Satyrn
First Post
Hiya!
No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not:
Do your players enjoy that?
Hiya!
No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not:
Hiya!
No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not:
It's my PC, my choice to make. Not other people's, even the DM's. Mine.
TL;DR: you ask for a reason to multiclass? I ask for a reason to deny multiclass.
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.
And if too many players do that, then the DM doesn't have a game. The "go home" option is, like many other nuclear options, a threat of mutually assured destruction which all parties involved should work to avoid. Nobody at the table should be overly demanding or picky. Everybody at the table should talk about what they want, compromise, and form a consensus that, if not perfect for any, is at least equally tolerable for all.If they say no to multiclassing, and you just can't handle that, then take your pencil and paper and go home.
Is that your reason, or your rationalization? You don't need to come up with in-game rationalizations for out-of-game rules decisions. Just tell your players frankly and honestly the real reason you don't want to allow multiclass characters. But be open to their feedback, and ask yourself whether your preference is really strong enough to override theirs. You, after all, have a whole world to shape as you wish. They only have the one character. Is this really worth delivering a "my way or the highway" ultimatum over?No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not...
If either person is trying to belittle/strong-arm/force the other person, the table has gone toxic. Don't be so quick to point the finger at players for ruining the game by being "that guy". Consider the possibility that you are "that guy".A Player trying to belittle/strong-arm/force a DM to allow something the player likes when the DM doesn't?
For reference, the rules.The rules of EN World said:Keep it civil: Don't engage in personal attacks, name-calling, or blanket generalizations in your discussions. Say how you feel or what you think, but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. People seeking to engage and discuss will find themselves asking questions, seeking clarifications, and describing their own opinion. People seeking to "win an argument" sometimes end up taking cheap shots, calling people names, and generally trying to indimidate others. My advice: don't try to win.
So, if I understand your point of view correctly..
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of multiclassing he's a Richard and irrational.
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of feats he's a Richard and irrational.
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of flanking he's a Richard and irrational.
If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of evil PCs he's a Richard and irrational.
Or more succinctly, If the DM doesn't give me the game I want to play in he's a Richard and irrational.
I think you and I have very different opinions on the social contract of the game and entitlements of the players on both sides of the screen, so I'm just going to agree to disagree with you.
Hiya!
No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not:
*proceeds to give extremely contrived example*
So, is that "reasonable"? If it is, is it 'barely' reasonable...or 'super' reasonable? At what point does the DM's 'reasoning' become adequate? Would a DM get away with "No MC because people don't have time to teach others, and class-teachers are extremely tight-lipped and stingy about who they train"?
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.
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
No.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.
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.
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!
Quick question for you, Paul: Do you use backgrounds?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.
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.
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.