Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

Yes. As said in another thread by Obliza:

“Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”

Until your build comes together other players are carrying you. If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.

"Until your build comes together other players are carrying you. "

That seems to be implying a power balance problem?

 

[Satyrn]

Yes. As said in another thread by Obliza:

“Roleplaying with 4 players who dip Hexblade can be tiresome. This is also true for the plate wearing fighter who sits in the back with a handcrossbow. There is merit to nerfing hex-blade,CBX,GWM,SS.”

Until your build comes together other players are carrying you. If everyone does the same it’s just plain boring.

That sounds like the common complaint about early-edition wizards.


At least the multiclass characters don't absolutely dominate the fighters once their build does come together.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Are the players of rapier-wielding Dex barbs breaking the rules? Would the appearance of a Dex barb cause that PC to be thrown out of the game because other players found the concept 'upsetting'?

Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.

So, the game adding more options = the game taking away options?

Since at least AD&D 1E, there's been a problem with some classes being over-defined and others being under-defined, in terms of conceptual narrative space. In the Basic game, whether you want to play an acrobat or an assassin, you can do that as a Thief. If you're playing AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, your acrobat should probably be a Thief-Acrobat and your assassin should really probably be an Assassin.

The same general problem got much worse under 3E, and I'm not just talking about the Samurai class which took the last remaining archetype from the Fighter. It became a major issue if you were using all of the supplements (as many 3E fans were inclined to do), that any cool thing you might want to do was locked behind some feat chain somewhere. If you were just using the PHB, you could try and fire an arrow in such a way as to pin someone to a wall; if you were using all of the supplements, then there was a specific feat chain for that maneuver, which meant you couldn't do it unless you planned it in advance and sacrificed your basic competency in order to pursue that feat.

So yes, adding more options does equate to the game taking away options. It's the exact same reason why I would rather play a game that had twelve skills, instead of a game with 400 skills.

 

[5ekyu]

Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.

Since at least AD&D 1E, there's been a problem with some classes being over-defined and others being under-defined, in terms of conceptual narrative space. In the Basic game, whether you want to play an acrobat or an assassin, you can do that as a Thief. If you're playing AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, your acrobat should probably be a Thief-Acrobat and your assassin should really probably be an Assassin.

The same general problem got much worse under 3E, and I'm not just talking about the Samurai class which took the last remaining archetype from the Fighter. It became a major issue if you were using all of the supplements (as many 3E fans were inclined to do), that any cool thing you might want to do was locked behind some feat chain somewhere. If you were just using the PHB, you could try and fire an arrow in such a way as to pin someone to a wall; if you were using all of the supplements, then there was a specific feat chain for that maneuver, which meant you couldn't do it unless you planned it in advance and sacrificed your basic competency in order to pursue that feat.

So yes, adding more options does equate to the game taking away options. It's the exact same reason why I would rather play a game that had twelve skills, instead of a game with 400 skills.

The archer pin etc...

A thief class can have prof with pick locks, but just because its class feature doesn't mean its locked out of everybody else.

Often different gms will interpret the difference but it's not all that unusual for gm to allow "normal" maneuvers to be done even if better options apply to class.

In other words, rules provide frameworks that tie things together into a comprehensive fashion... but the gm can allow what he sees as reasonable regardless.

Lack of rules is not free than having rules you can choose to use or not. It just puts more on the GM for normal stuff.

The degree of consistency from ruling to ruling is up to the group.

---

That said I prefer a less than 400 skills too. At that point you have moved well into false precision - more complexity than needed given the fudgey elements involved. It's like weighing the salt to the 1000th of a gram and then adding a pinch of garlic.

 

[Maxperson]

Adventurers start at whatever age that player writes on their character sheet at beginning of play.

And in playing for more than 30 years with more than a hundred different players, I've seen that the overwhelming majority start young. Late teens to early 20's.

Remember that this discussion is about a clash of concepts between players within the game rules set by the DM. A DM would be within their authority to lay down the law about what sort of characters are allowed to use what classes, or what backgrounds must represent. What people have been arguing with you about is that a player shouldn't have the ability to tell another player that they can't play their concept due to the player's preferences.

No, people have been talking about a street fighting character that uses the class mechanics of the barbarian class, and the 'Street Urchin' background as given in the PHB.
Any implication that this must mean that they spent time in an outlander culture, or that they were a weak and malnourished child right up to the point of becoming an adventuring PC are yours and yours alone.

A clash of concepts between players may have been what the discussion started with, but it evolved and has been about DM and player for pages now.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

A thief class can have prof with pick locks, but just because its class feature doesn't mean its locked out of everybody else.

I would actually be quite curious to hear how other AD&D groups handled the possibility of someone attempting to pick a lock if they didn't have that class feature, especially given how low the thief charts started out.

Lack of rules is not freer than having rules you can choose to use or not. It just puts more on the GM for normal stuff.

I would argue that, if you can choose to not use a rule, then it isn't really a rule. You can have rules for naval combat (as an example), but if those rules aren't actually used to resolve naval combat when the situation arises, then they weren't really the rules for naval combat.

The real rules of the game are whichever rules are actually​ used to resolve things.

 

[Maxperson]

I would actually be quite curious to hear how other AD&D groups handled the possibility of someone attempting to pick a lock if they didn't have that class feature, especially given how low the thief charts started out.

We didn't allow it. If you didn't have a thief to pick the lock, or the thief failed, there were other ways to get it open. Knock, bashing, fireball, a key, etc.

 

[5ekyu]

I would actually be quite curious to hear how other AD&D groups handled the possibility of someone attempting to pick a lock if they didn't have that class feature, especially given how low the thief charts started out.

I would argue that, if you can choose to not use a rule, then it isn't really a rule. You can have rules for naval combat (as an example), but if those rules aren't actually used to resolve naval combat when the situation arises, then they weren't really the rules for naval combat.

The real rules of the game are whichever rules are actually​ used to resolve things.

So when one says "If you were just using the PHB, you could try and fire an arrow in such a way as to pin someone to a wall; if you were using all of the supplements, then there was a specific feat chain for that maneuver, which meant you couldn't do it unless you planned it in advance and sacrificed your basic competency in order to pursue that feat."

One is not actually making a point about how published rules renove this or reduce that but simple observing that sometimes GMs choose rules one maybe doesnt like?

Well obviously thats true.

If a gm chooses to use feat tree to represent pin shots or class only,lock downs for routine tasks - they do indeed risk not having all players overjoyed at that decision.

That applies whether that core bookhas 12 rules or 100.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Given that the description of a class is just as immutable a rule as its mechanics - which is to say, it isn't at all, but all changes are subject to DM discretion and approval - it is just as much against the rules for a barbarian to focus on a weapon inappropriate to their upbringing as it would be for them to wear armor they weren't proficient in. That is to say, you should definitely talk to your DM about it, because it's very weird.

I've not heard of a group who take that attitude before. How much wiggle room outside of the flavour text does your group allow?

I think pretty much all my experience has been considerably different: outside of the "Will this character concept fit in your world?" you might ask the DM, they've never really assumed that level of control.
Could you possibly give a page reference for the rules about what weapons are appropriate for what upbringings? Outside of the proficiency rules, I can't recall any. By "upbringing", do you mean backgrounds? Are they in that section?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think you may be misunderstanding the disagreement.

OK. In what way?