Quote from: Omega;866200As for the Balt in Rome. If I had allowed for such an opening or it was described reasonably then Id allow it sans the retinue. Or with the retinue if it was BX for example. Within reason. But if Id presented the setting as focused on Roman seafaring action. Then I am more likely to say no to something that is far afield.

On a Greek ship, this isn't a Roman thing at all. Romans and seafaring; well that's like a Roman cavalry campaign or something. Another area they weren't favourable towards. Note when Rome had all those issues with Pompey's son the pirate king, most of his crews and men were Greeks.

Indeed the earlier troubles that Pompey dealt with were often remnants of the Diadochi's fleets after the Romans had conquered their territories and defeated their armies.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866297One came up with some sort of devotee of magic combat sort of class that had all the spell casting ability of a wizard, the option to take cleric spells and combat ability only a bit lower than a fighter including armor and multiple attacks.  I asked him why anyone would ever play the existing wizard, cleric or fighter classes with such a class available.  He just didn't get why I would have a problem with his homebrew super class making making multiple existing classes completely obsolete.  He was rather butthurt when I refused to let him play his baby.

Sounds like the genesis of the Warlock/Eldritch Knight.

Theres a create your own class article in Dragon that finishes with an example of a class that can do everything. The downside was they leveld glacially for that.

Quote from: Omega;866380Sounds like the genesis of the Warlock/Eldritch Knight.

Theres a create your own class article in Dragon that finishes with an example of a class that can do everything. The downside was they leveld glacially for that.

Makes sense. As in point-buy systems, where you could theoretically get any abilities but would need to allocate points for them, and if (maybe a big if - it can take a lot of game design work to do a good job) the system is balanced well, trying is a trade-off between strength and breadth of abilities, and doesn't cause a problem. The player asking for a Renaissance Man character may not realize that not only does a system disallow it, it (or the GM) doesn't have a way to balance that choice appropriately - they may not realize they seem to the GM to be asking for something unfair.

Quote from: Omega;866295That also applies to players who want to add some widget to a class.

Armour for Magic users is the hands down most common one I've seen as a DM, Player, Playtester, and Game Designer.

And yet, in D&D multiclassing is like a favourite thing.

Quote from: Omega;866295Multiple attacks for non-fighters is the other hands down most common one seen.

Spellcasting for non-casters is another. Dont see that as often though.

Both things that people want and get in multiclassing.  Often at an unsatisfactory degree.

Quote from: Omega;866295Swords and other pointy things for Clerics. Any class restricted weapon really. But clerics bitched the most for their swords and spears. Its not really an unreasonable a request though. But I usually just ask why dont they play a paladin then?

Because a Paladin is mostly martial while a cleric is often better at magic.

Here's a funny thing, a lot of the weapons have overlap in terms of raw damage numbers, and people just want the visual of being able to use a sword.  After all, if a mace/morning star does 1d8, as does a long sword, what's the point of wanting a sword over a mace/blunt object?  It's not mechanical.

The issue, in this particular case, is 'stepping on another classes toes'.  Namely the Fighter.  And it's also rooted in the belief (valid or not, doesn't matter, it's a belief, it's likely irrational) that if you give another class a sword, you invalidate the Fighter.  Because 'anyone can be a Fighter, it's an everyman's class'.

But that's inaccurate, because depending on the edition of D&D, by allowing magic to be cast almost instantaneously you've already invalidated any class that relies on physical combat.

Personally, I always ask why.  And if the player doesn't articulate it, or has a silly background idea that won't fly, I'll refuse, and give my reasons why.  But I never assume that players want their cake and eat it too, unless they want to multiclass in a game that has classes.

But seeing as I'm playing/running Mutants and Masterminds, the FFG Force and Destiny RPG and OVA Anime games, I don't have that issue.

Nitpick alert.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;866658Here's a funny thing, a lot of the weapons have overlap in terms of raw damage numbers, and people just want the visual of being able to use a sword.  After all, if a mace/morning star does 1d8, as does a long sword, what's the point of wanting a sword over a mace/blunt object?  It's not mechanical.

Here's another funny thing, one I only learned recently. In OD&D, all weapons deal the same damage (which is equal to your Hit Dice). Fighting Men being the only class that got to swing a sword has nothing to do with damage per se (later editions would stat up the sword as a superior weapon in one or more aspects) but everything to do with access to magical weapons — enchanted swords were [strike] the only [/strike] the most likely magical weapon available in the core rules.

There is a mechanical reason, it's just not immediately obvious.

Sorry, enchanted swords were NOT the only magic weapons in the OD&D core rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;866738Sorry, enchanted swords were NOT the only magic weapons in the OD&D core rules.

I stand corrected and edited the post above.

Quote from: The Butcher;866744I stand corrected and edited the post above.

Definitely the most common by a huge margin, to be sure.  And only magic swords got "intelligence" and "ego" and the powers that went with it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;866747Definitely the most common by a huge margin, to be sure.  And only magic swords got "intelligence" and "ego" and the powers that went with it.

Which of course made all the axes and spears incredibly jealous. This was widely regarded as an extraordinary occurrence indeed since swords were the only weapons with an ego.

Quote from: Skarg;866654Makes sense. As in point-buy systems, where you could theoretically get any abilities but would need to allocate points for them, and if (maybe a big if - it can take a lot of game design work to do a good job) the system is balanced well, trying is a trade-off between strength and breadth of abilities, and doesn't cause a problem. The player asking for a Renaissance Man character may not realize that not only does a system disallow it, it (or the GM) doesn't have a way to balance that choice appropriately - they may not realize they seem to the GM to be asking for something unfair.

In practical terms in points based systems, there are never enough points for a character to be good at everything unless the GM is running a very high points game.  Trying to do everything results in something like the D&D 3.X/Pathfinder characters I have seen with 1-3 levels each in 4-5 classes at level 10.  You get a character that can do everything and sucks at all of it.

The problem arises when people want to do everything and be good at it at the same time.

Quote from: yosemitemike;867155The problem arises when people want to do everything and be good at it at the same time.

Which is why Multiclassing is the big mess that is for D&D.  It's for those people who want it all.

And you know what?  It has nothing to do with wanting to ruin the game, or being a 'special snowflake', it's nothing more than power gaming.  And everyone I've ever asked why they wanted to multiclass has given me variations on the same answer.

"They want to be able to do it all."  And in D&D, it's often seen as Multiclassing is the legal way to do it, without making demands.  Which is also why I personally frown on anyone who wants it.  You (The general, not specific) can make noises about 'concept' all you want, but really, you just want to fight like the fighter, and cast spells like the magic user, without any of the down sides. (To which I say, play a Cleric.)

A rare few arent in it for the powerz. They just hit the limit of their class and want to explore another without changing characters. And an even rarer few multi-class due to some character development.

Most interesting I saw was a campaign where a player took up Cleric after the town hed worked on developing was just about wiped out by undead. Another player took up Druid after seeing an awesome display of one transforming and rolling out.

Unfortunately 99.99% of the multiclassing players are just in it for the powerz. The extra *whatever* and the wretched endless "dipping". ugh.

Mostly depends on the edition where multiclassing occurrs. In 3.5 Multiclassing is primarily used to nap some quick benefits like Rage (Barbarian 1), Turning (cleric 1), or a bonus feat (fighter 1) among things like skills and proficiencies. In 4e, multiclassing is FAR less power-gamey due to what you instantly get access to. In 5e, it's sort of this weird version where it's not as bad as 3e but not as restrictive as 4e.

Quote from: Batman;867278Mostly depends on the edition where multiclassing occurrs. In 3.5 Multiclassing is primarily used to nap some quick benefits like Rage (Barbarian 1), Turning (cleric 1), or a bonus feat (fighter 1) among things like skills and proficiencies. In 4e, multiclassing is FAR less power-gamey due to what you instantly get access to. In 5e, it's sort of this weird version where it's not as bad as 3e but not as restrictive as 4e.

Thing is, in the past 30 some years I've been gaming, and around the internet and locally (which makes this totally anecdotal, treat it as such), every single time there are a bunch of players whining about how restrictive Multiclassing is in whatever edition they prefer, going all the way back to at least Red Box in my local area.  Which usually causes me to roll my eyes.

You want to do it all, admit it.  And go play a point based system like M&M or HERO or GURPS, which will let you, and still be 'balanced' (or so the systems claim.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;867317Thing is, in the past 30 some years I've been gaming, and around the internet and locally (which makes this totally anecdotal, treat it as such), every single time there are a bunch of players whining about how restrictive Multiclassing is in whatever edition they prefer, going all the way back to at least Red Box in my local area.  Which usually causes me to roll my eyes.

You want to do it all, admit it.  And go play a point based system like M&M or HERO or GURPS, which will let you, and still be 'balanced' (or so the systems claim.)

In the context of D&D, specifically the last 15 years, multi-classing has never let you "do it all" or at least not very well. Not by a long shot. It might give you more versatility in some ways, like 1 level of cleric would allow anyone to wield a wand with a cleric spell (of any level) without penalty or a skill check. But that hardly constitutes "allz the powerz". The fact is, in reference to 3e and PF, multiclassing is largely a trap except in certain situations. In 4e it's even more of a trap since you have to spend feats to do it.

When one of my players wants to multiclass, I ask what and why, mainly so I can make sure their characters don't total suck where it drastically impacts the overall group and because there's usually a better way of going about it without multiclassing.