D&D 5E Multiclassing

[Satyrn]

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?

 

[Satyrn]

I guess it also depends on who your players are.

I play with a small group of friends. I would feel like such a heel if I excluded even one of them because I put my likes above his.

 

[Caliban]

Hiya!

No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not:

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]

*Moderator note*
Personal insults are not allowed. Also, edition warring is pretty uncool.
-Darkness,
EN World moderator

It's my PC, my choice to make. Not other people's, even the DM's. Mine.

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.

TL;DR: you ask for a reason to multiclass? I ask for a reason to deny multiclass.

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.

 

[Caliban]

Let me guess, you first started playing D&D with 4E? You sound like an entitled child stomping his feet shouting "me me me!"

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:

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.

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]

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.

No MC'ing in my game. Here's my reason...tell me if I'm being "irrational" or not...

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?

A Player trying to belittle/strong-arm/force a DM to allow something the player likes when the DM doesn't?

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]

This thread is still getting posts that are far from friendly. So once more, with feeling.

Everyone, either be excellent to your fellow posters or don't post in this thread.

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.

For reference, the rules.

If you have any questions, PM me.

-Darkness,
EN World moderator

 

[CapnZapp]

An excellent ending to this subject, if you ask me. Thanks.

 

[Arial Black]

So, if I understand your point of view correctly..

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.

If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of multiclassing he's a Richard and irrational.

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.

If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of feats he's a Richard and irrational.

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.

If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of flanking he's a Richard and irrational.

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.

If the DM doesn't use the optional rule of evil PCs he's a Richard and irrational.

Again, evil PCs (like PvP) have a real, possibly undesirable effect on game play.

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.

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.

 

[Arial Black]

Hiya!

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"?

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!