Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[TwoSix]

So, yeah, I've never had any of these issues because my players and I talk to each other with respect and understanding and try to have fun, instead of trumping each other with power plays (IT'S MAH FLUFF ... NOT, ITS MAY SETTING). It's all good, though.

Yea, I doubt most groups have any real issues here, because you're usually playing with friends and people go along to get along (which I think is the best approach, unless you feel your game is getting stale and might benefit from a shake up.)

I think the real benefit to these threads is realizing that there's a wide range of preferences in how to roleplay, and encountering a player with wildly different preferences from yours doesn't mean that either of you is an a**hole. Someday in the future, whether that be at or a con or if you invite a new player into the group, that information just might stop a conflict from starting. I absolutely think I'm a better player and DM now than I was 10 years ago from reading threads like these.

The other important point for this thread is if your player wants to multiclass a thri-kreen katana, you as a DM have no choice but to allow it.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Wha...what? Why would you ever use white dragon stats for a giant spider when you HAVE giant spider stats? No one is "adding weird new stuff to a world" here. We're not talking about inventing the wheel either. We're talking about a character who wants to play a city raised Barbarian with the Soldier background. He just wrote a story to explain how his city raised barbarian has the same mechanical abilities as a raging tribal warrior. You're thinking about this too hard.

/snip

Apropos of nothing, I recently ran an adventure where I needed a demonically possessed person who gained magical powers because of the possession. So, I used a beholder's stats. Fit perfectly. Took away the anti-magic ray, but, everything else, including the lair actions, fit to a T.

Not sure what the problem is with using a white dragon's stats for a giant spider, if needed.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it is worth pointing out that a clear distinction can and should be made between a PC's backstory and their background. The background of soldier, for example, comes with tangible mechanical benefits as outlined in the PHB. The backstory of the PC is the pure fluff that the player gets to make up and has NO real mechanical benefit (e.g. I was a soldier on the northern front in the Gnoll wars... my company was slaughtered and I escaped and was cared for by an ice Druid... blah blah blah).

In other words, a backstory is just for fun and should not affect rolls at the table. Sure, a player should work with a DM to make sure it all makes sense in the context of the world, but that should be a very low hurdle if the DM has outlined some base expectations (e.g. this is a high fantasy pseudo-Medieval campaign - no gunpowder, no robots, and absolutely no rapiers).

Sure. I think the free reign of players is bit more limited than just being out of genre, though. If a player came to me with a background that included meeting several gods and hanging 5 with them, that would be as out of line as gunpowder and robots. I've never said no to something a reasonable background, unless it happened to run afoul of something they didn't know about, and that has only happened once or twice in the last 10+ years. In those rare instances I've just had to let the player know that something they don't know about is clashing and they've always been happy to drop it.

 

[Maxperson]

I would expand on what @DMDave1 said above. The passage you quoted refers specifically to working with the DM to create a new mechanical benefit for a custom background. It does not in any way state that you need the DM's permission to alter class fluff to, for example, have a Barbarian PC who aspires for their tribe to join civilization rather than viewing civilization as a form of weakness.

Having the rest of your tribe agree with you that civilization is a good thing would require DM buy-in by default, since the other tribe members are NPCs, but a PC's personal opinion of civilization is normally entirely up to the player. If a specific opinion of civilization would somehow create problems for a specific game, the DM can totally ask the player to change it, but, absent such a request, the player is doing nothing wrong by unilaterally determining their character's opinions.

That's not an example of changing class fluff. A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota. The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though. The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background. There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all. To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.

 

[Xetheral]

That's not an example of changing class fluff. A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota. The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though. The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background. There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all. To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.

PHB 46: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness." It's right there on the page, as part of the class fluff. If you're truly going to argue that class fluff is immutable without the DM's permission, then that restriction applies to a barbarian's opinions regarding civilization.

Also, please note that the book very strongly suggests that class fluff is changeable by the player. Consider the following:

PHB 94: "When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength."

PHB 11: "Or you might be interested in an unconventional character, such as a brawny rogue..."

Taken together, these quotes imply that a conventional rogue favors cunning over strength. But the book explicitly says that a player has the option to play something "unconventional", and gives an example diametrically opposed to the rogue class fluff. If players needed DM permission to change the class fluff, why does the second paragraph on character creation suggest an unconventional character that requires changing the class fluff? That seems a little early to be introducing advanced options that require the DM's permission.

 

[Maxperson]

PHB 46: "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness." It's right there on the page, as part of the class fluff. If you're truly going to argue that class fluff is immutable without the DM's permission, then that restriction applies to a barbarian's opinions regarding civilization.

Also, please note that the book very strongly suggests that class fluff is changeable by the player. Consider the following:

PHB 94: "When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength."

PHB 11: "Or you might be interested in an unconventional character, such as a brawny rogue..."

Taken together, these quotes imply that a conventional rogue favors cunning over strength. But the book explicitly says that a player has the option to play something "unconventional", and gives an example diametrically opposed to the rogue class fluff. If players needed DM permission to change the class fluff, why does the second paragraph on character creation suggest an unconventional character that requires changing the class fluff? That seems a little early to be introducing advanced options that require the DM's permission.

Right. That's not what they are talking about, though with fluff alterations to class in this thread. At least not the conversation I'm responding to anyway. The class of barbarian gives these X, Y and Z abilities. That's the barbarian class. It's not an urban warrior class. It's not a muscle mage class. It's the barbarian class.

So go ahead and play an unconventional BARBARIAN. If you want to re-fluff the class into something else entirely, you are going to have to talk to me about it and see if we can come up with something. No guarantees, because ALL of the abilities from 1-20 have to fit the new fluff.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's not an example of changing class fluff. A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota. The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though. The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background. There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all. To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.

Actually, if you read through the Backgrounds section, it basically gives the player fiat power over creating and customizing backgrounds. The only thing you need to consult the DM for is if you want to create a new background feature from scratch.

It's weird, and it conflicts with other ideas presented throughout the rules, but 5E has never claimed to be perfectly consistent or well-organized.

You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.

 

[TwoSix]

That's not an example of changing class fluff. A barbarian PC can aspire to join civilization or not without altering the class fluff one iota. The players have no ability to alter class fluff, though. The rules allow for them to pick a race, pick a class, and then pick a background. There is no ability for a player to alter fluff on anything at all. To do that they need the DM's permission as the DMG makes the DM the final arbiter of all things.

I think the more interesting, and definitely more divisive, question in this thread isn't about authority; it's about expectation. Should a player expect that class fluff is merely a suggestion, and reskinning to fit your concept is the norm, which is normally rejected only if it violates currently standing campaign design? Or should a player expect to play a variation on the tropes within the PHB, expanding beyond them only with careful negotiation with the DM?

If I put that up as a poll question, my guess is it would be 50/50, with maybe a slight lean towards the first option.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, if you read through the Backgrounds section, it basically gives the player fiat power over creating and customizing backgrounds. The only thing you need to consult the DM for is if you want to create a new background feature from scratch.

It's weird, and it conflicts with other ideas presented throughout the rules, but 5E has never claimed to be perfectly consistent or well-organized.

The background changes are pretty much mechanical, though. It allows you to take the soldier/guard background, but swap a skill proficiency to arcana if you were say a guard for an archmage in Halruua(sp). I think that sort of thing is great to leave in the players' hands.

I'm talking about completely changing the fluff of a class from being a Barbarian, to being a Mean Drunken Master or Angry City Guard and having nothing to do with being a barbarian at all. That's not just an unconventional barbarian, it's becoming no barbarian at all.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the more interesting, and definitely more divisive, question in this thread isn't about authority; it's about expectation. Should a player expect that class fluff is merely a suggestion, and reskinning to fit your concept is the norm, which is normally rejected only if it violates currently standing campaign design? Or should a player expect to play a variation on the tropes within the PHB, expanding beyond them only with careful negotiation with the DM?

If I put that up as a poll question, my guess is it would be 50/50, with maybe a slight lean towards the first option.

I think that would depend on whether the people answering started playing the last 10 years, or have played longer than that. The older crowd I think would answer the latter quite a bit more than the former, and vice versa. It might finalize in the 50/50 range, but I think it would edge towards not being able to re-fluff at the player's whim.