Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 6463193" data-attributes="member: 61155">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. 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?"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.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.</blockquote>

Verification