D&D 5E Multiclassing

[CapnZapp]

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.

Okay, so you persist in calling other ways of playing the game than the one you prefer "irrational". As if multiclassing (but presumably not other optional rules?) is somehow the only logical way to play the game.

I have given you enough chances to retract your senseless argument, but no - you are a troll. What could someone possibly gain from riling up emotions by attacking their preferred way of playing the game?

Reported.

 

[Satyrn]

Okay, so you persist in calling other ways of playing the game than the one you prefer "irrational". As if multiclassing (but presumably not other optional rules?) is somehow the only logical way to play the game.

I don't find it irrational - but I'm still wondering what you gain by telling your friends "no, you can't multiclass" if they're saying "we want to multiclass."

Do you actually ban multiclassing even when the players tell you they want it?

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't find it irrational - but I'm still wondering what you gain by telling your friends "no, you can't multiclass" if they're saying "we want to multiclass."

Do you actually ban multiclassing even when the players tell you they want it?

I understand you're trying to discuss this with an open mind, but
a) I would really prefer to discuss this with you elsewhere
b) and honestly, I see no point in discussion if the purpose is to question the validity of playing without multiclassing or any other rule, optional or not

If you rephrase the question in a way that doesn't put any blame on the DM for selflessly volunteering to run a game for the enjoyment of her friends, just in a way Arial Black doesn't prefer, I will be happy to give you my personal answer.

But here and now is not the time.

Best,
Zapp

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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...

No worries. Here's a hypothetical-ish answer...

In my actual campaign, yes, we do/did use Backgrounds. We mostly just use the overall idea and the 'special'...although we have tweaked the special thing for individual characters. I would assume that if a DM was using Backgrounds as a more definitive...er...definition...of a character concept (in addition to class and archetype, if he ever gets to level 3), that there may be some broad-stroke stuff going on that the DM would incorporate. For example, a Dex based fighter (with Soldier bg), vs a swashbuckler rogue (with Sailor/Pirate bg), the DM could/should give the rogue PC a better chance, or knowledge, or speed, or whatever, of tyeing various knots than the fighter (soldier) PC. None of that is taken into account (rules mechanics wise), but the background concept makes sense for this sort of "broad knowledge".

In my personal style of DM'ing, I do put a lot of weight towards the characters actual "background story"...sometimes even more so than actual mechanics. If a PC is a Fighter (Soldier bg) has a back story where he is the son of an accomplished cooper/carpenter, and the player asks if he can figure out what some particular type of wood a door is made of, I'd give those with Nature Lore or Survival a roll, and the fighter would probably just get a pass...as in "Yeah, you figure its ...make an Int Save, DC 10. You got a 15? Ok, you've worked with this wood before. It's a rather aged cherry-tree wood". So that's BG's.

As for "knowing" about who is a "fighter"...I wouldn't just leave it up to "the class" being the thing that is known. I'd probably approach it from the perspective of "special, ancient secrets handed down from father to daughter, master to apprentice". So an NPC wouldn't refer to someone as "A Fighter" so much as "A Warrior of the Steel Strike", there wouldn't be a "Rogue (Assassin)", there would be a member of the "Shadow Stalkers Guild", and while some classes would be called by their 'names' (Monk and Cleric, in particular), they would likely be some very specific titles and whatnot (e.g., "Acolyte Callren, of the Blessed Eye", "Brother Waou, 3rd Tier Master of the Elemental Way", etc). In going down that route, I'd be able to explain why a member of the Shadow Stalkers Guild simply would not be trained by the Steel Strike warrior-college. There would be tattoos, ritual scarring, dress/armor, etc. The world itself (society wise) would simply find it anathema for someone to try and "hide" their 'class' in order to get trained in another 'class (think of it like...modern day society as a whole suddenly accepting some world-wide condemnation, like rape, murder or marrying 6-year olds to strangers for money). Anyone caught learning or training in another 'class' would become a social pariah (not to mention fugitives of the law...or dead, as I outlined in the previous post).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Satyrn]

If you rephrase the question in a way that doesn't put any blame on the DM for selflessly volunteering to run a game for the enjoyment of her friends

I don't think I could rephrase it that way. I do feel I deserve blame when I make decisions as a DM that make the game less fun for my players, and I feel like a giant ass when I actively shoot down what they want. I have too many times in the past done so accidently, I'd hate to knowingly, intentionally shoot them down. I just can't see how I could ask that question of myself without blaming myself.

I don't think I'm being selfless when I volunteer to DM. I get great satisfaction out of being the center of attention, to be the guy in control of the evening's entertainment. It's not a sacrifice to me, it's a privilege.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

That's great! That's consensus building. That's exactly how it should work. There's a world of difference between that and the authoritarian/adversarial scenario you first described.

 

[Ahrimon]

A lot of these conversations skip over many of the details like consensus and numbers on each side of the table. From authoritarian DM lording his power over his players to demanding special snowflake players that demand that their character wants be met. The reality is usually somewhere in between those extremes.

If a DM tells his group that he doesn't want to use multi-classing for (insert reason here) and most of the players are cool with it but one or two, then those who aren't have to choose if they want to play in that game. If every player wants multi-classing then the DM has to choose if he wants to DM for those players. The DM is perfectly within his right to say, it's cool that you want multi-classing, but it's not my thing so I'm going to bow out of the DM seat. The DM is not obligated to run a game for the players. And the players are within their rights to say that not using multi-classing isn't their thing so they're going to bow out of the game. If both sides really want the game to happen then one of them will compromise. If not, then so be it. But no one is required to play in a way that they don't want to play.

For the record I am a fan of multi-class characters and the top of my list of characters I want to play is a multi-class character. But once I find a new group, if the DM doesn't use multi-classing I'm not going to pitch a fit or call him irrational, and no matter what I think of his reasoning think that he's a Richard. I'll simply pick a different character from my list of really want to play characters.

 

[Arial Black]

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

True. This just illustrates that my motive for this debate has nothing to do with what benefits me personally, or even to 'win' a debate on the internet!

My purpose here is to get DMs to understand themselves. By understanding the difference between things that do mess with either the game world or the game balance and things that don't mess with either, then they won't feel the need to blanket ban things in a way that has no positive consequences but do have negative ones.

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

Oh, I have plenty of 'personal preferences', and I'm happy to label them as such. I like warrior-types and don't care for wizards. I've playtested the 5E flanking rules and found them wanting. Elves over dwarves. Loads more.

But, as DM, is it okay to impose my preferences for no other reason than the fact that they are my preferences? No. There has to be a rational reason beyond my own likes and dislikes just to ride roughshod over the likes and dislikes of my players if what they like doesn't spoil my day.

If something would mess with the internal perceivable reality of my game world, then I can veto stuff with a clear conscience. No, there are no gods in my world. No, plate armour and greatswords are beyond their technology. There are elves in my world, but no dwarves.

Even then, am I choosing to create a world without dwarves just because Ted likes to play dwarves and I don't like Ted?

But multiclassing cannot mess with your world because 'character class' itself is not a real thing in the game world. Oh sure, you can have approximations that share the name. You can have a group of wilderness warriors that call themselves 'Rangers', but my single class fighter with the outlander background is indistinguishable in-game to the other 'Rangers'. Creatures in the game cannot know about 'class & level'; all they get is perceivable approximations, like "Djellibaybee The Evoker can cast spells which roast people with balls of magical fire!", but they cannot know whether he is 5th level or 15th, has wizard levels or sorcerer or warlock or even cleric levels, and they sure as can't tell that he has one level of rogue!

The reason Order of the Stick characters are aware of game mechanics is because it is absurd! It is a comedy after all.

What about game play? Game balance is a thing; I wouldn't let one player have a 20th level PC while the rest are 1st level, because part of the social contract of the game is that the DM treats each player fairly and equally. This doesn't mean that every PC must be the same level at all times, have the exact same number of magic items, etc. But the tendency should be toward parity. It would be strange indeed to have all the players start with 5th level PCs except Ted who has to start at 3rd because I don't like Ted dating my sister!

Certain game elements really can impact the game in negative ways, and some of these are personal preferences that matter and that the DM can and should control. Evil PCs, PvP, that kind of thing can have an extremely negative effect on the game play. Although I don't condone the DM taking agency of a players PC from him, this is an out-of-game issue; part of the social contract which can vary from table to table.

So in my games, no PvP and I discourage evil PCs. But what if ALL the players said they want to cut lose and play evil bastards who rape and pillage and everything that they want? Well, I have a choice: I can indulge them for a campaign, and maybe use the opportunity to illustrate the negative effects of such behaviour in-game, such as realising at the end that the village they've just massacred for the lulz is the very same village where their regular PCs' families lived, and when we switch back then their good PCs have to deal with the senseless massacre. Or I can just say that I don't want to run that kind of campaign, so one of them needs to run it. If one of them did then I'd play a properly evil PC and make them regret it! *evil laugh*

The strange thing about multiclassing, and the reason I feel okay to keep banging on about it is not mere personal preference. MCing is strange because it cannot be perceived in-game, so that is not a reason to ban it. Having tribes of orcs living so close to a human city may be 'irrational' in terms of believable world-building (as pointed out in PMing's excellent post) but tribes of orcs ARE perceivable in-game!

You can criticise a fantasy novel where tribes of orcs live unbelievably close to human cities, but you cannot criticise the type-face used in the book on the grounds that Times New Roman doesn't exist in the fictional world in which my novels are set!

MC is also strange in that it is not actually allowing anything the DM hasn't already allowed in his game. The DM can choose not to use the 5E flanking rule because if it is in play then it has an effect on the game play, 'Conga Lines of Death' and invalidating some class abilities, etc. But the MC PC has no ability that the DM doesn't already allow in a single class PC.

So the reason why a blanket ban on MCing is not because of my personal preference, but because there is no valid objection to MCing! When it comes to a player's own PC, the social contract is that the player makes the choices for his own PC. Not the other players, not the DM.

The DM can object to a choice that a player makes for his PC if that choice messes with the perceptions of the game world, but MCing cannot do that.

The DM can object to a choice that a player makes for his PC if that choice gives that PC something that the DM doesn't allow in his campaign, but if the DM allows rogues and allows fighters then he already allows the abilities of rogues and fighters in his game; it is not rational to say that 1st level fighter abilities aren't allowed when they clearly are allowed because Jake is playing one! It is not rational to say that learning how to use weapons prevents you from learning skills; it's not a rational position.

 

[Caliban]

True. This just illustrates that my motive for this debate has nothing to do with what benefits me personally, or even to 'win' a debate on the internet!

My purpose here is to get DMs to understand themselves. By understanding the difference between things that do mess with either the game world or the game balance and things that don't mess with either, then they won't feel the need to blanket ban things in a way that has no positive consequences but do have negative ones.

...Way too long, didn't read. Sorry, I simply don't care about this enough to read that massive wall of "I'm still right and all of you are still wrong" on something that is so subjective.

DM's will run their games the way they want to. Even if YOU insist it isn't rational. Deal with it.

 

[Arial Black]

Okay, so you persist in calling other ways of playing the game than the one you prefer "irrational". As if multiclassing (but presumably not other optional rules?) is somehow the only logical way to play the game.

I have given you enough chances to retract your senseless argument, but no - you are a troll. What could someone possibly gain from riling up emotions by attacking their preferred way of playing the game?

Reported.

Wait, you are calling me names for having the temerity to disagree with you, and you are reporting me? I know you have a reputation for being thin-skinned, but this doesn't reflect well on you.

Just to be clear, it's not the 'playing of the game in ways I wouldn't' that makes me call something 'irrational'; I'm not using the word as mere hyperbole. It's the fact that a blanket ban on MCing specifically has no rational basis. None of the raised objections are based on reason, but emotion.

Feel free to post examples of a blanket MC ban based on reason, and I'll either show that the reasoning is flawed or, like a good scientist, withdraw my objection.

I'm not denying that personal preference is a real thing, but I'm reminding DMs that each player is the one who makes those choices for his own PC, and that is the social contract of the game.

Me: For the new campaign, I'll play a fighter.
DM: No, you're playing a wizard. It's the DM's choice who plays what.
Me: See ya!

Me: My fighter will choose the Dueling fighting style.
DM: No, you choose the Protection fighting style instead.
Me: See ya!

Me: I'll be a cleric this campaign.
DM: There are no gods in this world, so no clerics.
Me:....fair enough.
DM: Jake can play a cleric though.
Me: What?

The DM blanket banning MCing is the DM taking the agency away from the player in regards to what legitimate character options to choose. This choice does not belong to the DM, any more than any other legitimate player choice.

DM: Okay, what do you do?
Me: I pick up the rapier.
DM: No, I think your character would pick up the mace instead.
Me: you! If you want to play my character, here's his sheet. There is absolutely no point in me being here if you are going to make my choices for me. See ya!