D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Arial Black]

Let me guess, you first started playing D&D with 4E? You sound like an entitled child stomping his feet shouting "me me me!" Ultimately it is the DM's world and you are an invited guest. If they say no to multiclassing, and you just can't handle that, then take your pencil and paper and go home.

No, I started playing in to '70s with AD&D 1st ed. I tried 4E, but although I thought it was an interesting board game I didn't think it was the RPG for me.

As for the 'invited guest' concept, it is incumbent on a good host to not be a Richard to his guests, just as much as it is incumbent on the guests to behave well.

Because according to the PHB it is an optional rule, so by definition it is denied by default. The onus is on the player to convince the DM to allow, not the other way around.

Which misses the point entirely! "I can have whatever rule I want" is not a reason for the banning of that rule, just your authority to do so.

No-one is arguing that DMs don't have the authority to make that decision. I'm arguing that the decision itself is irrational, and every reason given so far has been bogus:-

* "I can to what I want; I'm the DM" is not a reason for any decision, it's just a statement of your right to make any decision, reasonable or not

* "It changes the internal vision of my game world" is simply untrue, because metagame concepts like 'class' and 'single class' and 'multiclass' are not 'real' things in-game

* "It gives MC PCs abilities that I don't allow in my game for good reasons" is untrue because the DM has already approved every one of those abilities of the new class already

 

[Caliban]

Which misses the point entirely! "I can have whatever rule I want" is not a reason for the banning of that rule, just your authority to do so.

No-one is arguing that DMs don't have the authority to make that decision. I'm arguing that the decision itself is irrational, and every reason given so far has been bogus

Here are a few "rational" reasons:

My players are all new and we don't want to deal with more complicated, optional rules just yet. No feats, no multi-classing.

My players are hilariously bad at optimizing their characters and this is for their own protection. (No Brad, the Wizard/Barbarian really isn't going to work as well as you think it is...)

I don't have much time to prepare for the game sessions and I feel that multiclassing and feats allows for more powerful characters than the baseline the Adventure Books are balanced around and I don't want the headache and added time of changing every encounter to match the added power level of the PC's so they have a proper challenge instead of curb-stomping everything. Plus my players are too lazy to DM so they can suck it up or I'm just gonna watch movies and play Mario Kart...

It gives MC PC's combinations of abilities that synergize better than a single class characters abilities do and I don't have the inclination to modify the NPC's and monsters to match. I'm looking at you Todd, with your uber-smiting Paladin/Warlock who uses a quarterstaff and shield with polearm mastery and Shillelagh from his Pact of The Tome so he can use Charisma for both spells and melee attacks.

Quite frankly, my players are just flat-out better at optimizing than I am, and if I allow all the options they get bored because I can't provide them a challenge. Keeping it simple puts us on more of an even playing field and they can still have fun using tactics and cooperation instead of individual uber-characters. Plus they are too lazy to DM themselves and let me have some fun killing orcs.

 

[CapnZapp]

Which misses the point entirely! "I can have whatever rule I want" is not a reason for the banning of that rule, just your authority to do so.

No-one is arguing that DMs don't have the authority to make that decision. I'm arguing that the decision itself is irrational, and every reason given so far has been bogus:-

* "I can to what I want; I'm the DM" is not a reason for any decision, it's just a statement of your right to make any decision, reasonable or not

* "It changes the internal vision of my game world" is simply untrue, because metagame concepts like 'class' and 'single class' and 'multiclass' are not 'real' things in-game

* "It gives MC PCs abilities that I don't allow in my game for good reasons" is untrue because the DM has already approved every one of those abilities of the new class already

No.

Your view is the only thing that's unreasonable.

Not using an optional rule is perfectly reasonable, acceptable and ordinary.

The DM never needs to justify his or her decisions to you. If you don't like it, don't play in that campaign.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Arial Black]

No.

Your view is the only thing that's unreasonable.

Not using an optional rule is perfectly reasonable, acceptable and ordinary.

The DM never needs to justify his or her decisions to you. If you don't like it, don't play in that campaign.

It's as simple as that.

Heh. This doesn't counter my argument at all.

Namely, just because you have the authority to make irrational decisions (and DMs do have that authority), this doesn't make them rational.

 

[seebs]

I would think that in general it's totally reasonable to ask people for explanations of why they do a thing. I mean, any time you have a cooperative exercise, if someone wants a thing, I think the default is "okay, we'll do that thing you want" unless there's a specific reason not to.

 

[Arial Black]

Here are a few "rational" reasons:

My players are all new and we don't want to deal with more complicated, optional rules just yet. No feats, no multi-classing.

As I've mentioned multiple times, this is a rational reason. But it falls away soon enough. It doesn't justify a blanket ban for non-newbies.

My players are hilariously bad at optimizing their characters and this is for their own protection. (No Brad, the Wizard/Barbarian really isn't going to work as well as you think it is...)

I'm not sure that this attempt to shield them from Darwinian evolution is for the best.

But it is patronising. And it is not a valid reason to blanket ban MCing for those of us who do know what they're doing.

I don't have much time to prepare for the game sessions and I feel that multiclassing and feats allows for more powerful characters than the baseline the Adventure Books are balanced around and I don't want the headache and added time of changing every encounter to match the added power level of the PC's so they have a proper challenge instead of curb-stomping everything. Plus my players are too lazy to DM so they can suck it up or I'm just gonna watch movies and play Mario Kart...

This would be valid, if it were true. In your last example you asserted that MCing led to weaker PCs. Here, you're asserting that it leads to stronger PCs and claiming that as your 'reason'.

But MC PCs don't have the highest level abilities available at that level. They've chosen to have less powerful but more varied abilities. There is no 'problem' that needs to be solved.

It gives MC PC's combinations of abilities that synergize better than a single class characters abilities do and I don't have the inclination to modify the NPC's and monsters to match. I'm looking at you Todd, with your uber-smiting Paladin/Warlock who uses a quarterstaff and shield with polearm mastery and Shillelagh from his Pact of The Tome so he can use Charisma for both spells and melee attacks.

I'm arguing against a blanket ban. If you want to ban a specific combination, that's a different thing.

But really, single class PCs can be very powerful, but you don't blanket ban single class PCs!

Quite frankly, my players are just flat-out better at optimizing than I am, and if I allow all the options they get bored because I can't provide them a challenge. Keeping it simple puts us on more of an even playing field and they can still have fun using tactics and cooperation instead of individual uber-characters. Plus they are too lazy to DM themselves and let me have some fun killing orcs.

So, the PCs are so powerful that the DM cannot challenge them? Bull? You have as much power as you want to send against them! It's simply untrue that DMs are helpless to cope with powerful PCs, MC or not!

Some PCs are powerful. It is not the case that MC PCs are powerful but SC PCs are not so that the only solution is to blanket ban MCing!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

First off, I was just throwing out an example of what some DM might say/rationalise as a means of explaining why MC isn't around in his game. It wasn't my campaign, for the record.

Second, it wasn't exactly me who decided no MC'ing and no Feats...it was my players and I. Initially, first three 'mini campaigns', we were balls to the walls everything and the kitchen sink gaming with 5e. We wanted to get a solid "feel" for how 5e's system, and most popular (in our minds) options (MC and Feats) would fair with our style of play. Long story short...MC and Feats just were not something any of us really enjoyed. So, last campaign, the "serious this time...." one set in Greyhawk, at the first session I asked if we were going to use [insert small list of 5e options; MC, Feats, how healing works, how spell material components work, and maybe one or two more I can't recall at the moment]. Suffice it to say, MC, Feats, Healing 'system', and spell material components ("Spell Component Bag" // "Focus") got dropped, dropped, modified, modified, in order.

Anyway, on with the show!

Hiya.

No, it is not reasonable.

The reason that it is irrational has nothing to do with the contrived nature of the example situation; after all, all of our made-up game worlds are contrived to a greater or lesser extent.

The reason it is irrational is because your example is of an irrational world, specifically: the inhabitants of the world are aware of the 5th edition game mechanics that control them!

No creature in-game can rationally point to another creature and know that this creature is multiclassed! 'Multiclass' is a pure rules term and not perceivable in-game.

It's the equivalent of the Mayor of Utterley being tried and found guilty by the courts of having too many hit points for his level!

See above for the ''reasonable" explanation; it was just a quick example of what some DM may have for his world. Saying "it is irrational because...[reasons]" is a bit of an odd statement to me. What seems illogical for one persons campaign may be perfectly logical in another. For example, the fact that there are still hoards of dangerous orcs, goblins and kobolds anywhere *near* civilization in the Forgotten Realms is completely illogical. The "level" of NPC's in the realms makes heiring s group of newbie adventurers silly...just go get the city outriders to deal with it; chances are all of them are higher level than the PC's, better equipped, and better supported.

Again, different campaigns and play styles could easily have some means of 'everyone' knowing someones class, level, even HP's. I could come up with a lot of perfectly viable "reasons" as to why it is so on some particular material plane.

I think what this defense will come down to, however, is a persons individual idea of what constitutes a "class" or a "level". To some, a class is nothing more than a set of skills learned. To others its a persons entire being and outlook on life, death and the multiverse. A level could be a simple as a representation of time spent plying ones 'trade' (re: class)...and to another it could be a representation of deific favour, fate, and some nebulous 'hero factor' or 'destiny for greatness'.

At any rate, it always boils down to each individuals style of play. I'm not going to convince everyone that MC'ing in 5e is "bad" in it's current form, and it is highly unlikely for someone to convince me that MC'ing in 5e is perfect. All we can do on these forums...and all we should do...it present our own particular reasons and methods for handling RPG'ing stuff so that others can read it and maybe be inspired, or have them re-look at something, or otherwise stimulate thought. Maybe these boards need a separate forum devoted specifically to "DM Creative Ideas [non-rules focus]". I'd be all over that like stink on an otyug! I absolutely love reading about other DM's campaigns, ideas, and stories! I can spend hours and hours browsing Obsidian Portal (www.obsidianportal.com, for those that don't know) and just reading about other folks campaigns. Mmmmmmm.....pure, freshly squeezed, imagination!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Corwin]

Outcasts are the 0.5%. They are the ones born into "adventuring class families" that date back to before the Dark Times started. If you were born into a Monk tradition family, you are a Monk and don't know of anything else. Same with Clerics, Druids, Fighters, etc. Like Low and High born people, you can never change 'jobs'. The sentence for defying this is the same as the others; effectively, death for "Betrayal of Lineage". No member of the Outcast caste may ever teach another person his chosen "class" without approval from several betters (his father, his trainer, his liege lord..at a minimum). Secretly training someone is, you guessed it, punishable by death.

Quick question for you, Paul: Do you use backgrounds?

Also, tangentially, if "fighter" is a knowable lineage, how do people know? In-game, I mean. What would a swashbuckler-y style rogue look like compared to a similarly themed dex-based fighter? Or ranger even? Insomuch as how they are perceived by the world around them, that is. How do you lock all that in WRT the narrative of your setting?

EDIT: I see you last post cleared up that this was just a hypothetical setting. So couch my questions as someone asking this hypothetical DM...

 

[Caliban]

I'm not sure that this attempt to shield them from Darwinian evolution is for the best.

But it is patronising. And it is not a valid reason to blanket ban MCing for those of us who do know what they're doing.

But you aren't one of the players. In fact YOU aren't a player in any of these hypothetical scenarios.

Judging everything as "not rational" simply because it doesn't match your personal preferences simply isn't, well, rational.

Your personal bias isn't the measuring stick for other people's games. Not all people are created equal, and not every DM enjoys building tactically intensive encounters to deal with the added synergies and combinations granted by feats and multi-classing. (These same DM's usually don't like high level play, for much the same reason.)

The DM gets to have fun too, not just the players, so they get to set the ground rules for the game they are running so that they can enjoy running it. Doing anything just else wouldn't be rational.

Personally, I allow feats and multi-classing in my games, but I'm very hesitant about Unearthed Arcana stuff because I don't think it's been playtested very well. But I'm not going to tell another DM they are being "irrational" because they prefer to run the game with different available options than I do.

 

[rczarnec]

The reason it is irrational is because your example is of an irrational world, specifically: the inhabitants of the world are aware of the 5th edition game mechanics that control them!

No creature in-game can rationally point to another creature and know that this creature is multiclassed! 'Multiclass' is a pure rules term and not perceivable in-game.

Maybe he is DMing in the world of Order of the Stick.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html

They always seem to know these things.