Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

lowkey13 said:

Finally, Dragon Magazine was super common, as well as 3rd Party Supplements (the Compleat Alchemist! for example). So you often had tables incorporating these flourishes.

...and that's before homebrew. Again, I am sure that there were some tables, somewhere, playing "by the rules" but I'd be hard pressed to remember them.

Click to expand...

Oh, most definitely. When I ran, in addition to house rules, I had included some material from Dragon Magazine and some third party stuff from Mayfair games. If I had been aware of the Compleat books from Bard Games back in the day, I would have included plenty of material from those too. However, I always recognized that I was not playing using only official rules and would be upfront with potential players regarding this, because I knew a few people whom would only use official material.

Don't forget the frequency of using Arms Law from Rolemaster as critical hit tables! Always an interesting amalgam there...

Grognerd said:

Don't forget the frequency of using Arms Law from Rolemaster as critical hit tables! Always an interesting amalgam there...

Click to expand...

Especially once RM actually came together as its own system. I still prefer it to D&D to this day, but player availability in my area is almost nil.

Grognerd said:

Don't forget the frequency of using Arms Law from Rolemaster as critical hit tables! Always an interesting amalgam there...

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I did that too!

Arial Black said:

The details were always there. They didn't evolve here in this forum. And you have yet to show how this fluff takes agency away from the DM.

Click to expand...

When I create a new setting, one of the very first questions that I answer involves the fundamental nature of magic. And one of my typical rules for magic is that it can only be meaningfully directed by an intelligent force. If lycanthropy is a thing in such a world (which is a decision that comes up much later in the process), then it's the result of a directed curse with a very specific intent. The idea that such a curse could be diluted through normal biological processes might be hard to reconcile with that. It would be like trying to copy a computer program that was still in the process of downloading; instead of getting a partially-functional program, it's simply not going to compile.

And the thing is, I've been working on my campaign setting for at least a month, before I even think about advertising to find some players. If one of those players insists on playing a character that would force me to go back to the start and re-evaluate the fundamental nature of magic, then kicking out that player is a better solution for the entire group than putting the campaign on hold for a week while I re-evaluate the whole chain of causality - especially since the result would be a setting that I'm not terribly excited about running.

(Alternatively, I may have decided that magic is a chaotic and unpredictable force of nature, so unique cases happen all the time. In that case, the character would fit right in.)

Arial Black said:

Lines of demarcation. The players get their PCs, the DM gets literally EVERYTHING ELSE. What, you want my PC too? Hands off!

Click to expand...

As the DM, I have created an entire world for you to play in. There are literally an infinite number of characters that you could make, who would fit into that world. Why would you then insist on playing something outside of that? Why, when I tell you that the setting is pseudo-Medieval Europe, would you insist on playing a displaced cyber-ninja?

Saelorn said:

As the DM, I have created an entire world for you to play in. There are literally an infinite number of characters that you could make, who would fit into that world. Why would you then insist on playing something outside of that? Why, when I tell you that the setting is pseudo-Medieval Europe, would you insist on playing a displaced cyber-ninja?

Click to expand...

Yes to this.

This seems just like the base expectation for any campaign. DM - with some player input ideally - sets the parameters at session 0 for the campaign before the players even think about their initial characters. That's not the DM messing with PCs or stepping over the line. That's the DM setting some ground rules.

I've been keeping it crystal clear at our tables by saying Classes and Races need to be picked from official WotC books. That's plenty for a player to work with. If a DM wanted to exclude elves or warlocks or SCAG or whatever for the campaign, that's fine, too. That's how the campaign is going to roll/role. If a player REALLY REALLY wants that cyber-ninja, I'm sure there's another table out there where it would work.

DM Dave1 said:

I've been keeping it crystal clear at our tables by saying Classes and Races need to be picked from official WotC books. That's plenty for a player to work with. If a DM wanted to exclude elves or warlocks or SCAG or whatever for the campaign, that's fine, too. That's how the campaign is going to roll/role. If a player REALLY REALLY wants that cyber-ninja, I'm sure there's another table out there where it would work.

Click to expand...

Ok, so how would you handle [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s "civilized" barbarian? Using a Soldier and Barbarian class at 1st level from the PHB? But he's saying his Barbarian has rage not because of some uncivilized/untamed ties with nature or spirits or totems, but that because his noble father werewolved mid-conception?

Totally core PHB class and background. Not a "cyber-ninja".

Just curious!

Salthorae said:

Ok, so how would you handle @Arial Black's "civilized" barbarian? Using a Soldier and Barbarian class at 1st level from the PHB? But he's saying his Barbarian has rage not because of some uncivilized/untamed ties with nature or spirits or totems, but that because his noble father werewolved mid-conception?

Totally core PHB class and background. Not a "cyber-ninja".

Just curious!

Click to expand...

That's not a Barbarian. That's a unique character quirk, which just happens to have the same mechanical features as the barbarian class.

Likewise, a cyber-ninja wouldn't fit the setting, even if it used the same mechanics as the Bard. The objection was never about the mechanics; it was always about the fluff, and too extreme of liberties being taken with assigning fluff to the mechanics.

Saelorn said:

That's not a Barbarian. That's a unique character quirk, which just happens to have the same mechanical features as the barbarian class.

Likewise, a cyber-ninja wouldn't fit the setting, even if it used the same mechanics as the Bard. The objection was never about the mechanics; it was always about the fluff, and too extreme of liberties being taken with assigning fluff to the mechanics.

Click to expand...

We are well aware of your view of Arial Black's character concept, you have repeated them consistently and often through this whole thread. I was asking a newer arrival to the discussion [MENTION=6921763]DM Dave1[/MENTION] their view.

As to your post. A "cyber-ninja" has no mechanical analogy in D&D 5e rules because there is no "cyber", so it's kind of a straw-man, vs. "I want a character who does more damage and takes less damage when they are enraged in combat" which is very clearly a barbarian mechanical set. Yes, it's not a "Barbarian tribes person from the tundra", but it is a "barbarian" mechanically...which is a core class and so should be allowed in any game that wholly allows the core books as stated by DM Dave1 in their post.

Salthorae said:

We are well aware of your view of Arial Black's character concept, you have repeated them consistently and often through this whole thread. I was asking a newer arrival to the discussion @DM Dave1 their view.

As to your post. A "cyber-ninja" has no mechanical analogy in D&D 5e rules because there is no "cyber", so it's kind of a straw-man, vs. "I want a character who does more damage and takes less damage when they are enraged in combat" which is very clearly a barbarian mechanical set. Yes, it's not a "Barbarian tribes person from the tundra", but it is a "barbarian" mechanically...which is a core class and so should be allowed in any game that wholly allows the core books as stated by DM Dave1 in their post.

Click to expand...

I’d allow the “refluffed” Barbarian if that is going to be fun for the player. As long as it follows the mechanics outlined in the official books and the story makes some semblance of sense in a fantasy setting, why not? If they think it will get them some Lycanthrope abilities later, however, they might be somewhat disappointed.