D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Eric V]

Either we take the fluff of the class as a whole, or none of it.

Wait, I thought you didn't like false binaries...

if the mechanics end up being the same, what's the problem with re-fluffing things?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

This wasn't said to me, but it is something I'd like to comment on (without specific context).

The first rule of DMing is to make sure that people have fun and if that is the character that they want to build, why shouldn't they get to build their character. The other thing that DMs should try to do is find a way to so yes (not that you can always say yes to players but you should look for a reason to say yes) while you are starting from the point of No and convince me to say yes.

I would say that they shouldn't get to build their character if it interferes with the overall fun of the group--or if it creates one type of fun at the expense of another type of fun, when the latter type of fun is the intended goal of the session/game/campaign, etc. For instance, let's say that at a planned D&D session one player pulls out his MtG decks while the DM is away from the table and they all start playing. I think any player (including the DM) can rightly expect that they put the cards away once it is time for the game to start. It may be fun, but it isn't the fun that was planned, intended, and expected for the evening, and it is unfair to anyone who is actually there to play D&D to have their rightly expected fun replaced by other fun they may or may not be interested in, because a few other people didn't stick to the plan. If everyone is super excited to play MtG, then sure, put off the D&D. But most of the time at least one person is going to be rather disappointed, even if they pretend they're fine with it.

People keep saying that DMs should look for a way to say yes in character creation, or that during play you should always say, "yes, and," or that the DM is supposed to be giving the players what they want, etc. I disagree.

The DM (or GM) of any role-playing game is primarily responsible to provide the players (including himself) with the experience of fun, mystery, horror, reflection, or whatever else, that is planned, intended, and expected. Each player has a secondary role to support the PIE.

The assumption is that everyone has agreed to the same PIE. If that is the case then all other assumptions must of necessity be based on the PIE.

If it is a campaign where you are fighters with randomly rolled races and stats in a savage land where you are likely to die before you hit 2nd level, and you start off by auctioning off pre-made fighters with chocolate chips at the table, that's what you're all there to play, and if you eat all your chocolate chips before bidding begins you can't bid for your first preference in fighter. (Maybe I need some dessert...) Plus, PIE implies that you want the challenge of trying to survive to make 2nd level, and dying before then isn't going to detract from your overall enjoyment of the experience.

If you a playing a game where the PIE is that each character takes narrative control of the story at certain points and advances the plot, then if you don't do that you are ruining the experience for everyone else at that point.

If you play a game where PIE says that each player attempts to make the most wacky and broken character out there, and you refuse to min-max (or to let anyone help you do so), you are in violation of the PIE, and probably need to be kicked out of the game. No PIE for you.

There are a lot of different RPGs out there with a variety of different assumptions, but most of them have their assumptions fall within a defined set of parameters. On the other hand, D&D has been around long enough to have its own large variance in play styles, and so people can have extremely different expectations of what D&D is about and what a campaign is going to be. Much more so than with other games, it is vital that everyone understands what they want out of the game and are on the same wavelength. They agree on what they are going to play (often by means of the DM inviting people and informing them of what to expect, and then those people indicating they are interested), and then, in order to make sure everyone gets what they are there to get, should probably stick to PIE (or agree as a group to change PIE).

The idea that certain role-playing techniques which support specific playstyles are a better or worse way of creating that sort of enjoyment isn't true. They are better or worse at creating that sort of playstyle. Enjoyment is based on everyone getting their piece of the PIE. (Preferably pecan or french silk.)

So here's what I say.

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?

Ah...I see the character concept. I wouldn't allow that concept at all, because it isn't part of the classic D&D experience I intend in my campaigns. My formative D&D began in the AD&D era, and while I don't like the rules of those editions, that basic world assumptions are what I want out of my D&D. That sort of character wouldn't even exist in that framework, and therefore isn't a good fit for a campaign I'm DMing. No offense to the character concept itself, though. I have fantasy character concepts of my own that I wouldn't let myself play if I were DMing myself in D&D, because they aren't a part of my D&D expectations, and playing such a character (much as I might enjoy it) would detract from my overall D&D PIE. For instance, I love spellcasters with pretty much all at-will spontaneously created spells they can keep casting all day long (and I mean powerful spells, not cantrips). It has no place in my D&D, however.

 

[MrMyth]

I consider cursing, of any ilk, to be dark magic. Frankly speaking, that's not a good character - that's pretty amoral and Id driven at best, outright cruel at the worst. Making someone suffer like that, even mildly, is not a good action.

Just to be clear, your position is: Cursing someone to be clumsy for several minutes is dark magic, while burning them to death is absent any such moral dilemma?

I was asked why I considered the sorcerer, and I responded with my views, and then was accused of ignoring the fluff of the class, and responded by pointing out more fluff. Of course I was arguing to defend my case! I'm the one being accused!

I was the one who had to defend my view of the warlock, not tell anyone else they couldn't play theirs.

That's the thing - if you just said, "Hey, I'd have trouble playing a warlock without feeling like there were thematic elements of the class that were darker than I'd like", I'd be cool with that. But the entire, "Anyone using a Hex or Agonizing Blast is doing Bad Stuff that is worse than all the other ways normal D&D characters kill their enemies"... well, yeah, that does come across as judging other people's characters and telling them how they can play.

 

[Eric V]

One of the things jumping out at me here is the problem of "conflict of imaginations." It seems like, if some people can't imagine it, then it doesn't make sense. If that person is the DM, then some of her more imaginative players are going to get gimped if they disallow things as a result. This includes things like what terms like "hex" and "sorcerer" mean, as well as the importance of fluff text.

I think this is why more recent versions have encouraged a "say yes" approach; even DMs imaginations can use expanding.

 

[MoonSong]

Ok, I just need to try.

I started as sorcerer -from first level- but I went for a roguish character with some shades of thug, I was playful and conspiring, and unpredictable. I was very good at bluffing and improvising, but also took a liking for dualwielding a dagger and a sickle, and went out of the way to get a halberd and some proficiency with it -A weapon I always found very pretty and elegant-. From day 1 I was always over my head getting into constant danger, charging straight into melee. Whenever I found someone strong I always asked to spar with that person. Despite my chaotic neutral tendencies and being BFFs with the party halfling rogue I idolized the party paladin, who always turned me down when I asked him to spar with me.

Eventually things got bad, the paladin fell death in the frontline, I wished to recover his body to bury him, and I had to be dragged out of there by force because it wasn't possible. Then on the way back I lost my little pal on a horrible way and war erupted around us. Since I was helpless to help both of them I swore to not rest until peace and order were restored, and that I was going to behave and keep the quest of the paladin alive in me. All of this actual roleplay on the table. Now we go up a level and I decide that the best way to proceed is to start taking levels in paladin, to keep the quest alive and get to a point so I can start going into the frontline without needing rescue every five minutes. Not to rebuild as a full pally, because what I did with lights and sparks was very iconic to my character and couldn't just stop doing them, not to mention my pet talking raven, to multiclass into paladin, probably for keeps, but retaining what made my character iconic at the beginning. Would you allow Multiclassing for this? [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]?

 

[Eric V]

"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?

Yeah. In a book, he'd be a holy knight with a unique power set, differentiating him from other knights. Classic fantasy stuff.

 

[MrMyth]

DMSD: "So we'll swap out the evocations for transmutations. Problem solved?"

Player: "Sure, I guess that works. It still doesn't quite cover what I was looking for, but if you are willing to customize the Eldritch Knight for me, I'll take it."

OOC: In all seriousness, I am totally cool with this approach, as it is the sort of thing I tend to do all the time. Thing is, it won't work for every single situation. And, honestly, probably adds significantly more imbalance than actually using the multi-classing rules themselves.

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

Player: "I... I don't know why you said it like that. But yeah! The Transmuter can make a Philosopher's Stone - how cool is that?"

DMSD: So you have this concept [that you just have to play and I should allow MCing for when I've said we're not doing MC], but don't want to wait for it? 4th level is too long [assuming we aren't starting over 4th to begin with, in which case, no wait]? Variant human for a weapon proficiency at 1st and get your armor at 4th...or vice verse? Or, while understanding that you will be a serious rarity as a dwarf wizard, Mountain Dwarf Transmuter for the armor from level 1 and get the weapon at 4th?

Player: "Well, if it was just one feat, I could maybe wait until level 4, but to get heavy armor and weapon proficiency as a wizard, that will take... quite a bit longer, right? And... those weren't really the races I had in mind..."

OOC: Here is where things get rather dicey. Wasn't the goal of your "No MC" rule to encourage character decisions based for story reasons? Forcing someone into a build other than what they had in mind, in avoid to mechanically fit some features that they could otherwise get in a reasonable and balanced fashion, would seem to be the opposite of that goal.

DMSD: Which is an optional system I've already said wouldn't be in the game. So why is this character in front of me in the first place? You have three possible ways to get this "concept" you're asking for, without it.

OOC: And here is where things are getting strangely hostile. The player had something in mind, and nothing else seems to fit the character. They ask if they can use it. Just to be clear, the answer "no" is a valid one. But you were the one who asked for a scenario where a character might want a build that is only supported by multiclassing. Getting angry at them for providing one to you is rather bad form.

And no, none of your suggested builds are especially close to the character concept. They could work, sure. Even better if you do go ahead and tweak features to customize them. But that seems an awful lot of extra effort in order to avoid having them play something that could perfectly support their concept, which they are interested in primarily for RP reasons.

I'm all for finding creative ways to build interesting characters, or modding the classes to help customize them for a game. But again - you seemed insistent that there could never be a build that is supported by multiclassing and that a character could desire for RP reasons. That just isn't the case.

Edited To Add: Look, my goal here isn't to force you to 'change your mind' and allow Multiclassing in your game. That's your call to make. There are plenty of reasons to make it - if a DM just doesn't want to deal with the possible character capabilities it could open up and how they could affect encounter balance, if a DM just wants to avoid giving PCs the temptation of trying to min/max their builds and backgrounds, etc. I mainly just wanted to try and get across that yes, there are builds and ideas that multiclassing is the best way to deal with, and that those builds can easily be rooted in RP and story as much - or more - than specific powers and features.

If you don't want to go down the multiclassing route, but are willing to work with a player to build them a new class archetype or other features that help them realize their character, then that can be all for the best. I'd much more recommend that route than one where you try to force them into a bizarre build of race and class features that 'hits all the keywords' they mentioned to you when describing their character, but fundamentally fails to achieve the actual concept they are going for.

The other thing I'd recommend against - is disparaging an idea that someone comes up with. It's one thing to say, "Hey, this isn't a good fit in my campaign for (Plot | Setting | Balance) reasons." It is something else to say, "Hey, I bet you only came up with this to justify some power-gaming nonsense combo." That seemed to be how you were portraying anyone who wanted to multiclass, and I think it is a far, far cry from the reasons most players are interested in it.

Many will want such builds for story reasons. Others *do* want them for specific combinations of mechanics, but not because they are trying to break the system, but because they see it as the best way to achieve something cool. There was the mention of Assassin's Creed elsewhere in the thread. "Hey, it would be really cool to be able to run up and down walls and jump safely from rooftops and be fast enough to run circles around my enemies. It looks like Monk / Rogue is a great way to do that!" Or, "Hey, I want Fey Pact teleporting and Wild Magic sorcery, because both of those features are Awesome!"

Enjoying what your character can do is part of the game. That doesn't mean you need to allow it in your game, sure. But I think it is important to understand why players might want such things, without just dismissing it as them wanting to break the system.

 

[pkt77242]

This wasn't said to me, but it is something I'd like to comment on (without specific context).



I would say that they shouldn't get to build their character if it interferes with the overall fun of the group--or if it creates one type of fun at the expense of another type of fun, when the latter type of fun is the intended goal of the session/game/campaign, etc. For instance, let's say that at a planned D&D session one player pulls out his MtG decks while the DM is away from the table and they all start playing. I think any player (including the DM) can rightly expect that they put the cards away once it is time for the game to start. It may be fun, but it isn't the fun that was planned, intended, and expected for the evening, and it is unfair to anyone who is actually there to play D&D to have their rightly expected fun replaced by other fun they may or may not be interested in, because a few other people didn't stick to the plan. If everyone is super excited to play MtG, then sure, put off the D&D. But most of the time at least one person is going to be rather disappointed, even if they pretend they're fine with it.

People keep saying that DMs should look for a way to say yes in character creation, or that during play you should always say, "yes, and," or that the DM is supposed to be giving the players what they want, etc. I disagree.

The DM (or GM) of any role-playing game is primarily responsible to provide the players (including himself) with the experience of fun, mystery, horror, reflection, or whatever else, that is planned, intended, and expected. Each player has a secondary role to support the PIE.

The assumption is that everyone has agreed to the same PIE. If that is the case then all other assumptions must of necessity be based on the PIE.

If it is a campaign where you are fighters with randomly rolled races and stats in a savage land where you are likely to die before you hit 2nd level, and you start off by auctioning off pre-made fighters with chocolate chips at the table, that's what you're all there to play, and if you eat all your chocolate chips before bidding begins you can't bid for your first preference in fighter. (Maybe I need some dessert...) Plus, PIE implies that you want the challenge of trying to survive to make 2nd level, and dying before then isn't going to detract from your overall enjoyment of the experience.

If you a playing a game where the PIE is that each character takes narrative control of the story at certain points and advances the plot, then if you don't do that you are ruining the experience for everyone else at that point.

If you play a game where PIE says that each player attempts to make the most wacky and broken character out there, and you refuse to min-max (or to let anyone help you do so), you are in violation of the PIE, and probably need to be kicked out of the game. No PIE for you.

There are a lot of different RPGs out there with a variety of different assumptions, but most of them have their assumptions fall within a defined set of parameters. On the other hand, D&D has been around long enough to have its own large variance in play styles, and so people can have extremely different expectations of what D&D is about and what a campaign is going to be. Much more so than with other games, it is vital that everyone understands what they want out of the game and are on the same wavelength. They agree on what they are going to play (often by means of the DM inviting people and informing them of what to expect, and then those people indicating they are interested), and then, in order to make sure everyone gets what they are there to get, should probably stick to PIE (or agree as a group to change PIE).

The idea that certain role-playing techniques which support specific playstyles are a better or worse way of creating that sort of enjoyment isn't true. They are better or worse at creating that sort of playstyle. Enjoyment is based on everyone getting their piece of the PIE. (Preferably pecan or french silk.)

I pointed out in my post that a DM can't always say yes, but they should be looking for ways to say yes. My point was that if a DM is always putting the kibosh on players ideas (if you are saying no significantly more then yes) then there is a problem. Too many times in threads I see people commenting that I am the DM and so what I say goes. While that is generally true of rulings in the moment such as during combat, etc. for things like character creation that are not as time dependent and more open to discussion, saying "I am the DM and I say no" generally leads to that person not enjoying the game. It is a collaborative game and those types of things should be discussed as a group (well that is how my group handles it, just like that is how we handle people building customer classes or sub-classes, everyone has to sign off on it not just the DM).

As to your PIE analogy I generally agree but I think you can have different style of players in the same group. For instance we have one player in my group that loves to min/max, and tries to build really strong characters that do a ton of damage. I on the other hand come up with a story for a character and then build from there and sometimes those characters (ok, frequently) they aren't the "best" character but they are the ones that I enjoy playing. I think that tables should be open enough to handle most styles of play (obviously there are some extreme cases that can't be handled but those are more rare).

 

[Mouseferatu]

Wait, I thought you didn't like false binaries...

if the mechanics end up being the same, what's the problem with re-fluffing things?

This, a million times over. The classes are the default interpretations, sure, but if nothing's changing mechanically and the re-skin doesn't fundamentally violate some setting precept, why not allow it?

My go-to example:

A monk (not the D&D class, I mean the Medieval cloistered guy in a monastery with a tonsure and brown robe). He dislikes violence, but he has been trained to fight for the faithful. When he must fight, his faith allows him to enter an almost ecstatic state where he is empowered by his beliefs, growing stronger, tougher; protected by religion, and possibly by actual divine power.

Class? Totem barbarian, with "rage" described as said religious fervor. But conceptually and visually? Nothing like it.

If your setting has monasteries, why not allow this?

 

[guachi]

Player: "Sure, I guess that works. It still doesn't quite cover what I was looking for, but if you are willing to customize the Eldritch Knight for me, I'll take it."

OOC: In all seriousness, I am totally cool with this approach, as it is the sort of thing I tend to do all the time. Thing is, it won't work for every single situation. And, honestly, probably adds significantly more imbalance than actually using the multi-classing rules themselves.

There was a discussion on this board or another about allowing a school swap with EK or AT. Many of us, independent of one another (I think), had decided that having one school be one of the two required schools and the second from any school to be fair.