Particle_Man said:
You don't like "dips" into levels. Is it that any multi-class is ok, so long as it is more than a dip? If some multi-classes are not ok, which ones are not ok? You might be able to simply say something like "Only the following multi-classes exist in my world..." to your players.
Sorry, that wasn't what I was trying to say. More: multi-classing is ok, as long as you have some sort of reasoning behind it. Being able to describe that reasoning to me in a way that would make sense would be a definite bonus. One of the reasons this was such a problem was that I had allowed dips before in this game, and I had not really previously required any sort of specific "training", etc. As pawsplay has pointed out, that may have been a big part of the problem. However, I don't find that enforcing "training" rules really adds fun to my games. I really don't want to hinder players who are doing cool things with their characters, but I also don't want to become the only determiner of what is and is not "cool". I've had plenty of players do things that I shook my head at, but turned out really fun for the whole group. Unfortunately, I've also had screwups like the example above...
The Rogue taking a level of Cleric wasn't really that much of a problem, the player did what he could with it (Detect Magic is cool to have when you're a Rogue), and he actually ended up using the wand of CSW the party bought for him, about three times. The only roleplaying the Fighter had really had was giving the PoF flack about him being so religious, the player just said "Well, he changed his mind", and pointed out that he didn't have to worship a deity anyway... I disallowed that because a) he actually wanted to worship "An Abstract Concept" (rather than, ya'know,
picking one...), and b) I had previously established that I was only using the deities from the PHB. Once I got him to pick one (I guess the character had an epiphany...), he then proceeded to bitch about the War domain not granting him any net benefits. Once we got past that things where pretty much ok: he got a 21,000gp wand, paid for out of the party treasury, which he refused to use, and he went out of his way to avoid situations where he might actually have to cast any spells, but whatever... The Druid didn't cause any immediate problems, and in fact he was the player I was most willing to believe had a plan of some kind going on. He got a wand of fireballs, which he never used, because he was pretty much always wildshaped. After about two sessions, he told me that he was upset that his Wizard spells (0 and 1st level, CL1) where not proving as useful as his Druid spells (up to 4th level, CL7). I told him he had to be joking. The next session, he brought it up again, asking (I'm paraphrasing) "Why did I even take a level of Wizard?" I told him that, frankly, I had no idea, that I had tried to make sure it was really what he wanted (frankly, I actually tried to talk him out of it), and that I really had no idea what I could do that would make having a handful of low-level spells cool for him. He chalked it up as a poor decision, and we stopped worrying about it. None of this was really that much more than the usual problems I've had at the table. Nothing stopped the game for more than a few minutes at a time, no raised voices, etc. Like I said, the real problem was the Paladin of Freedom; that player really didn't want to multiclass, and he shouldn't have. He gained nearly nothing since the character wore heavy armor, and he didn't like using his Rage. I really wanted to let him take the choice back, and maybe I should have, but I had previously stated that I was not going to allow any more retconning of characters. I tried to come up with a compromise that was a little less unfair, but he wouldn't go for it.
pawsplay said:
Whether or not a given direction in character development makes sense falls on the player. Nothing in the RAW somehow excuses a player from this. Nothing in the RAW implies or states that characters spontaneously develop whatever powers they wish. In fact, each class includes a description of how characters are trained in it, and the DMG has various optional rules for requiring training. It is the DM's right to decry a certain course is unreasonable.
However, by the rules, the decision still rests in the player's hands. By the RAW, it is up to the player whether a given level makes sense for the character. In effect, leveling is a form of role-playing. Some players may, by inclination, choose to purely minmax at the expense of storytelling, but forcing them to behave in what you believe is a more storylike manner is not going to give them a better play experience. Furthermore, how can you really be sure a given combination isn't exactly how a player envisions a character?
This is really the center of the problem I'm facing. In any of the above cases I could have just said "no." However I felt (and still feel) that would have been unfair. I can't know exactly what a player has in mind, unless they will tell me. And some won't. I have no problem with min-maxing. In my current group I'd actually prefer if at least one or two of the characters had a good build, at least fairly-well optimized. Unfortunately, the only players I have who are particularly interested in that sort of thing just aren't really that good at it. The problem is, really, that sometimes I'm right. The current group includes a Warblade, a Dragon Shaman, and a Dragonfire Adept, all of whom are now worrying that they may have picked the wrong class. I told them when the campaign started that I wasn't sure that every player playing a non-core base (with the exception of a Wizard) was the best idea, but I didn't think it would be fair to tell them "No, you can't play that class", because I wasn't ready to just outright ban non-core classes. Now any or all of the three may end up multiclassing, and it's liable to hurt their characters' overall effectiveness, which is liable to make the game less fun for them.
