Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Kobold Boots]

Player: I'm going to play a fighter this time.

DM: It's unreasonable to bring such a character to me with the expectation it will be allowed! Bloody player entitlement! Players picking their own characters! Whatever next!

As with most things there's a level of detail, or lack thereof where any statement used breaks down. I think it's clear that that level of detail is not what Saelorn was referring to.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[5ekyu]

Player: I'm going to play a fighter this time.

DM: It's unreasonable to bring such a character to me with the expectation it will be allowed! Bloody player entitlement! Players picking their own characters! Whatever next!

Hmmm... comparing that to the post it was directed at warlock pally multi-class...

it almost seems as if one person/poster was referencing a build that used an optional rule and the other was referencing a core one in juxtaposition to it.

That seems odd?

But to the point
YES "some GMs IRl and here may look at multi-classing and yell ban ban ban!
YES some GMS may look at multi-classing warlock and pally and yell ban ban ban!
YES some Gms may look at a player who wants to multi-class warlock and pally and see a player who is just power gaming and see no possibility worth mentioning of a good story path.
YES other Gms like me may see it as perfectly fine - given the right story and background and subject it to the same scrutiny of story that other multi-class are.

Which sort of starts to skethc in a line where a player should perhaps not feel its an affront to their ***PLAYER AGENCY THUNDEROUS RIGHT OF DOOM*** to look at optional rules (multi-classing) and classes where there are lotsa of statements about things to work thru with GM as part of creation and especially very close links to an NPC agency and feel entitled to have it all work out the way they want and the other "agency" to have basically little more than a toothless sham of a position of influence.

Either side of a collaboration can be a jerk, after all.




Some

 

[Sadras]

Player: I'm going to play a fighter this time.

DM: It's unreasonable to bring such a character to me with the expectation it will be allowed! Bloody player entitlement! Players picking their own characters! Whatever next!

Hmmm... comparing that to the post it was directed at warlock pally multi-class...

it almost seems as if one person/poster was referencing a build that used an optional rule and the other was referencing a core one in juxtaposition to it.

That seems odd?

I do not think it is THAT odd... I do not allow monks in my campaign. Lowkey probably doesn't allow paladins.
I guess if we are accepting of DMs disallowing classes, races, spells...etc in their campaigns, then it would be equally fair to allow DMs to disallow MCing or particular MCing in their games.

I'm playing devil's advocate in this conversation, but this position does make sense. I mean I cannot fault a DM from disallowing a pallock when I myself place various limits on character creation within my own campaign.

 

[5ekyu]

I do not think it is THAT odd... I do not allow monks in my campaign. Lowkey probably doesn't allow paladins.
I guess if we are accepting of DMs disallowing classes, races, spells...etc in their campaigns, then it would be equally fair to allow DMs to disallow MCing or particular MCing in their games.

I'm playing devil's advocate in this conversation, but this position does make sense. I mean I cannot fault a DM from disallowing a pallock when I myself place various limits on character creation within my own campaign.

What i found odd tho (unclear apparently) was the immediate juxtaposition of disallowing an expressly optional element and disallowing a core element to try and use that juxtaposition to paint the former with the latter.

Odd was the ommission of consideration of optional per the rules vs core per the rules.

Its not odd at all for groups tp limit and/or expand the elements of the system to those that fit the setting, those that work with the setting and those that serve the game they want to play.

But truthfully, in fact, its not odd really for some to ignore what doesnt help your argument... so point taken

 

[Sadras]

What i found odd tho (unclear apparently) was the immediate juxtaposition of disallowing an expressly optional element and disallowing a core element to try and use that juxtaposition to paint the former with the latter.

Odd was the ommission of consideration of optional per the rules vs core per the rules.

True, but if the DM allows MC but disallows a pallock, then the juxtaposition made by @Arial Black stands. I could be mistaken, but that is what it seemed like in [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s post - he/she was referring to a particular MC being disallowed.

 

[5ekyu]

True, but if the DM allows MC but disallows a pallock, then the juxtaposition made by @Arial Black stands. I could be mistaken, but that is what it seemed like in [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s post - he/she was referring to a particular MC being disallowed.

So its not the utter demise ofvplayer agency to say "no multi-classing" but it is an assault on reason to say "almost all multi-classing is ok but these are not"?

Where in RAW does it say an optional rule must be used in toto or not at all as opposed to being... optional?

I would think the greater assault on whatever counts for player agency these days would be the one that gave you the least choices.

Clearly, i am just confused.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So its not the utter demise of player agency to say "no multi-classing" but it is an assault on reason to say "almost all multi-classing is ok but these are not"?

Where in RAW does it say an optional rule must be used in toto or not at all as opposed to being... optional?

I can't find the exact quote right now, but it's definitely in the rules that the DM can choose to allow or disallow any game element, whether it's explicitly tagged as optional or not. If your DM doesn't like gnomes, then they can choose to not allow them in their game. The same is true for humans, fighters, the Resilient feat, or multiclassing for paladins.

Classes and races are not optional - you have to have something in the game that correlates to class, and something that serves as a race, in order for the game mechanics to work - but any individual class or race is optional. Feats are optional, and any individual feat is also optional.

Before any DM complains about GWM being overpowered (or non-sensical, as the case may be), they should realize that they explicitly chose to double-unlock that because they intentionally wanted it as part of the game. There is no obligation to allow feats in the first place, and even if they wanted to add that option, there was no obligation to allow GWM.

The same is true of multi-classing a paladin with a warlock. That is not a part of your game world unless you explicitly choose for it to be, and any player who says otherwise can jump in a lake.

 

[Hussar]

Well we had 1 newbie, 1 power gamer who sucks at power gaming (I mean like he makes the worst characters it is almost a joke) and 2 I would say average players... I was trying to cut my power by multi classing. By accident I synergyed a pretty powerful character.

My problem isn't "Hey all multi class characters are powerful" it's "Multi class rules make it easier to make more or less powerful characters than you mean to"

I spent years thinking High level spells were the powergame. As such my default answer was to play a single class spell caster (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard) as tier one power gaming. The idea of spreading out class levels delaying higher level spells known (and spell slots if not a main caster) being a hit to your power seemed obvius to me. The problem was I also assumed the GM was more or less right with how high we were going... 16-18th level. So I deversafied, and made a much better low level character then I thought I would.

You're missing my point. You made a character that looks pretty powerful in comparison to the other PC's. Compared to baseline characters though, yes, this is a very weak character. IOW, the issue isn't multiclassing, it's that you are setting a very low baseline. You talk about dealing the most damage in a group where no one has multiple attacks. Well, again, that's not a mechanics issue. That's an issue where you happened to choose the most damaging of what is arguably the least damaging combinations of classes.

I look at it this way. My 5th level party had no core-casters. None. They were banned. No classes with a cantrip. So, everyone had multiple attacks. Many of the characters multiclassed. Yet, for all the shenanigans, everyone was pretty much par for damage - about 20-30 points of damage per character per round, from 5th to 9th level. Pretty much like clockwork. Didn't matter that half the characters were multiclassed and half were single classed. Everyone was pretty close to even.

 

[SolidPlatonic]

I'm late to this thread and most of this has been rehashed so YMMV, I am just saying what I and the players I play with would like.

I am DMing a game where I didn't allow multiclassing and feats. It worked out really well and I made sure the players got magic items, magical runes (think Dragon Marks from Eberron), and non-combat cool stuff so they felt like they were progressing their characters how they wanted.

So it is quite possible to play without the OPTIONAL rules, and a DM isn't limiting player agency if they do so.

That said, if I were to do it again I would do the following:

a) Allow any multiclass that doesn't MC two CHA-based spellcaster classes. This is not because I don't think a pally-warlock could exist, but rather because D&D 5e MCing does a poor job of thinking through the combinations of these classes.

b) I would get rid of Great Weapon Master, Sentinel, and Sharpshooter feats and replace them with slightly redesigned feats. I think these three feats are poorly designed, but fighters deserve some way of getting some combat option feats.

c) No coffeelocks

It would be the absolutely lighest touch to get rid of 99% of the abuses I've seen on various boards, but allow the most flexibility for players.

Again, YMMV.