D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[steeldragons]

I reacted to you not when you advocated DM empowerment, but when you claimed to know why others did things, even when they said otherwise. I said it came across as arrogant for you to declare why *everyone* does something. I spoke up not when you spoke of DM empowerment, but when you painted all players with a broad brush.

If you don't want to be called out on that, don't do it.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have painted as broadly as "everyone." IME&HO, "most" is not overstating.

 

[trentonjoe]

Mr. Dragons:

How would you respond to this Warlock/Paladin/Sorcerer build "rationale":

This is my story:

I am dwarf that has connected with the spirit of Bahumut. In exchange for my devotion to him he grants me powers, as I am not truly a priest, my powers manifest as a dragon's would. I don't "cast" spells I gain a breath weapon. For example, I don't cast Burning Hands, I breathe it (exact same mechanics, just looks different). When I fly, I grow wings.

As I gain in power, Bahumut gives me the ability to channel his strength (Divine Smite). Later on my breath weapon become more flexible (Sorcerer spells) and can do different things (you, know just like him) or I can choose to channel the breath weapon into my attacks charging them with the power of the Great Dragon.


Would you still rather me a straight Paladin after that discussion?


Would you say, play a human Paladin, take the magic iniatiate feats at 1st, 4th and 8th and you have just what you want?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Fair enough. I shouldn't have painted as broadly as "everyone." IME&HO, "most" is not overstating.

bull and you know it... some people not most...

 

[am181d]

A-bombs work too.

But, all humor aside, neither Hand grenades nor a-bombs are necessary.

Multiclassing is optional.

The perspective that seems to be pervading the thread that NOT allowing MC is somehow doing something "wrong"...cuz the players want it...is ...well, really irritating to me.

And another thing... [this has nothing to do with you, DannyAlcatraz, just happen to have quoted you]

...I don't know about anyone else [probably not since it seems so rare an occurrence], but I am really getting tired of being made out to advocate "badwrongfun", being "adversarial", or "arrogant" and/or insinuating (if not stating outright) I am a "bad DM" any time anything is brought up advocating DM empowerment.

The DM is allowed to make choices for their game. Regards of what players say, what players want, what players think they are entitled to. The DM CAN SAY NO! They SHOULD say no. They should be fair. Yes. Note, not "balanced", fair. They should be as consistent as possible...Yes. But it's not always possible and players need to accept that. And they should damn well HAVE A GOOD TIME DMing! And if that means NOT adding in options that the players say they want...so fraggin' be it!

Is it going to "ruin" your concept that you can't be a Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer? Is it going to "ruin" your game/night if the DM says no MCing in their campaign...or even in this single campaign or one shot? Or does it just mean you work with what you got? The DM will still be shelling out enough fun adventure and excitement in a fantastic world of their design [as shaped and effected by the PCs and their choices and actions] to shake a handful of dice at. You still have loads of "meaningful" decisions, both in character creation and roleplaying, to make.

But you can't have fun with just a Paladin? She's a "bad DM" cuz they won't let you use spell points to max out smites? You character is no good now, because you have to limit your spell selection to Eldritch Knight [or, ya know, play an EK and get DM ok to use different spell schools! Still don't need MC for that.] He's telling me "badwrongfun" cuz he won't let me be a Fighter/Mage...and get Second Wind and Arcane Recovery and Extra Attacks and Ritual Casting and and and...?

I just don't get it. Just a big meany DM, I guess.

The reason you're getting a lot of push back is that you keep saying things like the bolded paragraph above. You're not comfortable simply saying "I think it's okay for DM's to place limits on their games." You feel compelled to take the extra step and say that any player who would want a particular option (here, multi-classing) is operating in bad faith.

The obvious conclusion is that you simply don't believe the people who are telling you that they want to play (for example) the fighter who becomes a cleric because it sounds like fun. They must secretly be looking for a rules advantage!

If you presuppose that the people you're talking to are liars, it's going to make conversations difficult.

In an effort to steer this in a more productive direction:

Even ignoring optional rules within a system, even the CHOICE of RPG is going to put limits on the type of characters that a player can create. (D&D doesn't do a good job of modelling Iron Man or Doctor Who, for example.) And certainly I've run games where default assumptions 1-3 have been replaced with options A-C.

In an ideal world, if a player comes to a DM with a character concept that's outside the scope of what they were intending (say, a Paladin in a game that's not using that class) they can talk about ways to do something close (or differently awesome) within the confines of what the DM has in mind. (This process should also include the DM *considering* whether she should just allow the thing the player was asking for in the first place.)

I think this is something everyone can agree with?

 

[Jaelommiss]

DMSD: "Ah. So it's about the kewl powerz?"

At the end of the day classes are nothing more than a selection of 'kewl powerz' that are related thematically. Any time progression in ANY class is allowed, be that their original class or a second one, you are allowing the acquisition of these new powers. When the player chooses their original class they gain a selection of powers. When they level up they gain more powers.

If a player believes that choosing an alternate set of powers would create a more interesting character, why should they not? Yes, a long and convoluted alternative probably exists. I'm sure they could spend the next eight levels unlocking the requisite feats to recreate the desired effect. But that doesn't answer the question of why they should not take the easier alternative. If anything, it demonstrates the elegance of multiclassing.

Perhaps that player's DM believes that taking a level in another class would make that character more powerful. Why that is a bad thing? The player has earned a level. They could put the level in the class they have already advanced and get closer to its next 'kewl power', or they could progress in a different class and unlock something there. In both cases there is an advance in character strength. I ask why one is necessarily better than the other, especially when the disallowed choice would bring the character more in line with the player's view.

Multiclassing allows the player to make and play the exact character that they want to play. WotC cannot be expected to make classes to fill every possible character concept that could be created, and so they allowed multiclassing to let players make the class that they want to play. I see no reason not to allow the players to play what they want to play if the rules provide the possibility and they are making choices that reflect their character.

When a player comes to me and says, "Please mister DM sir, I want to play as a priest who empowers their allies by singing hymns in battle," I don't say, "Well then you want a cleric. They are battle priestly types and anything else would be wrong." I instead point them to the bard and give suggestions for reskinning the parts of it that meet their needs. I'll show them the bard's abilities that are appropriate (bardic inspiration or song of rest, for example), and suggest starting as a cleric, putting levels into bard until they get the ability that supports their character concept, and then continuing along as a cleric to get the spells they want.


I will freely admit that I am not concerned about one player growing more powerful than another. Powergamers at my table quickly learn that their enemies are often smart enough to target the greatest threat first. I also start giving out magical items to consistently weaker characters if they start to feel like they are being overshadowed.

 

[steeldragons]

But...you are being arrogant when you presume to know the minds and motives of every player in the world wanting to multiclass. I mean, you see that, right?

I suppose so. I don't know that I see being presumptuous and being arrogant are the same thing.

Oh, man. Thing is when people look at this, they seem to forget that you have to get there! Getting there is NOT half the fun; while the MC toon is bouncing between two classes, the single-classed character is unlocking higher-level powers. In other words, are you really sure the MC class is drastically (or even slightly) more powerful than a single classed character.

Did anyone do the math on the paladin/warlock/sorcerer to see if that was really game breaking?

I don't think anyone has. And they probably aren't [any more powerful, initially]. For me, it is a far from "mathematical" or "game breaking" thing. It's less about the mechanics and more about plausibility [since, well, it's D&D so anything is possible] and story/place in the game world.

Something like the Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer example is just a complete non-starter for a variety of setting reasons. But, say we start it anyway. Then, there is the plausibility of such an individual existing anywhere in the game world. The deity choices of the world. The structure/orders of Paladins that exist in the world. The presence (or lack thereof) of Warlocks and/or Sorcerers to begin with. There are a dozen reasons this character wouldn't fly in my particular game, without even taking "using MC" into consideration.

Well, honestly...do you think that's possible here?

Obviously. Expecting players to take the framework of races and classes and backgrounds [or any subset or additions thereof], their imaginations, and mix the infinite combinations of those elements without multiclassing is clearly just a dick move on my part.

Henceforth, I shall be known as "Steel the Big Meaniest Dragons."

 

[steeldragons]

The reason you're getting a lot of push back is that you keep saying things like the bolded paragraph above. You're not comfortable simply saying "I think it's okay for DM's to place limits on their games." You feel compelled to take the extra step and say that any player who would want a particular option (here, multi-classing) is operating in bad faith.

The obvious conclusion is that you simply don't believe the people who are telling you that they want to play (for example) the fighter who becomes a cleric because it sounds like fun. They must secretly be looking for a rules advantage!

If you presuppose that the people you're talking to are liars, it's going to make conversations difficult.

In an effort to steer this in a more productive direction:

Even ignoring optional rules within a system, even the CHOICE of RPG is going to put limits on the type of characters that a player can create. (D&D doesn't do a good job of modelling Iron Man or Doctor Who, for example.) And certainly I've run games where default assumptions 1-3 have been replaced with options A-C.

In an ideal world, if a player comes to a DM with a character concept that's outside the scope of what they were intending (say, a Paladin in a game that's not using that class) they can talk about ways to do something close (or differently awesome) within the confines of what the DM has in mind. (This process should also include the DM *considering* whether she should just allow the thing the player was asking for in the first place.)

I think this is something everyone can agree with?

Sounds good to me.

 

[trentonjoe]

"Something like the Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer example is just a complete non-starter for a variety of setting reasons. But, say we start it anyway. Then, there is the plausibility of such an individual existing anywhere in the game world. The deity choices of the world. The structure/orders of Paladins that exist in the world. The presence (or lack thereof) of Warlocks and/or Sorcerers to begin with. There are a dozen reasons this character wouldn't fly in my particular game, without even taking "using MC" into consideration. "

But why do I need to be a Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer? Why can't I just be a Champion of Bahumut or other dragon? Why can't your setting include a cult dedicated to helping the weak? Maybe I could just be a Champion of whatever god you have created? Surely there must be one with a dragon underling?

 

[Bohemond D'Arlac]

As a DM I don't really mind my players customizing their characters as they see fit, within the boundaries of the rules...after all, it's their characters, not mine. They will die anyway in some dark, humid dungeon, and horrid creatures will pick their min/maxed bones clean.

 

[pkt77242]

That is mistaken. I am looking for a reason to say "Yes."

Actually, it seems that you are looking for a reason to say no. Anytime someone brings up a character option you have to try and pick it apart as you believe that they are min/maxing or that they could play something else that is similar but not the same. Looking to say yes is something very different. It is fine that you don't want it in your game, but you keep saying that any player that wants to MC is gaming the system is a perfect example of you having your mind made up and you trying to find a reason to say "no" because of your preconceived notions. Which is fine and is how most of us actually operate if we are honest (it is much easier mentally to make something align with our current beliefs then to change them).

Edit: Not trying to attack you, more pointing out that most of us take new information and make it congruent with our current beliefs as it is easier. You have admitted that you are starting from the point that MC is bad and thus it is easier to keep that mindset then to change it. Just as it is easier for me to keep the mindset that MC can be good then to change it.