Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6750783" data-attributes="member: 6799649">Who says the fighter's never thought about cleric-y stuff before? Just because it wasn't on camera, doesn't mean he didn't. These kind of minor ret-cons are the staple of the entire body of fiction where the protagonist has more than one book/film/episode. We suddenly learn that our hero used to be married, or dropped out of priest school, or is an expert chef, or a black-belt in judo, or whatever. The writer decides he wants the hero to be able to do something that he hadn't thought of before, so he writes the hero as if he could do that thing the entire time, but it never came up in his recorded adventures before.In the game, we cannot just decide that our PC is also a 20th level wizard; we have to obey the rules. But, according to those rules, we can decide that he was an apprentice wizard; at least, we can when we get enough XPs to level up!The way the MC rules work is exactly the same as the single class rules work! You have already written that the class abilities that you don't have yet are explained when you do get them (as you level up) as being part of your training before you were even 1st level, but you needed experience before those abilities actually manifested. Yet this is exactly the same reasoning that a MC PC gets his abilities. Whether or not it was mentioned in the game is neither here nor there, because every single detail of the PCs pre-adventuring life has not been detailed, leaving plenty of room for a ret-con.And even that is deliberately disregarding all those who have a MC concept from the start. My latest organised play PC has been planned out (in terms of what levels, when) before she was ever played. The concept of a spy who becomes a field agent who eventually earns her 'license to kill' is realised by Rogue at 1st, then Monk (shadow) for 6 levels, then Rogue for 4 more (license to kill is gained when she gets to Rog(assassin) 3/Mnk 6), before finishing her career in Monk levels. This has been trained for since childhood, and even though she doesn't have all of those abilities yet (she's Rog 1/Mnk 2 ATM), the seeds for all those abilities were part of her childhood training in exactly the same way as they are for any single class PC!They work the same for MC as they do for single class. At 2nd level, my 1st level rogue could have taken a 2nd level of rogue, gaining Cunning Action. Instead she took a level of monk (completely planned in advance), gaining Martial Arts and Unarmoured Defence. How? The explanation is exactly the same (and exactly as sensible/stupid) for either case; she trained for those abilities for years but only gets the hang of it now, even though she never did any of those things in play. And that is just as true for the single class and the MC version.If you don't like the game mechanic of gaining abilities as you gain XPs and levels, then this is not a reason to ban MCing because it's the same system for single class PCs!First, just because it wasn't shown 'on camera' doesn't mean the previous training wasn't there. Second, this disregards planned MC PCs because you ban them too. Third, the 'zero sense' that 'a fighter can wake up from drinking his ass off at the bar and suddenly be able to cast spells' already is supported by the single class rules! If my 2nd level fighter ends the day with enough XPs, the single class rules support my choice to wake up with a 3rd level of...fighter...Eldritch Knight!Yet again, the MC rules really are no different to the single class rules in explaining how PCs can do stuff now that they couldn't yesterday.And this illustrates what I've been saying all along: your taste in the rules is a personal one for you, just as everyone is entitled to theirs. But you impose your taste on others. You might have a dislike of the colour 'pink'. Fine. But it's not your business to ban others from wearing pink. You should be self-aware enough to tell the difference between an objectively faulty rule and an irrational dislike, and not to impose your likes/dislikes on others.Because 'the MC rules as they are' are actually the same as the single class rules! You gain XPs, you level up, you gain new abilities that you've never used before, and you justify it however the hell you want! That is the same system for single class AND MC characters!Again, there is nothing to deal with for MC PCs that you don't already have to deal with regarding single class PCs. 'Is this PC too powerful?'; if yes, deal with it. This is equally true for both single class AND MC PCs.What if there are two single class paladins in the group? Will one outshine the other? What about another martial; will they be better at engaging the enemy? Will one of my players feel his paladin is useless compared to the PCs of the other players? Yet again, this is not a problem with MC PCs that isn't also a problem with single class PCs.Wizards can mix and match any spells they like. They can combine these at high levels in an almost infinite variety, totally beyond any DMs ability to predict. They can alter reality, step outside time, create their own little universes... No problem.What? Your 2nd level PC has Martial Arts AND Sneak Attack 1d6? BAN!!! Ban it now!!!That's the point. You know there's nothing you can't handle. It's just your personal taste....being imposed on others.Yeah, I don't like brown shoes. I never wear them. Therefore, I will not allow brown shoes in my house! My house, my rules!You don't see it, do you? You don't see that the MC rules work the same as the single class rules! There is no rational reason to dislike MCing any more than how the class/level rules work anyway, for both MC and single class PCs.</blockquote>

Verification