Satyrn
First Post
Do your players enjoy that?
D&D 5E Multiclassing
- Thread starter randrak
- Start date
- Status
Do your players enjoy that?
Well, you are asking a group of random gamers to judge you. This is not something a rational person would do. Maybe not "irrational" so much as "attention-seeking"?
travathian
First Post
*Moderator note*
Personal insults are not allowed. Also, edition warring is pretty uncool.
-Darkness,
EN World moderator
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.
Personal insults are not allowed. Also, edition warring is pretty uncool.
-Darkness,
EN World moderator
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's just rude and uncalled for. Personally I've always felt this way about my PC's, going back to the Red Box days. My character, my choices. That being said:
This is essentially correct, although "invited guest" is pushing it. It's usually "we are friends playing a game together" not "I am allowing you to partake in a world born of my creative genius, play it properly or don't play."
If the DM sets up their world to disallow any fun or interesting options for characters, they may end up without any players. It's a two way street.
Fortunately, most gaming groups are made up of adults and not entitled children and the players and DM can agree on things before the game starts.
I've seen gaming groups fall apart because play styles don't mesh (or because personalities don't mesh), but I've never seen it come down to something as simple as a disagreement over character creation. (Other than random roll vs point buy - that can end friendships
). Maybe I've just had it easy - I've never had a DM disallow things like feats for multi-classing. They just use it on their bad guys as well.
This is also a benefit of Adventure League (and before it Organized Play, Pathfinder, and RPGA) - you know the ground rules and all the DM's and Players have to use the same set of rules as much as possible. (Table variation based on different opinions on specific rules aside.)
TheCosmicKid
Hero
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.
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?
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".
Darkness
Hand and Eye of Piratecat [Moderator]
Arial Black
Adventurer
In the nicest possible way, your questions show that you don't understand my POV correctly. I'll try to get my POV across again.
Whether a DM is being 'irrational' or not depends on whether or not he has a valid reason for making that decision, or whether it's a knee-jerk "I don't like it" without any rational train of thought.
Whether he is being a 'Richard' or not depends on his motivation.
On the specific subject of multiclassing, there is no rational reason, so it is irrational to apply a blanket ban for non-newbies.
If, when prompted to examine his own thought process, his only response is along the lines of, "Because I say so! I don't care what you think!", then he's being a Richard. If his response is along the lines of "Here are the reasons" or "I just never took the trouble to think it through", then that's different.
Depends why. If he doesn't use feats because he believes they unbalance the game, then whether I agree or not he does have a rational position.
If his reason is because a fish named Vera telepathically told him not to....! Not rational.
If his reason is that although he usually uses feats he knows that Jake likes feats and he doesn't like Jake so he's banning feats just to annoy Jake, then he's being a Richard.
The flanking rule has a real effect on game-play which some (including me; I tried it and abandoned it - a rational position BTW!) find detrimental. If that's the reason, that is rational whether I agree with your choice or not.
Again, evil PCs (like PvP) have a real, possibly undesirable effect on game play.
And here we've hit the nail on the head. It's about the social contract.
The social contract for RPGs is that I make the decisions for my PC, you make the decisions for your PC, he makes the decisions for his PC, as long as those decisions are allowed in the game, and I'm taking a level in a class which is already allowed in this game.
From a players' perspective, it's not okay for me to take my bat and ball home because of a valid decision you make for your PC! "What! Your barbarian took the Bear totem even though I wanted you to choose the Wolf totem? I'M OUTTA HERE!" That would be 'Richard' behavior on my part.
"What! We're making 1st level PCs and your 1st character level is fighter instead of rogue? I'M OUTTA HERE!" We each choose our own class at 1st level, and it's no-one else's business (as long as that class is allowed in the game). Walking out of the game because someone else's chose to play a rogue instead of *whatever you wanted them to play* is the very height of Richard-dom.
"What! Now that we've levelled up, you're PC is taking a level of fighter? I'M OUTTA HERE!" is just as Richard-ish as the previous example. It simply is not your place as a player to tell me what character choices to make, just like it is not my place to tell you what to do with yours. That's part of the social contract, we all know it, and walking out in a huff over it would be total Richardishness!
Just to be clear, my mention in this thread of the term 'Richard' and its derivatives was prompted not by the idea that DMs get to choose the rules, but in response to a post about another player walking out of a game because someone else multiclassed. That behavior was totally Richard-y.
My point about the DM blanket-banning MCing is not "My way or I'm taking my bat and ball home!"; my point is that a decision to blanket ban is not rational.
Players make choices about their own PCs, within the allowed options. My point is that every single MC PC is by definition only using allowed options! There is literally no ability gained by a MC PC that has not already been approved by the DM for play in his campaign, and MCing is not an in-game reality that is discernible because 'class' itself is not discernible, so objections on game-world integrity are not valid.
Last edited:
Arial Black
Adventurer
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!
Arial Black
Adventurer
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.
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
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.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
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
Adventurer
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.
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
Adventurer
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
Legend
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!
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
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
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...
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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.
- Status
Similar Threads
