Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Xetheral]

Barbarians come from uncivilized areas, not inside of them. Let's look closer at your street urchin and the barbarian class. These abilities are nonsensical for such a person:unarmored defense, fast movement, brutal critical, indomitable might, and primal champion. That's the problem with re-fluffing classes into something completely different. There are usually abilities that don't fit.

Just to confirm, you're using "Barbarians come from uncivilized areas" as your definition of which Barbarian class fluff is essential and which Barbarian class fluff can be ignored without special permission? Do you have a particular citation for that? It's definitely not listed in the PHB as being more important than any of the other class fluff, nor does it closely match any of the definitions of the word "barbarian" I'm seeing (mostly historical earth definitions, implying a current state of being uncivilized, or implying a relative judgement on the value of other cultures.) How are your players supposed to know that's the definition you're using in order to know that at your table, moving to and living in city is fine for a barbarian, but they can't have been born there?

And I see absolutely nothing inappropriate for a feral street urchin about any of the Barbarian features you listed. Surviving childhood on one's own in the underbelly of a major metropolis could easily be a harsher and more-violent existance than being raised by an isolated tribe or joning a group of dwarven berserkers.

 

[Maxperson]

And I see absolutely nothing inappropriate for a feral street urchin about any of the Barbarian features you listed. Surviving childhood on one's own in the underbelly of a major metropolis could easily be a harsher and more-violent existance than being raised by an isolated tribe or joning a group of dwarven berserkers.

Street urchins would overthrow the city if they were that incredible. All it would take is one to become that powerful and they'd all be hunted down and executed.

Urchin barbarian: "We are stronger than the city guard! We are stronger than the army! We can pull down the king and his protectors! We are street urchins!!!"

 

[Arial Black]

Street urchins would overthrow the city if they were that incredible. All it would take is one to become that powerful and they'd all be hunted down and executed.

Urchin barbarian: "We are stronger than the city guard! We are stronger than the army! We can pull down the king and his protectors! We are street urchins!!!"

Not every feral child will have the mechanical abilities of the barbarian character class. Few will. But it can be a valid explanation of those abilities.

Come to think of it, not every person from an in-game barbarian culture has levels in the metagame character class! In fact, the Outlander background is not forced upon barbarian class PCs, nor is that background forbidden to PCs without levels in the barbarian class!

In short, the mechanics of this or any other class (the rules) is divorced from any in-game culture (the fluff). You can use them together for your PC if you want; you want your PC barbarian to have the Outlander background? More power to you! But it is not mandatory that PCs with levels of barbarian are culturally barbaric, any more than rogue/thieves are compelled to steal.

 

[Arial Black]

RE the bold - this seems to be saying (now) that as Gm you can just decide their backstory is not real and actually something else entirely happened?

So, your whole wolfy sex civie barbarian thing means nothing cuz as Gm i can decide "not really" and by the end of session one reveal a backstory explanation for your abilities that i prefer?

As long as i let you the player think it has been accepted until game time, we are good as then in story the "secret reveal" comes out and your absolute right to fluff you want is trumped by my absolute right to just change that into what i want?

Once the game starts, the sequence of events is up to the DM. Frequently in fiction, the protagonist discovers something new about themselves, or finds out that what they believed to be the case turned out not to be the case after all.

My werewolf-inspired civilised barbarian began knowing a little about the circumstances of his conception, but neither he nor his family know anything about the original werewolf being an agent of The Fiend.

I, the player, did know that. But even I don't know everything about that Fiend. My expectation was the the DM could, if he wanted to, further explore that aspect of my background. It was also possible that he had no interest in doing so. Either would be okay, because this IS the DM's purview!

As it turns out, both my PC and me discovered something new about the Fiend a couple of sessions ago (level 8) by a magical fey NPC trading memories for knowledge. Yeah, it was weird but cool; all the PCs had the chance to make such trades.

 

[Arial Black]

No. Not at all.

I am saying that we have seen plenty of times where in point buy supers **certain types of players** feel entitled to insist they can work around the campaigns established tone and intended style (soft restrictions) by assuming they can invent an alien race with only abilities they want and every ability they want all tied into a nice neat package and wrapped with a bow.

The part of the post you just ignored (of course) was the term "tightly themed."

Ah! I misunderstood the 'tightly themed' part of your original post. I thought 'tightly themed' was referring to the PC's power set being 'tightly themed', and couldn't understand why you thought this was a bad thing! I thought you were suggesting that the player is somehow out of order for spending his build points on powers of his own choosing.

It turns out that you meant that your campaign was 'tightly themed'!

Fine. I've already posted, numerous times, that the player must make a PC according to both the rules of the game AND the parameters of the campaign. If the DM says before hero creation that this is a street-level, gritty campaign and create appropriate heroes, the the DM is well within his rights to refuse Kal El.

Just like my DM could refuse Cyber Ninja on the grounds that there is no cyberware in his fantasy setting, or refuse the werewolf angle if there are no werewolves in his world.

 

[Arial Black]

Then, you have not bought into the campaign and setting that the DM is running and should not play. The GMs and players whom I have known over the year would wish you well and let you go on your way. The GMs would listen to you and might accept it depending upon the fluff in question. They might recommend some changes or alternatives to conform to the campaign world and system. Then again, they might outright refuse (with or without an explanation that you might consider valid (including that they just did not care to include the idea in the campaign). However, if they decided no, that would be the end of the discussion and the players would back the GM, because the GM is viewed in charge of the campaign and setting (edit: and, even in 5e, it is stated in the Basic Set that the GM is the "ultimate" authority "on the campaign and its setting").

Now, depending on the system, the player's request may receive better acceptance (e.g. Fate), but the GM still has he ability to override an element introduced by the player.

Of course the DM can veto any player-introduced element; although pre-vetoing ANY PC which includes a player-introduced element would lead to no game because EVERY backstory includes people, places and/or events in the DM's world.

However, even though the DM can always veto, the player has the last word in the sense that the player can refuse to play any DM suggestion.

If the DM says no to part of the player's concept, then they will say what it is they object to, and why. That allows the player to either adjust their PC, OR the player puts that concept to one side and creates a different one.

To take a deliberately stupid example to emphasise the point, imagine that when I presented my part-werewolf barbarian the DM said no, it MUST be part frog or I won't allow it! He has the authority to say that. But I have the authority to say that there's no way I'm playing a frog person, so I'll have to put my concept to one side and think of a new concept.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

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.

 

[TwoSix]

Street urchins would overthrow the city if they were that incredible. All it would take is one to become that powerful and they'd all be hunted down and executed.

Urchin barbarian: "We are stronger than the city guard! We are stronger than the army! We can pull down the king and his protectors! We are street urchins!!!"

Your street urchin barbarian isn't one of a type, his special abilities are unique to that character. That's one of many reasons I think it's foolish to act like the concept of classes actually exist within the fiction.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[5ekyu]

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.

If you have a GM with such an intention, there are an infinity of other ways to remove player agency than that tho.

The slavering GM is the problem, not a GM having a tool they can use in the game or having in a campaign npc ivinities able to say "no" when characters insist they be given the power to raise the dead after crapping all over the divines temple.

I doubt this was what the devs whispered to you their intent was in whatever place they imparted the rest of that wisdom.

"Dang, it. Used all my flame strikes burning down Odin's temples. Better rest then tell old one eye to load me back up again."