte blanche to take the player's agency away using the threat of taking class abilities away.

How do you know this from the developers? I have yet to see or hear anything of that motivation.

And since the DM controls the setting and everything in it they can do that. I haven't played in or heard of a game where the DM lords over the players though on an unfair basis due to class choice. It all just has to fit and be consistent. This applies even if you just reflavor fluff language. I see far more of people choosing a MC to gain some mechanical advantage in game and trying to find some backstory to fit in, the min-max type.

If you choose a class that give you powers from another source and are not willing to abide by the restrictions of that source(which by definition is controlled by the DM) then that's a YOU problem unless the DM is acting completely unreasonably. I have been around long enough to see a power play, but that's ok if you have a well thought out backstory and integration into the campaign.

This goes back to what I said before about a PC building session for the group, if the DM and 3 of the 4 group think your idea is bad or unreasonable (or just a pure power play) it probably is.

smbakeresq · Sep 13, 2018

5ekyu said:
I fall somewhere in the midfle in this way...

I feel some classes have fluff tied to mechanics and others do not.

There is no explicit statement in the PHB that says all classes are the same, so i see them as different.

Some classes come with baggage, some dont. Not all come with the same size baggage.

That will mean certain types of players, knowing that about my games, will tend to certain classes over others while other types might skew the other way.

I am fine with that. It is not my goal to dilute my campaign to the LCD of every class having all the same "flavors".

If you want to play a character with ties inside the class to other NPCs that really matter - cleric, warlock and others and some sub-classes will fit your bill as far as that goes.

If you want less of that there are plenty of other choices too. Fighter doesnt come with that kind of ties, neither does rogue or sorcerer. Others may fit that bill and sub-classes.

Backgrounds, races setting appropriate backstories can also tweak this dial but within parameters that make sense.

As i have said, i would draw the line at taking a class with baggage and just fluffing away the baggage as it creates a pretty big glaring break in the world works this way kind of sense.

So, i am likely not gonna appeal to certain player agency dialed to 11 types and thats just fine with me.

All i know is, the players i have had play the baggage classes/concepts have loved it and others who avoided them under other gms have tried it under me after seeing it in play.

So, i must be keeping my slavering under control.

In a certain sense all PC have baggage in some sense, that's why they become adventurers. But you are correct, once you play a class with a limitation of some sort, even a very low ability score, it changes the way you view the game for the better and is MUCH MORE entertaining. If you put in the effort to properly play with some limitation, then any DM would see that and go along with it and "cater" to that. You can build whole PC arcs off that.

TwoSix · Sep 13, 2018

smbakeresq said:
If you choose a class that give you powers from another source and are not willing to abide by the restrictions of that source(which by definition is controlled by the DM) then that's a YOU problem unless the DM is acting completely unreasonably. I have been around long enough to see a power play, but that's ok if you have a well thought out backstory and integration into the campaign.

Do people still think that background hooks like the paladin Oath and the warlock Patron exist as a balance consideration? That's obviously an atavism from the game's wargame roots (like when a paladin had more powerful abilities than a fighter, but had constraints on his ability to take certain effective actions, like use poison or hoard magic items).

The whole point of the background hooks are to generate conflict in roleplaying, not to channel the character into certain actions. And conflict is good!

Ovinomancer · Sep 13, 2018

lowkey13 said:
So, at the risk of being somewhat controversial, I will answer the question of, "Why would we not help a player have more fun" with an extended digression.

Let's talk about team sports! See, in team sports, it is entirely possible for one person to maximize their own fun to the detriment of other people's fun (we might call this person, for example, a Ball Hog, or a late-career Kobe Bryant). Conversely, it is also possible that by sublimating your own fun every now and then, you maximize the group's fun, and when the group's fun is maximized, your own fun becomes greater than if you were simply pursuing your own fun.

*whew* Now, D&D isn't teams sports (HA!). But the principle remains. I'll give you an easy example- let's say someone really, really, really enjoyed killing other PCs. Now, let's say that the rest of the table really didn't like that. By sublimating his own fun (not killing other PCs), the overall group fun would be maximized, and, maybe, that individual would end up have a better session (because other people wouldn't be angry at him for killing them, and so on).

Which is why people on these boards talk about communication. It's not just about "helping a[n individual] player have more fun." It's about maximizing the table's fun- that player's fun, the rest of the players' fun, and the DM's fun. And everyone should be on the same page.

If a player is ever in the situation where he is demanding to the other players (and the DM) that something should happen because it is HIS FUN, then something has gone horribly wrong, just as wrong as if the DM is saying, "NO, BECAUSE I SAY SO."

Now, you might say that in this particular example, nothing bad would happen at Maxperson's table. But you're not there- you don't know, and I don't know. Maybe his other players/DM would be annoyed? Maybe they have an informal understanding of what a Barbarian "is," and this would violate their understanding? Different strokes, and all that.

Again, your go to is bad behavior. No one is suggesting that you indulge players to the detriment of the entire group -- and letting a player play a street urchin flavored barbarian class doesn't abuse other players like your example PC killer to any degree. All of this discussion assumes that the social contract is healthy, so please stop bringing up counterpoints about broken contracts abused by jerks -- it doesn't make any point other than 'don't play with jerks.'

lowkey13 · Sep 13, 2018

*Deleted by user*

Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Warpiglet

Adventurer

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

lowkey13

Guest

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

shadowoflameth

Adventurer

smbakeresq

Explorer

smbakeresq

Explorer

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

lowkey13

Guest

Similar Threads