Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

So, that whole "whats best for the group character selection always seemed to me to be rather fluid and depends on the campaign, the setting and the group.

Sure. I would say fluidity is the key; don't walk into Session Zero (whether that be at the table, or by email, or however else you organize your games) with a particular vision or idea of what your character or the game should be. Walk in with 10 ideas, and hopefully you leave with 10 new ideas and ways to make a concept you like that will facilitate the play style of the game.

 

[5ekyu]

Clearly this is absurd and a false comparison. And dollar to doughnuts, you probably are aware of this.

I use training for power more often to get power than some fellows is not a magic carrot by any stretch. If you see it as equivalent I am not sure what to say. Its no longer a reasonable debate on any level.

I did not state it was an equivalent to your training whatsamagoo.

it is simply not true that PC fluff doesn't call into question the rest of the world. A group can choose t ignore it... can ignore whatever amount of continuity they want. it can be done... nobody objects to that... but the strong smear being put forth of "but why would you..." kind of stuff begs the question.

let me put it another way - if something happened that only ever and can play ever happen to your PC and nobody else ever can have it happen again - then by DEFINITION you are building a PC that does not fit the setting. bringing in a character which does not fit the setting should be something a player and Gm can discuss without the Gm being thrown under the "if you dont let me you arent a good gm" bus or demanded to go thru a lot of hoops to explain why in the world his world is so fragile and all that jazz.

"this character does not fit the setting by your own statement of its completely unique nature." should be sufficient.




the post i made and the carrot was simply a direct example case to rebut this statement made below...

"But then I question why they would necessarily want to do that. I argue that if it is about the PC, it really cannot alter the world much if the PC is an exception and if the DM desires, the only exception."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Clearly this is absurd and a false comparison. And dollar to doughnuts, you probably are aware of this.

I use training for power more often to get power than some fellows is not a magic carrot by any stretch. If you see it as equivalent I am not sure what to say. Its no longer a reasonable debate on any level.

It's an argument to absurdity, sure, but the underlying point is valid. If some warlocks or clerics can do whatever they want without risk of losing their powers, but other warlocks and clerics have to follow lots of rules and restrictions in order to keep their powers, then anyone in the latter camp is kind of a chump by comparison.

I'm not saying that a player can't have a reasonable interpretation of what a class description is saying, and have it vary in significant ways from the reasonable interpretation that their DM has; but there are limits on what can be reconciled, even if everyone is acting in good faith. And that limit is going to vary from person to person, but ultimately it's the DM's call as to whether it makes sense for that to be a thing in their world or not.

 

[5ekyu]

It's an argument to absurdity, sure, but the underlying point is valid. If some warlocks or clerics can do whatever they want without risk of losing their powers, but other warlocks and clerics have to follow lots of rules and restrictions in order to keep their powers, then anyone in the latter camp is kind of a chump by comparison.

I'm not saying that a player can't have a reasonable interpretation of what a class description is saying, and have it vary in significant ways from the reasonable interpretation that their DM has; but there are limits on what can be reconciled, even if everyone is acting in good faith. And that limit is going to vary from person to person, but ultimately it's the DM's call as to whether it makes sense for that to be a thing in their world or not.

yup

and they do say carrots can help you see more clearly.

 

[Warpiglet]

It's an argument to absurdity, sure, but the underlying point is valid. If some warlocks or clerics can do whatever they want without risk of losing their powers, but other warlocks and clerics have to follow lots of rules and restrictions in order to keep their powers, then anyone in the latter camp is kind of a chump by comparison.

I'm not saying that a player can't have a reasonable interpretation of what a class description is saying, and have it vary in significant ways from the reasonable interpretation that their DM has; but there are limits on what can be reconciled, even if everyone is acting in good faith. And that limit is going to vary from person to person, but ultimately it's the DM's call as to whether it makes sense for that to be a thing in their world or not.

Some classes are more powerful than warlocks. Other class is more powerful than X. The world breaks because some people make "suboptimal" chump choices. Again, not buying world collapse over some people (a single PC?) getting a better deal. At all.

If you say this exception rips the fabric of your reality, I suggest a different material

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Some classes are more powerful than warlocks. Other class is more powerful than X. The world breaks because some people make "suboptimal" chump choices. Again, not buying world collapse over some people (a single PC?) getting a better deal. At all.

If you say this exception rips the fabric of your reality, I suggest a different material

It's entirely a matter of degree, as to what sort of discrepancy a given DM is willing to tolerate, but the only real point here is that it's the DM's call. If a player invents new fluff for their character, and the DM isn't cool with it, then the player needs to respect that decision.

 

[Warpiglet]

It's entirely a matter of degree, as to what sort of discrepancy a given DM is willing to tolerate, but the only real point here is that it's the DM's call. If a player invents new fluff for their character, and the DM isn't cool with it, then the player needs to respect that decision.

OK then. It is by degree. If it is somewhat reasonable, and the player likes it, I am going to say yes, too. People vary of course in what they think is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to occasionally kill a sacred cow for the fun of a player and am not worried that it will have too much of a domino effect in my setting. Generally.

 

[Mistwell]

"Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?"

Nobody is saying a good Gm couldn't.
Nobody at all.
At least, nobody i have seen here on this thread.

The implied "if you say no your not a good GM" is just a slant at dismissing the other side.

As i and quite a few others have said already in this thread time and time again, we say yes a lot, we allow these things a lot, we allow lots and lots and lots of new backstories and new clever player stuff all the time.

We really, if you read even a decent number of posts really do not need you to encourage us to try what we have already been doing for years, and in some cases, decades.

A core issue at discussion here is "does a Gm have to" and there doesn't really seem to be any disagreement on "can a gm include these kinds of things" at all - except when it gets paired with "good gm" or "campaign so fragile" and so on.

Gms can allow lots of backstory and fluf and based on what i have read here most if not all of the GMs objecting to some of the "hands off must allow" examples do allow and include them a lot.

So, my deepest appreciation for you encouraging me to just try... to maybe say yes unless i have a compelling reason to say no - even though i have stated it over and over thru the thread and of course its not at all condescending of you to phrase it this way with "good gm" thrown in for good measure.

You claim I implied a lot that I didn't. I'd suggest you're falsely inferring a lot of intent that isn't there. I don't even know where you're getting the "campaign so fragile" context from but it sure isn't anything I've posted. And there is no implication that a "if you can't do it then you're not a good DM". What I said, and what I meant, is that you ARE a good DM and so I bet you CAN do it. That's not saying that if you can't do it you must not be a good DM. You have to go a long way to infer bad motives (unnecessarily) to ever find a scintilla of a hint of anything like that in anything I wrote.

If you're seeing condescension, perhaps you might consider the possibility it's just you reading it looking for that tone when it's not present? For example, you mention what "you" have said throughout the thread as if all of my comments were directed at "you" when my comment wasn't even TO you, you just jumped in! Somehow you made my comment to LowKey13 about you, and then accused others of being condescending?

 

[Grognerd]

You claim I implied a lot that I didn't. I'd suggest you're falsely inferring a lot of intent that isn't there. ...
If you're seeing condescension, perhaps you might consider the possibility it's just you reading it looking for that tone when it's not present? For example, you mention what "you" have said throughout the thread as if all of my comments were directed at "you" when my comment wasn't even TO you, you just jumped in! Somehow you made my comment to LowKey13 about you, and then accused others of being condescending?

I wouldn't worry too much Mistwell. He seems to do that, based on the fact that he randomly blocked me for... who knows, since to the best of my knowledge I haven't ever directly replied to him about anything. Some people just are going to be offended. Their loss.