Encouraging players to role-play multiclassing?

[evileeyore]

Its a Love/Hate thing...

^
|
|
Is why I love D&D.

People get so wound in the knickers over their own sense of self.

However the threads original topic impinges on why I hate D&D.

I have to 'roleplay' why I am taking certian classes, and can't learn there kewl abilities until I find a teacher?!?!? I would leave to the game and never come back.

To explain. I multiclass. Why you ask, well because Rogues aren't as good at fighting as Fighters. Fighters can't cast spells, Clerics don't get Bardic Lore, and noone gets Fast Movement but Monks and Bararians. Still don't understand?

If I am playing a 'Light Fighter', who is supposed move fast on his feet, then moving only 30, like everyoneelse doesn't make much sense. In this case I wold either take Barbarian (if I wanted Rage as well), a few Monk levels (if the abilities stacked nicely with what I was doing), or most likely PsiWarrioir (and just ignore most of the 'psionic' powers).

At this point I have done all three at seperate times.

The Barbarian/PsiWarrior who charged 120' around corners and up walls (I took Barb for flavor on this one).

The Light Duellist with Monk. Okay Monk, PsiWarrior, Fighter, Duellist, aiming for Tempest. If I 'had' to rp all of that, it would be "Hohum, guess Ill play Rogue..."

The Man Hunter (Ranger, Rogue, Fighter who 'cherry picked' Barb) In the campiagn world 'Barbarians' were the Norse. We were Thracian (think Roman, with the Emperor being your God). My character was a Fanatic. He pinned herectics to walls with daggers. If I had to explain how he got trained to 'fill his heart with Holy Wrath' (Rage) or 'Press onwards with Holy Speed' (fast movement) by training with an infidel... well we'ld be done a few infidel and I never would have gotten Barbarian...


The problem is inherent in thinking of the classes as 'set paths' from you 'may never stray'. 'Stay within the lines, the lines are your friends'.

You might guess I had problems with coloring within the lines in kindergarten too.

However I am not agians't 'training time', just a requiring a teacher. I grant you its a stretch for the 18th level fighter too spontaneously whip out with a level of Wizard (even if he is an Elf, or a Dwarf...), but I would rather suspend disbelief a little for that than be stymied by draconic goose-stepping Dm practices.

TTFN--EvilE

 

[S'mon]

What you're talking about is a little more on the player control side of things, where the nature of the world is a bit more open and players can write notes about where their characters are going.

Funny, it feels like I run a pretty tight ship, I usually come down on the "GM is boss" side of these arguments. But I guess I don't run a heavily plotted/railroaded game, I have never run a game and thought "Okay, in the last part of this campaign the PCs will defeat the dragon lords aboard their aerial warship, then using the Rune of Krishnak they deciphered in session 18, they'll uncover the Veeblefetx and PC X will discover that Lord Robilar is his father..."

 

[S'mon]

^
If I am playing a 'Light Fighter', who is supposed move fast on his feet, then moving only 30, like everyoneelse doesn't make much sense. In this case I wold either take Barbarian (if I wanted Rage as well), a few Monk levels (if the abilities stacked nicely with what I was doing), or most likely PsiWarrioir (and just ignore most of the 'psionic' powers).

(snip)

The problem is inherent in thinking of the classes as 'set paths' from you 'may never stray'. 'Stay within the lines, the lines are your friends'.

To digress, I'm currently discussing the possibility of Barbarian-type Fast Movement as a Feat with my Midnight GM. I agree that the class constraints can seem like a straitjacket - my Fighter is Lawful Good, an outlaw who uses medium armour and a bastard sword in combat. By the rules she can never get fast movement unless she turns NG and becomes a Barbarian, in which case she gets Rage as well. That violates the character concept. It gets pretty frustrating.

 

[Barak]

Ahhhh see, new information makes the whole thing comes into a new light. From your earlier posts, the only thing I could see is that some PrCs existed as published in your world, some didn't, and the players had no way of knowing which was which. In other words, those decisions were made by you way before the players showed up at the table (during the "creation of the world"), and the players simply had to flounder around, trying to fit in.

This would be similar (although to a lesser degree) as allowing a ranger to take "gnolls" as a favored enemy, only to -then- tell him there was only one gnoll in your whole Game World (with a smirk). And -that- is where I got the "confrontational" DM thing, as in "I screwed you! Haha!"

With more information as to how you do things, obviously it's not that way. You want players to just do their thing, and will try to accomodate them with options that suits their characters. Very different. But I've -seen- the other type of DM, which is why the possibility of it existing wasn't out of the question.

 

[Beard in the Sky]

Sometimes, but sometimes not

I think certain classes scream out for some roleplay justification (Paladin and Monk) and can certainly be abused if you don't ask for some sort of roleplaying justification. I'm sure everyone had someone take a level of Ranger in 3.0 that had never set foot outside of a city. Sometimes however, I think the -typcial- view of a class can be too restrictive if you emphasize the roleplaying of it too much. I am thinking in specific about Barbarian. I am getting ready to start a game and one of my players, who is nowhere -near- a powergamer, wanted to take a few levels of Barbarian as he progressed but was worried about the stigma. I told him that, to me, a Barbarian is a lightly armored warriror who emphazies anger and brute strength along with mobility over heavy armor or structured training and fighting techniques. I don't think every character who takes a level or two of Barbarian should have to be a wild character from out in the middle of nowhere. That is just my opinion.

 

[Will]

Funny, it feels like I run a pretty tight ship, I usually come down on the "GM is boss" side of these arguments. But I guess I don't run a heavily plotted/railroaded game, I have never run a game and thought "Okay, in the last part of this campaign the PCs will defeat the dragon lords aboard their aerial warship, then using the Rune of Krishnak they deciphered in session 18, they'll uncover the Veeblefetx and PC X will discover that Lord Robilar is his father..."

'GM is boss' doesn't mean railroading, didn't mean to imply that. A GM can run a tight game with everything described in loving detail, and then have absolutely no plot in mind, just let the players decide on direction.

I was talking more about control of the setting, rather than control of the flow of the game.


Oh, and regarding Fast Movement and such... Unearthed Arcana has a lot of ideas for customizing classes. I suspect one could make a 'fast fighter' by giving him barbarian-style fast movement instead of one of the bonus feats. Roughly speaking, a 'special ability' is worth about as much as a bonus feat, so you could also give him evasion at 4th, etc.

UA really helps provide ideas for remaking the classes, which appeals to me. And avoids some of the issues people have brought up about multi-classing.

 

[Barak]

To go back a bit more on topic... Another thing that can make things interesting is that, with a little work, the "base" classes can be made into a wholly different concept then what they normally represent. Take a very urbane noble family, who, through inbreeding, has a history of flying into incontrollable rages when thwarted. Now you have a PC who comes from that family. Would letting them take a level of barbarian be out of whack? Yes, the skill set would make little sense. But they could easily spend the points of that level on cross-class skill. Then you have the fast-movement feature that makes little sense. You could swap it out for something else, such as allowing them to spend their skill points "freely" on their normal class skills, or whatever. Not everyone with a level of barbarian -necessarly- needs to wear furs and be called Conan.

 

[Beard in the Sky]

Not everyone with a level of barbarian -necessarly- needs to wear furs and be called Conan.

Exactly my point. Barbarian can be a very limiting class from a concept perspective if you don't open it up a bit. No one has really every played one before in my campaigns though, so it hasn't been a problem.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Take a very urbane noble family, who, through inbreeding, has a history of flying into incontrollable rages when thwarted. Now you have a PC who comes from that family. Would letting them take a level of barbarian be out of whack? Yes, the skill set would make little sense. But they could easily spend the points of that level on cross-class skill.

Actually, I have stuff like this covered already by another mechanic: Family Templates and Heritage Feats. No justifcation/modification of classes required.

I'm currently working the bugs out of one that, due to latent psionic ability within the family, results in a female about every 2-3 generations that has incredible domination powers over those who share her lineage. Makes things interesting when an entire noble house, including "lord" and "lady", are under the tight-fisted rule of a 15 year old brat (and, strangely enough, so are a number of the house-slaves).

For obvious reasons, I won't mention how the BoEF fits into this picture.

 

[evileeyore]

Exactly my point. Barbarian can be a very limiting class from a concept perspective if you don't open it up a bit. No one has really every played one before in my campaigns though, so it hasn't been a problem.

Ding, ding, ding, ding!

This is exactly what I am talking about. I say to a DM "I'll play a Cleric."

When I show up with the character I get funny looks if I don't have plate armor, a warhammer/mace, and an obvious holy symbol.

I played a dual-class cleric/rogue in 2e whose only armor was also his 'holy symbol', a gauntlet. I was a conman of Mask, masquerading as a devotee of Torm (or Tyr, I get them confused). The DM was on the verge of disallowing the character based solely on the lack of armor. He allowed it only after someone else showed up with a Cleric. I was ready to walk right there. (I should have, the game stunk. Railroad City)


Class stereotypes have become greater than that. You play a Barbaarian and are expected to be uncivilized. A Sorceror and obviously a Burninating Mage. A Rogue, whoa everybody watch your pocketbooks.

It sickens me.

And it is confined to D&D. My group has started a Shadowrun Game. And wow, no preconceived notions. No stereotypes. Bizarre.

TTFN--EvilE