Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6750348" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Not exactly...the player can do those things. The MC rules do not list that the player has to do that. There is NOTHING in the MC rules that state a player can't have a character who is a hard-core, military career family, sword in hand since the day he was born, Fighter (Battlemaster) of 8th level. Always fighting. Always hitting the pit fights, boxing matches, areana death match circuit, etc. Then, he gains enough XP to hit 9th and the player says "We need a cleric, so I'll take a level of Cleric. I'll take Life so we have decent healing". POOF! He's now got all the abilities of a 1st level cleric for which he never even hinted at being religious, let alone "life" (having his entire history devoted to the pursuit of how to kill someone quickly).That's one of the key points I'm trying to get across to you. I don't like the way the MC rules work because they allow completely arbitrary, inconsistent and "random" class additions. There isn't any rule that says "The PC must have pre-chosen his MC classes and have them worked into his characters background story and personality. If he doesn't, the DM may require the PC to undergo the lengthy training that normally is required for gaining level 1 in any class (typically between 5 and 10 years of time)"... or anything of the sort. Nothing. Just pick a class when you have the XP. No need for background "wroking in" or even having any interest in the class prior. That's a HUGE problem for me. No, it isn't. A Fighter, for example, is trained to Fight. He's been fighting, presumably, if the campaign is anything akin to the core play-style of Dungeons & Dragons. He gets better at it. Oh, he just gained Second Wind? How? Simple, he had the training and knowledge of it from the get go...he just didn't quite figure it out (re: he wasn't experienced enough) to 'do it' the right way. That Wizard just gained a new level of Spell, and a new spell to go with it! How? Simple, he already knew the basics of magic, being a wizard, and he already 'knew' the spell. He wasn't skilled enough to cast it before, and he didn't quite understand some nuances of how to subjugate the primary mana influx coupled with the dimensional location matrix based on where he was in relation to the nearest ley-portal. Now he "gets it". That Fighter just gained a level...and took Wizard. How? Who the F knows?!? He couldn't read the wizards spell book the night before, and had no concept of what the hell "primary mana influx" was, let alone what at "dimensional location matrix" is. But, he just got 2,700xp from killing goblins, so yeah. POOF! He can now cast spells. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="o_O" title="Er... what?    o_O"  data-smilie="12"data-shortname="o_O" />The MC rules simply DO NOT work for this.Yup. Correct. But the MC rules don't require ANY of that stuff you seem to be holding onto. If the player didn't "design" his charcter to be MC'ing Fighter/Wizard from the get go, it makes zero sense that he can wake up on moring after drinking his ass off at the bar after a successful dungeon foray and suddenly be able to "cast wizard spells and all that 1st level wizard stuff". The MC rules simply do not support this.And if I approve Minotaur's from the Dragonlance Unearthed Arcana thing from WotC? Does that mean I 'automatically' approve Half-Minotaurs? Of course not! Just because I actually use the Core Rules, doesn't mean I "automatically have to accept/approve" the OPTIONAL Multiclass rules. They are OPTIONAL for a reason. Some people like them, some people don't. I'm one who doesn't like them in their current form. Maybe I'll come up with my own homebrew MC rules later on, or maybe someone else will come up with something I like. But as the 5e MC rules are now...no thanks.My dislike isn't irrational in the least. I'm also not telling everyone else that they can't MC...except those who play in my campaign. They can't use MC in my campaign because it's my campaign and I don't like the MC rules as they are. Why you are having a hard time grasping that is beyond me.That wasn't exactly what I was concerned about. I don't "fear" MC'ing. I can deal with whatever crops up because of it. What I don't want to do is even have to deal with things cropping up in the first place. To me and my group, it's just not worth it. We wouldn't get enough out of MC'ing compared to the potential "patch jobs" I'd have to do to make certain class/race/whatever combos 'fit' into my game.Also, it's not about your Pal/War 2/3 being equivalent to other 5th level classes. It would be about you 'stacking up' to another Warlock or Paladin in the group who was 5th level. If there was a 5th level paladin in the group, would your characters 3rd level Warlock abilities/spells/etc make him "better at paladin'ing" than the single-class paladin? Do you use any Warlock stuff to augment or otherwise "power up" ANY of your paladin abilities? If yes, do they outshine the core abilities that you would have if you were just a 5th level paladin? Can you do more paladin things than the paladin can?Now, depending on the player, this can be a HUGE thing, or nothing at all. My contention is that when a single PC is able to mix-n-match abilities from two or more classes, there can be certain combo's that give one of the classes too much of a power-boost to something. Just go look at the Character Optimization forum here. Multiclassing and Feats are used to, effectively, "break" the game (or otherwise try and gain more power for level X than a normal character of a single class would have at level X). There is a reason why MC is used quite often for this...First, I'm not "banning" it. Multiclassing is OPTIONAL. I can't "ban" something that isn't assumed to be part of the core game.Second, MC PC's are not, by default, 'more powerful' than single-classed. However, they have the potential be seriously mess up the balance of the system..especially if one is using Feats as well. I'm not that worried about that, as I said a few paragraphs above...I can fix things that crop up if I was using it. However, I just don't like the way MC'ing is actually done/handled. Seriously. That's the primary reason. I don't like the MC rules...not necessarily the results.I don't assume...I plan for. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Thing is, all it takes is one of these "power gamers" to completely and utterly mangle a campaign. But that's beside the point. I just do not like how the 5e MC rules work. Seriously. That's the main reason.For the love of....! *sigh* Ok. One LAST time. Seriously. I'm not replying after this. If you want to continue, PM me. Here it is...I have no problem with Multiclassing! I HAVE a problem with the WAY that the 5e Multiclassing Rules ARE WRITTEN.MC'ing can make uber characters. It can make sub-par characters. It can make flavourless, mechanics-only-matter characters. It can make the most well-rounded persona possible. BUT, the RULES OF MC'ing... I JUST DON'T LIKE HOW THEY ARE DONE....SO NO MC'ing IN MY CAMPAIGN! Because of that...I don't feel that me allowing MC'ing is worth it to me, for me, or my group, in my campaign. I'm more happy with saying "No MC" than I am having to vet every single MC combo a player throws at me, as well as having to come up with my own rules for things like "pre-choosing" classes to fit background/personality, and all that other stuff. It's just not worth it to me. Sorry.Over and out.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification