Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6462502" data-attributes="member: 92511">It sounds like you've already answered this for yourself...and I agree with it.TO answer the actual thread question, &quot;There is no reason to allow Multiclassing [in your game] unless you want to.&quot; As the DM, whatever your reasons, if you don't want to in your games, then don't.I agree, the options exist for types of characters that simulate what used to be multiclassed characters. Granted in a more 1-2e way [thank gods] than a 3e way. But a LOT, if not all, of character options are there/doable.As you astutely note, there is no &quot;character&quot; reason to permit it other than for &quot;min-maxing&quot; or, really, and more accurately, &quot;power-gaming.&quot; The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to cherry-pick their character abilities and they can't do that without an MC level of having access [eventually] to alllll of a class' features. The assertion that there might be &quot;story&quot; reasons to allow it...that's kinda...well, bogus. There would only be an &quot;in story&quot; reason for it if the DM has such a story to take place. There are a million OTHER ways to handle some story situation/reason then &quot;sure, go ahead and start up a whole second class.&quot;From the player side, the argument from a player/background &quot;story&quot; perspective, e.g. &quot;I've got this GREAT idea! So, she was a born Sorcerer and then joined up this knightly order and took an Oath of Vengence against the demon that killed her brother &amp; sister-knights. She's the last of her order. So I'm a full Pal/Sor [with all of the bells and whistles, thereof].&quot; So you have to allow MCing, because the player has come up with this story? *shrug* And, it's simple, no you don't.&nbsp; It's sort of backwards. &quot;I need multiclassing because I already came up with this story...&quot; That's just nonsense. We're not doing MCing. So, no. You don't. Come up with a different story. If you say &quot;no MCing&quot; that player can try to work with the framework you have set for the game you are running, i.e. get as close to their &quot;important/creative concept/story&quot;, or play something else. My guess? In most cases, they will come up with something else right quick. Whatever other bs floats around, the only reason a player that wants to play a &quot;fighter/mage&quot; can't or won't be satisfied in playing an Eldritch Knight (or any of the other ways to get there that you give in the OP) is because they want ALL of the fighter stuff and ALL of the mage stuff. There is nothing to it but entitlement, &quot;wanting their cake and eating it too&quot;, and powergaming. Don't want to encourage that? [And I do applaud that you do NOT want to!] Don't allow multiclassing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6462502, member: 92511"] It sounds like you've already answered this for yourself...and I agree with it. TO answer the actual thread question, "There is no reason to allow Multiclassing [in your game][I] unless you want to[/I]." As the DM, whatever your reasons, if you don't want to in your games, then don't. I agree, the options exist for types of characters that simulate what used to be multiclassed characters. Granted in a more 1-2e way [thank gods] than a 3e way. But a LOT, if not all, of character options are there/doable. As you astutely note, there is no "character" reason to permit it other than for "min-maxing" or, really, and more accurately, "power-gaming." The only reason players would argue FOR multi-classing is because they want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to cherry-pick their character abilities and they can't do that without an MC level of having access [eventually] to alllll of a class' features. The assertion that there might be "story" reasons to allow it...that's kinda...well, bogus. There would only be an "in story" reason for it if the DM has such a story to take place. There are a million OTHER ways to handle some story situation/reason then "sure, go ahead and start up a whole second class." From the player side, the argument from a player/background "story" perspective, e.g. "I've got this GREAT idea! So, she was a born Sorcerer and then joined up this knightly order and took an Oath of Vengence against the demon that killed her brother & sister-knights. She's the last of her order. So I'm a full Pal/Sor [with all of the bells and whistles, thereof]." So you [I]have [/I]to allow MCing, because the player has come up with this story? *shrug* And, it's simple, no you don't. It's sort of backwards. "I need multiclassing because I already came up with this story..." That's just nonsense. We're not doing MCing. So, no. You don't. Come up with a different story. If you say "no MCing" that player can try to work with the framework you have set for the game you are running, i.e. get as close to their "important/creative concept/story", or play something else. My guess? In[I] most [/I]cases, they will come up with something else right quick. Whatever other bs floats around, the [I]only[/I] reason a player that wants to play a "fighter/mage" can't or won't be satisfied in playing an Eldritch Knight (or any of the other ways to get there that you give in the OP) is because they want ALL of the fighter stuff and ALL of the mage stuff. There is nothing to it but entitlement, "wanting their cake and eating it too", and powergaming. Don't want to encourage that? [And I do applaud that you do NOT want to!] Don't allow multiclassing. [/QUOTE]

Verification