Multi Class: Do you require it to make sense during a campaign?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 522 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Oh, I left out one guy who joined, then left the group:

The "rules laywer" who was the most amazing source of information on the rules. His encyclopedic knowledge of the rules was amazing in and of itself, but just as amazing was his ability to search through the online website resources to find answers to just about any game question in just a few seconds.

He left the group because his extremely religious wife issued an ultimatum to stop playing or ... else. So he did. He still corresponds with our group though and it is sort of sad how much he wishes he could still play.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Now to be a little more reasonable. If a player wants his character to start a new class, is it unfair to ask why "from the character's perspective?"
Only if the character could actually notice a difference. Suddenly being able to cast spells is a reasonable condition. Suddenly being able to Power Attack is not.

I thought this was about multi-classing, not picking feats. Has somebody demanded background for leveling up? (And wouldn't that be the campaign itself?)

And to a much smaller point: Character backgrounds are fiction, to put it another way, they are lies. Lying is far easier than physics or advanced math regardless of context. If someone tells you they have a hard time lying, they are lying to you.

I suppose technically lying is easy. Lying well is hard for many people. Writing good fiction (or even passable character backstory) is hard for me. I'm not very good at it and my standards are high. I'm very self-conscious about showing other people something I've written that I don't think is good.

OTOH, math and physics came easily to me, at least up to a certain point.

Edit: Of course, I could be lying.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I expect there to be a reason, yes.
For the class AND the feat?

Using your example of a +2 to will, yes. I would expect the player to have some conception of why the character is able resist things better.

Do they need to write an essay or even explain it to me if it is something like gaining a +2 to will. No. There are a million ways you can imagine your character gets better at will saves, including "I got better at will saves due to experience"

But yes, there should be a reason.

Will there be a quiz, no. If it is something as simple as taking Iron Will, or even a level of sorcerer, I'm not even going to ask what the reason is, because as I said above there are a million ways you can imagine that happened.

Because it matters to me, and to the people I play with, that you are trying to create a character in the world. I don't need to control what that character is, as long as it can exist in the world.

When you can't even BS a reason that makes sense, IMHO you aren't even trying to show the table the courtesy of participating in the setting.

So yes, there is a reason you got a +2 to will. Because your character is in a world with other people, and not just a series of mechanical numbers you are writing down on a piece of paper to you.

At least I would hope.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I expect there to be a reason, yes.
For the class AND the feat?
Using your example of a +2 to will, yes.

Good.


thejeff wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Now to be a little more reasonable. If a player wants his character to start a new class, is it unfair to ask why "from the character's perspective?"
Only if the character could actually notice a difference. Suddenly being able to cast spells is a reasonable condition. Suddenly being able to Power Attack is not.

I thought this was about multi-classing, not picking feats. Has somebody demanded background for leveling up? (And wouldn't that be the campaign itself?)

And to a much smaller point: Character backgrounds are fiction, to put it another way, they are lies. Lying is far easier than physics or advanced math regardless of context. If someone tells you they have a hard time lying, they are lying to you.

I suppose technically lying is easy. Lying well is hard for many people. Writing good fiction (or even passable character backstory) is hard for me. I'm not very good at it and my standards are high. I'm very self-conscious about showing other people something I've written that I don't think is good.

OTOH, math and physics came easily to me, at least up to a certain point.

Edit: Of course, I could be lying.

As far as I know, no one has asked for "good" fiction. Just an in-character reason as to why you are taking a level. No one is demanding a 20 page backstory to level up (despite some people's claims). Some people do seem to claim (correct me if I'm wrong, as if I have to ask) that saying "oh, I had played with swords a lot when I was a kid, so I'm gonna take a level of fighter now," or "yeah, I had this crazy uncle who was always trying to teach me magic but it never clicked until now" is so difficult that it ruins the entire game for them and they should either get paid to do it or they are going home and pulling weeds from their garden.


But neither of those things "make sense". "When I was a kid I played with swords so now all of a sudden I know how to use every Martial weapon efficiently and effectively" doesn't make sense any more than "I took a level of Fighter. I use weapons now."


In the game I DM, yes I like the PCs development to have a reason. If someone wants to multi-class cleric, for example, they need to have a patron deity (in the Forgotten Realms where I usually run campaigns as well as PF's Golarion setting) which means at least a slight bit of explaining for how they are now religious enough to get power direct from a god/goddess. Note: this is just how it works for my game and the type of game I prefer to play in. This doesn't mean everyone needs to do it this way, this doesn't mean that you're a horrible person if you don't do it that way, or that I force PCs to write thesis or any of the other pieces of ridiculous hyperbole that has been slung around.


I think that the player should at least let the GM know what they are thinking for the next level, so perhaps there might be an opportunity to work a little in-game set-up story. Of course, I am more about the story than I am the in-game mechanics, and I would rather have it make sense in the game.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing I think people are getting hung up on is the fact there is a difference between telling someone what to do and establishing boundaries that once concept or build cannot cross.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
But neither of those things "make sense". "When I was a kid I played with swords so now all of a sudden I know how to use every Martial weapon efficiently and effectively" doesn't make sense any more than "I took a level of Fighter. I use weapons now."

If by "took a level of fighter" you mean I focused the experience I gained through this adventure to improve my martial skills and weapon proficiency, than yes it makes perfect sense.


ciretose wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
But neither of those things "make sense". "When I was a kid I played with swords so now all of a sudden I know how to use every Martial weapon efficiently and effectively" doesn't make sense any more than "I took a level of Fighter. I use weapons now."
If by "took a level of fighter" you mean I focused the experience I gained through this adventure to improve my martial skills and weapon proficiency, than yes it makes perfect sense.

How does that explain how the wizard suddenly gained knowledge of how to use every single simple and martial weapon in the game, every piece of armor in the game, and every shield in the game (including tower shields)? Was the wizard carrying around all this gear so s/he could practice during the adventure? The wizard may have been using a crossbow the entire adventure; does that magically imparts knowledge of how to use a flail as well? As well as a greatsword, mace, spear, axe, long bow, short bow (yes, a short bow is used differently than a long bow). Does it also imparted knowledge of how to properly wear full plate armor with a heavy shield? Heck, a fighter is the only class in the game that gets tower shield proficiency (baring prestige classes), so unless there was a fighter in the group to teach it (or someone who specifically took a shield proficiency), how would the wizard learn this when s/he didn't carry one around to practice with?

Simply handwaving it away as "I focused the experience I gained though the adventure" doesn't make sense at all once you look at it any further than a cursory glance.

It's the same argument in the reverse: how did the fighter suddenly gain knowledge of how to cast spells without a spellbook and without anyone to teach him/her (assuming the fighter gained a level as a wizard and not as a sorcerer).

Liberty's Edge

The wizard "Focused the experience I gained through this adventure to improve my martial skills and weapon proficiency"

He was adventuring, presumably, which seems a good time to learn how to fight, wouldn't you agree?

And as to the second, he wouldn't unless he had a spellbook, which hopefully they did and was reading it to learn spells to be come a 1st level wizard.


ciretose wrote:

The wizard "Focused the experience I gained through this adventure to improve my martial skills and weapon proficiency"

He was adventuring, presumably, which seems a good time to learn how to fight, wouldn't you agree?

And as to the second, he wouldn't unless he had a spellbook, which hopefully they did and was reading it to learn spells to be come a 1st level wizard.

How do you learn how to fight with a weapon when you don't have the weapons with you to practice with? How do you learn how to move in armor or with shields to the point that you don't get a penalty to your attack rolls and all skill checks which involve moving when you don't have the gear to practice with?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He's a wizard, he read books about it :)


Just gonna put this out there: I really don't think people on this thread (or the other one, actually) are honestly talking about the same thing.

One 'side' is accusing the other of advocating "the character's actions need to be justified to the GM's satisfaction or the GM will say it's not allowed."

While the other 'side' is accusing them of saying "since it's the player's character, obviously they don't need to ever justify anything, and all logic is thrown out the window."

But seriously, no one's saying either of those, as best I can tell. It's just a matter of subjectivity.

Some people are saying that the player shouldn't need to 'justify' it, and that the GM has no right to restrict their leveling choices. And this is true.

And others are saying that they should at least be able to have it make some sense, even a little. And this is also true.

I don't think anyone is saying that either of the prior extremes are the way people should play, but since the line of where it crosses from one to the other is different for all groups and people, there's not much of a way to discuss it with the same measure of comparison. So everyone is using their own opinions of what constitutes 'good' and 'bad' and assuming that the other 'side' of this argument is in the extreme end, when in reality, everyone's probably just somewhere in the middle.

Eh, YMMV. I might be done following this thread.


ciretose wrote:
He's a wizard, he read books about it :)

...Touche.


ciretose wrote:

The wizard "Focused the experience I gained through this adventure to improve my martial skills and weapon proficiency"

He was adventuring, presumably, which seems a good time to learn how to fight, wouldn't you agree?

And as to the second, he wouldn't unless he had a spellbook, which hopefully they did and was reading it to learn spells to be come a 1st level wizard.

If you're going to accept "Focused the experience I gained through this adventure to improve my X", which is essentially "I took a level in X" in non-mechanics terms, I don't even see the point in asking the question?


Luckily I've never had the kind of players where this would be an issue. I've never seen the kind of player happy to abuse the system with nonsensical multiclassing, though apparently they're common on the Internet! I guess if I were running 3e or Pathfinder and this came up I'd (a) point out the multiclassing didn't make sense, then if the player persisted (b) I'd suggest they find another GM better suited to their proclivities.
But like I said, never been an issue.

Edit: Playing a Cleric of Erastil recently, I proposed taking a level of Ranger. Obviously not nonsensical, but the other players & GM told me no, they didn't want my healing ability weakened. Certainly none of them thought it was solely up to me what class I took.

Liberty's Edge

In that instance. I can see other instances where we aren't talking about fighters or sorcerers, which can be as simply to take as saying "I found out I am magic" or "I practiced".

If were playing an illiterate barbarian who suddenly wanted to take a level of wizard, I may not say no, but I am going to require a damn good story.


ciretose wrote:
He's a wizard, he read books about it :)

:)

I like that. But it still doesn't make sense. The whole point of the thread is that multiclassing should make sense, and so far we haven't come up with a simple explanation that makes sense even for a fighter.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
If were playing an illiterate barbarian who suddenly wanted to take a level of wizard, I may not say no, but I am going to require a damn good story.

"Thog learn power am in pictures."

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
ciretose wrote:
If were playing an illiterate barbarian who suddenly wanted to take a level of wizard, I may not say no, but I am going to require a damn good story.
"Thog learn power am in pictures."

And if you let me know in advance, I'll try to include a pictograph spellbook so it makes more sense.

Same with the wizard who wants to be a fighter, I'll try to set up some downtime near a place you can learn.

But if you aren't even willing to try to make sense...screw that noise.

Shadow Lodge

"Thog am make own picture book! And learn squishy man squiggle pictures!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

bookrat, the only way to "make sense" for most multiclassing is for players to plan out their builds for several levels in advance and to start whatever training is required for those classes while at a lower level. (Some spontaneous classes like "sorcerer" could be excepted from this).

Almost every class has a default backstory that assumes months or years of training in order to reach level 1. Here is a list of some classes and the assumptions that the game makes to reach level 1:

Fighter - Trained with weapons masters, armor masters, learned martial proficiencies with several weapons. Implies at least a sort of soldier "boot camp" of months to years before gaining the abilities of a fighter at level 1.

Wizard - Years of highly intensive mental training and study. Developing the ability to read the highly abstract magical writing and duplicate the intricate somatic components of spells is assumed to be extremely taxing. Becoming a wizard is the game equivalent of completing a masters program or perhaps even a doctorate. Definitely years of effort and learning invested.

Cleric - Assumes passage through religious schooling that is comparable to a wizard's knowledge training. Meditation, communing with deities, all of that is assumed to be similar to the wizards study and practice. Clerics also have to learn the intricate somatic components of spells.

Druids - This one is really interesting. Druids are assumed to have spent enough time studying with druidic masters that they've actually learned an entirely new language and are proficient in it.

Ranger - Similar to the fighter, but with aspects of the cleric's meditation and communing.

Anyway, if you accept the game's expectation of training, learning, meditating and practice as being required to reach level one of any class, then multi-classing into any other class should be impossible unless the character in question had been practicing, reading, studying, meditating, and in the case of the druid at least, operating in the presence of other druids for months or years before they attain that level in their new class.

So "makes sense" if applied from that perspective would negate 99.9% of multi-classing in the game.

And if you don't enforce that level of investment to become a new class, then you're just hand-waving months or years of study, meditation, training, practice or communing just to give your player a break.

The "hard liners" here are hand-waving 95% of the game's expectations for attaining a level in a new class. My approach might hand-wave 98% of it. That's the difference in our approaches.

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
"Thog am make own picture book! And learn squishy man squiggle pictures!"

Which is where I would probably go "Dude..." and have a pull aside conversation about if he was going to be happy at this table.

Liberty's Edge

Who is to say that the Wizard didn't have some experience before, but was never serious about it until now.

Why shouldn't a player try to make sense? This is the part I don't get.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Thog am not good at reasonable discourse."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
bookrat wrote:
I like that. But it still doesn't make sense. The whole point of the thread is that multiclassing should make sense, and so far we haven't come up with a simple explanation that makes sense even for a fighter.

Well, presumably, time passage in the campaign (in the form of interludes between adventures) is the mechanism to get around this issue and hang some description and NPC's off of it. If the GM knew it was coming it'd be a lot easier to fit into the storyline.


bookrat wrote:
How do you learn how to fight with a weapon when you don't have the weapons with you to practice with? How do you learn how to move in armor or with shields to the point that you don't get a penalty to your attack rolls and all skill checks which involve moving when you don't have the gear to practice with?

How do you make sense of a level ONE fighter knowing ALL weapons and ALL armor??

He has ZERO experience points... 175-300gp.... yet somehow has trained in Full Plate mail that costs 1500g and has to be personally fitted?

That doesn't make much sense either. There are a LOT of characters builds out there... and a LOT of weapons that are useless to them. For some reason the starting class ability says that you know them anyway.

Do DM's require that to make sense at level one? Hypothetically, if you are playing an archer or Paladin using his longsword and shield... and come across a +4 magic Axe at level 6... Does anyone throw a fit if the archer can now swing an axe? or if the swashbuckler is strapping on heavy armor and grabbing a shield?

His backstory hasn't touched on these things... but his class abilities let him do it.

OBVIOUSLY, since you start the game with 0 xp, then 1st level ANYTHING doesn't require THAT much planning and training to achieve.... ;)


shallowsoul wrote:


You do for PrC's and Gunslingers.

Also, your DM's world may not consist of certain classes so you do need to get the DM's permission.

I think the whole problem here is we have a few player's who think they don't need anyone's permission to do anything.

I see a world of difference between the DM saying 'I don't have any summoners or gunslingers in my campaign world' and him saying "You can't take a level a bard, your playing your character wrong!'

While we're on the topic of bards... amd I the ONLY one who HATES that they get the Cure Light wounds spell?? SERIOUSLY?? No diety requirements, no alignment requirements, but they have access to divine spells??

How does THAT make sense in a game world? If a paladin or Cleric tick off their god, they lose their healing ability. A bard can flip off and write dirty limmirks about the whole pantheon and still heals with the best of them.


TOZ wrote:
"Thog am not good at reasonable discourse."

Neither are TOZ!

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
"Thog am not good at reasonable discourse."

Which is why I am going to try to get Thog to leave before he smash :)


Almost every class has an assumption of months or years (usually years) of study, training, meditation, communing or otherwise mastering the skills of their class. Hitting "zero XP" does not mean the character is a newborn babe, it means they have completed their initial training and are ready to move on to the real world as a member of that class.

There are some exceptions, the notable ones being the spontaneous casters like sorcerers. But the vast majority of classes assume years of training and study to become a member of that class.

So the only "logical" way to multi-class into any of those classes would be to take at least a several month break from campaigning to go master all of those skills and abilities to become the new class.

Anything else is "hand-waving" away a huge chunk of in-game verisimilitude.

The difference between the positions in this debate is not even close to "one side is making an argument based in immersion in the game world and the other side is making an argument that ignores immersion."

The difference in the positions in this debater is: "One side is accepting that multi-classing is a huge verisimilitude-breaking activity and hand waves the vast majority of the problem while the other side is pretending that a couple sentences of text can hide the fact that the character has somehow managed to do overnight what should have taken years."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
phantom1592 wrote:

While we're on the topic of bards... amd I the ONLY one who HATES that they get the Cure Light wounds spell?? SERIOUSLY?? No diety requirements, no alignment requirements, but they have access to divine spells??

How does THAT make sense in a game world? If a paladin or Cleric tick off their god, they lose their healing ability. A bard can flip off and write dirty limmirks about the whole pantheon and still heals with the best of them.

Hehe it makes perfect sense to me phantom1592, but that's because I take the concept of Bards back to 1st Edition where they received druidic lore. I also play PFS in a Greyhawk setting, so the Old Faith/Old Lore aspects are well established. Not sure how you explain it in Golarion though :)


Vorduvai wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:

While we're on the topic of bards... amd I the ONLY one who HATES that they get the Cure Light wounds spell?? SERIOUSLY?? No diety requirements, no alignment requirements, but they have access to divine spells??

How does THAT make sense in a game world? If a paladin or Cleric tick off their god, they lose their healing ability. A bard can flip off and write dirty limmirks about the whole pantheon and still heals with the best of them.

Hehe it makes perfect sense to me phantom1592, but that's because I take the concept of Bards back to 1st Edition where they received druidic lore. I also play PFS in a Greyhawk setting, so the Old Faith/Old Lore aspects are well established. Not sure how you explain it in Golarion though :)

Must be some kind of flashback then... I started in 2E where we had priest spells and wizard spells. Bards could learn wizard spells.

The whole Wandering jack of all trades who picked up a few skills here and there?? I can accept them learning a few spells in their studies.

Randomly accessing divine magic without a deity?? THAT was a shock when i picked up the CRB here O.o


Make sense to whom?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
"Thog am not good at reasonable discourse."
Which is why I am going to try to get Thog to leave before he smash :)

"Thog am reach smash quota. Budget cuts am hard on all."


phantom1592 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


You do for PrC's and Gunslingers.

Also, your DM's world may not consist of certain classes so you do need to get the DM's permission.

I think the whole problem here is we have a few player's who think they don't need anyone's permission to do anything.

I see a world of difference between the DM saying 'I don't have any summoners or gunslingers in my campaign world' and him saying "You can't take a level a bard, your playing your character wrong!'

While we're on the topic of bards... amd I the ONLY one who HATES that they get the Cure Light wounds spell?? SERIOUSLY?? No diety requirements, no alignment requirements, but they have access to divine spells??

How does THAT make sense in a game world? If a paladin or Cleric tick off their god, they lose their healing ability. A bard can flip off and write dirty limmirks about the whole pantheon and still heals with the best of them.

In PF, there are more non-divine-with-CLW classes including Witch, Bard, Alchemist, etc.


The kender do not have this problem, as they all come from close knit communities and learn a bit about all the paths and options before apprenticeship with a master.

So much so that they (as a race) are able and often do multi-class on a whim.

Liberty's Edge

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Almost every class has an assumption of months or years (usually years) of study, training, meditation, communing or otherwise mastering the skills of their class. Hitting "zero XP" does not mean the character is a newborn babe, it means they have completed their initial training and are ready to move on to the real world as a member of that class.

There are some exceptions, the notable ones being the spontaneous casters like sorcerers. But the vast majority of classes assume years of training and study to become a member of that class.

So the only "logical" way to multi-class into any of those classes would be to take at least a several month break from campaigning to go master all of those skills and abilities to become the new class.

Anything else is "hand-waving" away a huge chunk of in-game verisimilitude.

The difference between the positions in this debate is not even close to "one side is making an argument based in immersion in the game world and the other side is making an argument that ignores immersion."

The difference in the positions in this debater are: "One side is accepting that multi-classing is a huge verisimilitude-breaking activity and hand waves the vast majority of the problem while the other side is pretending that a couple sentences of text can hide the fact that the character has somehow managed to do overnight what should have taken years."

And this can generally be reconciled with "I've been working on this for a long time, but only now has my experience..."


ciretose wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Almost every class has an assumption of months or years (usually years) of study, training, meditation, communing or otherwise mastering the skills of their class. Hitting "zero XP" does not mean the character is a newborn babe, it means they have completed their initial training and are ready to move on to the real world as a member of that class.

There are some exceptions, the notable ones being the spontaneous casters like sorcerers. But the vast majority of classes assume years of training and study to become a member of that class.

So the only "logical" way to multi-class into any of those classes would be to take at least a several month break from campaigning to go master all of those skills and abilities to become the new class.

Anything else is "hand-waving" away a huge chunk of in-game verisimilitude.

The difference between the positions in this debate is not even close to "one side is making an argument based in immersion in the game world and the other side is making an argument that ignores immersion."

The difference in the positions in this debater are: "One side is accepting that multi-classing is a huge verisimilitude-breaking activity and hand waves the vast majority of the problem while the other side is pretending that a couple sentences of text can hide the fact that the character has somehow managed to do overnight what should have taken years."

And this can generally be reconciled with "I've been working on this for a long time, but only now has my experience..."

And if it truly is that trivial and simple, then why insist on any explanation at all?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Krom miss Thog. Him lose touch with clan after enrolling at squishy school.

Krom never justify multi class. Krom am paladin, dipped to take advantage of Krom good charisma. Krom not believe in objective alignments. Gods too scared to argue.


Krom the Barbarian wrote:

...Him lose touch with clan after enrolling at squishy school...

...Krom not believe in objective alignments. Gods too scared to argue...

I chuckled :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
S'mon wrote:
Edit: Playing a Cleric of Erastil recently, I proposed taking a level of Ranger. Obviously not nonsensical, but the other players & GM told me no, they didn't want my healing ability weakened. Certainly none of them thought it was solely up to me what class I took.

Did you end up taking that level in Ranger? To me, and my group, telling someone they couldn't take a level in a class would be almost anathema.


KenderKin wrote:

The kender do not have this problem, as they all come from close knit communities and learn a bit about all the paths and options before apprenticeship with a master.

So much so that they (as a race) are able and often do multi-class on a whim.

I don't care WHAT class Kender take. And it doesn't matter WHAT class I am playing when I see one. Soon as I see kender, I kill kender. End of story. Wouldn't care if I lost my class as a result, or if I lost the character.

Had some baaaaaad experiences with them once upon a time!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

As GM, one of my roles is arbiter of how the world works. I try to make that clear when I am meeting players for the first time. Within that role, I do require some reason for player class choices.

Now, I'm pretty flexible about that. I've only ever had it be a problem once n all my games. I had a player who had been specifically dismissive of divine powers and gods, and in the middle of a dungeon he wanted to take a level of cleric of a deity that matched his alignment, while stating he disliked the god.

The player explicitly stated that since "no one could stop him" from taking a level of cleric he could prove gods were stupid. Either he'd gain his powers dispite maligning his god -- in which case gods are chumps -- or he wouldn't -- in which case gods are bullies.

If he'd selected a trickster god, or perhaps a god of logic or irony, I might have let him do it and run with the consequences. But his plan was clearly going to be disruptive to the game. The other players didn't want to spend time listening to him debate theology with himself, and I saw no reason he should be able to pick up cleric levels with a background of despising gods.

So I flat told him he couldn't take the level. He claimed I "didn't have the authority" to do that, and that obviously he could write whatever he wanted to on his sheet. Which eventually forced me to come to "I will not run your character if that's what you decide to write."

That player showed up at the game with a level of cleric, and the group as a whole decided not to play that night. We did a boardgame instead. We invited him to play it with us, but he refused. Even spent about half an hour "playing" by himself, declaring that he was killing other players and rolling dice, and stating that since no one was stoping him he could loot their corpses.

I honestly think we had a more serious disconnect than his class. A couple of years later he apologized, and we sometimes play card and mini games with him again.

If I run a game where I state all wizards must take years of schooling, you need a cover story to take a level of wizard. If paladins are blessed by the gods you need to play a character who could gain such a blessing (though Jim Butcher has what I'd call an atheist paladin in The Dresden Files, so I try to retain my flexibility). If sorcerers are presented like mutants whose powers kick in at puberty and your character is 45, we need to work together to find a way for your story to make sense with the campaign world's story in order to add a sorcerer level.

But my players *want* me to present a world with rules they can explore and depend on... so as I said it's almost never been an issue.


shallowsoul wrote:
In my games, if are going to multi class then you need to at least have a legit in game reason. Suddenly waking up 8 hours later and you are now a decked out cleric of X then I want to know how and why.

That is how I do it as well, but if I can see it, if it makes sense, they don't need to justify anything to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:
KenderKin wrote:

The kender do not have this problem, as they all come from close knit communities and learn a bit about all the paths and options before apprenticeship with a master.

So much so that they (as a race) are able and often do multi-class on a whim.

I don't care WHAT class Kender take. And it doesn't matter WHAT class I am playing when I see one. Soon as I see kender, I kill kender. End of story. Wouldn't care if I lost my class as a result, or if I lost the character.

Had some baaaaaad experiences with them once upon a time!

Kill them all, the kender god will recognise his own.

Thieving trickster characters are the reason two-handed weapons were invented. To split them in twain!

201 to 250 of 522 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Multi Class: Do you require it to make sense during a campaign? All Messageboards