This isn't just about "The DM is boss so what they say goes." D&D is a collaborative game. You and the other players are working together with the DM as a team to tell a story. If the team doesn't play well together, no one is going to have fun.
In my campaigns, if I wanted to restrict something as basic as multiclassing or feats, I'd bring it to the table and see how people felt. If no one wanted to play in a game with those restrictions, I wouldn't run it. So in that example, the players are overruling the DM. But it only works before the campaign starts. After that you need to respect the rules you agreed on. And if you can't agree, the group is probably not going to work out.
In a certain sense, multi classing is binary - either you can or you cannot. So compromise may not be available.
Not necessarily. I allow multiclassing when it is (a) clearly in-character RP-wise, and (b) not a "dip" of <3 levels. To me if it is a dip or OOC, it's almost always bald-faced powergaming, of which I take a dim view. So that is not really binary... it's not yes or no in our game but "yes, provided that..." As I say, I actually suggested multiclassing to the guy playing the rogue, who wants to be a former-soldier turned bounty hunter. We were looking at possible subclass specializations, none of which really fit, and after we talked about what he was looking for, I'm the one who said, "What if you multiclass into fighter?" I suggested a 50-50 split (i.e., half levels in each class), based on what he described, but I could easily see a 70-30 or 60-40 split as well.
Similarly, the rogue/bounty hunter guy is kind of training the ranger, so I could imagine her taking some levels of rogue as she goes along. Again this is about the RP, and whether it makes in-character sense for them to learn other classes. On the other hand, if you're going to ask me if you can take 1 level of Sorcerer for your otherwise Barbarian character "just to get the useful cantrips," the answer would be no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
As BioWizard points out, the only thing going to your DM with "DND Beyond users say I can Multiclass!" (though currently, your poll is overwhelmingly "NO, you can't") is going to do is create a lot of hurt feelings and possibly get you booted from the game.
The DM decides which of the optional rules are going to be used in his game. That's why they're distinctly marked as optional.
Now, yes. I know that the DM can change any rules that he wants, but the optional ones are just way clearly marked.
The better thing to do, to my mind, is present your case to your DM in a calm, reasonable manner. If they still say no, then it's no. Your choice then becomes: do I continue playing in this group?
Myself? If I was having fun and not multiclassing would still be fun (if not AS fun), then I'd just go, "Ok! When's the next session?!"
Either way, I hope you get this amicably resolved and continue throwing those bones!
Thank you for your feedback. I will follow your advice, because, as much as I want to multiclass, these are people I've known for a very long time. I don't want to create hurt feelings and I really don't want to get booted from the game. Luckily, The DM is someone I've known for a very long time and I think I'll at least be able to negotiate with her and hopefully she will hear what I'm saying. Thank you !!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you ever ask a wizard to list the books they've read recently, prepare to be there for a solid week. " - Original.
You're very welcome! You seem like a very pleasant person, so I expect that you'll get things worked out in a positive fashion. It's all about compromise (and the DM may have some story/plot reason for not multiclassing that could turn out to quite an awesome surprise! Who knows?!)
The DM is someone I've known for a very long time and I think I'll at least be able to negotiate with her and hopefully she will hear what I'm saying.
If you know her well then the most important advice I can give you is to trust your DM.
Your DM is not making up rules to harm you or your fellow players. The DM imposes rules for the good of the table -- the good of the campaign. Lots of experienced D&D players will tell you that multiclassing as a general proposition is a broken mechanic in some way -- it's overpowered, unbalanced, etc. If your DM is one of those people, understand that she is not alone, and is on the side of a great many thoughtful, highly experienced DMs.
Now the reality is that multiclassing isn't necessarily broken just in general, but that some forms of it can be game-breaking. This is why it's specifically listed as optional in the first place -- the writers knew that without careful DM oversight, multiclass characters could break the campaign. Many DMs are willing to allow it -- tons of them allow it without restriction, and just tweak the campaign to handle it.
But if your DM has decided no, that is not the type of work she wants to do, then she's not doing this to harm you, but to benefit you. A general ban on multiclasses means less work for the DM in one area (balance), which frees her up for time to do other things (like make up cool stories for you and your friends).
Again, trust your DM. Trust that she has the entire table's best interests at heart. And although maybe you will always believe she is wrong about multiclasses, at least accept that the motivation is not sinister. She's trying to give everyone a good game and this is one of the calls she has made that will allow her to do so. Given all the other work your DM is doing to please everyone at the table, maybe you can let her have this one....
This isn't just about "The DM is boss so what they say goes." D&D is a collaborative game. You and the other players are working together with the DM as a team to tell a story. If the team doesn't play well together, no one is going to have fun.
In my campaigns, if I wanted to restrict something as basic as multiclassing or feats, I'd bring it to the table and see how people felt. If no one wanted to play in a game with those restrictions, I wouldn't run it. So in that example, the players are overruling the DM. But it only works before the campaign starts. After that you need to respect the rules you agreed on. And if you can't agree, the group is probably not going to work out.
I agree 100% that D&D is a collaborative game, however as the DM of the current campaign I still make those choices. I've for instance decided to not allow feats. Why? Because all players are new to D&D, and I know that while some of them would spend hours googling and grinding over which feats to choose, some doesn't care that much for those "details" of the system. As a DM I have decided on which rules I think the players as a group will enjoy the most. However - and this is important. I have told them exactly WHY I've chosen this on behalf of "us".
Another reason for a DM to choose away parts of the optional rules is to limit what rules you need to know as a DM.
When I say trust your DM.... I mean, if the DM is someone you can't trust, don't be in that person's game. I would never play D&D in a game with a DM that I didn't think I could trust.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The fact that you are asking us makes me think that your relationship with the DM isn't as open as it should be. Unfortunately, if they say no, its the player's role to really just take them at their word, assuming that you have gotten a chance to voice your concerns.
This isn't just about "The DM is boss so what they say goes." D&D is a collaborative game. You and the other players are working together with the DM as a team to tell a story. If the team doesn't play well together, no one is going to have fun.
In my campaigns, if I wanted to restrict something as basic as multiclassing or feats, I'd bring it to the table and see how people felt. If no one wanted to play in a game with those restrictions, I wouldn't run it. So in that example, the players are overruling the DM. But it only works before the campaign starts. After that you need to respect the rules you agreed on. And if you can't agree, the group is probably not going to work out.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Not necessarily. I allow multiclassing when it is (a) clearly in-character RP-wise, and (b) not a "dip" of <3 levels. To me if it is a dip or OOC, it's almost always bald-faced powergaming, of which I take a dim view. So that is not really binary... it's not yes or no in our game but "yes, provided that..." As I say, I actually suggested multiclassing to the guy playing the rogue, who wants to be a former-soldier turned bounty hunter. We were looking at possible subclass specializations, none of which really fit, and after we talked about what he was looking for, I'm the one who said, "What if you multiclass into fighter?" I suggested a 50-50 split (i.e., half levels in each class), based on what he described, but I could easily see a 70-30 or 60-40 split as well.
Similarly, the rogue/bounty hunter guy is kind of training the ranger, so I could imagine her taking some levels of rogue as she goes along. Again this is about the RP, and whether it makes in-character sense for them to learn other classes. On the other hand, if you're going to ask me if you can take 1 level of Sorcerer for your otherwise Barbarian character "just to get the useful cantrips," the answer would be no.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Thank you for your feedback. I will follow your advice, because, as much as I want to multiclass, these are people I've known for a very long time. I don't want to create hurt feelings and I really don't want to get booted from the game. Luckily, The DM is someone I've known for a very long time and I think I'll at least be able to negotiate with her and hopefully she will hear what I'm saying. Thank you !!
"If you ever ask a wizard to list the books they've read recently, prepare to be there for a solid week. " - Original.
Grammar Cult
Bow down to Cats! (Cult of Cats)
You're very welcome! You seem like a very pleasant person, so I expect that you'll get things worked out in a positive fashion. It's all about compromise (and the DM may have some story/plot reason for not multiclassing that could turn out to quite an awesome surprise! Who knows?!)
--Everything I do is a work of Art.
Art the Rat Bastard DM
If you know her well then the most important advice I can give you is to trust your DM.
Your DM is not making up rules to harm you or your fellow players. The DM imposes rules for the good of the table -- the good of the campaign. Lots of experienced D&D players will tell you that multiclassing as a general proposition is a broken mechanic in some way -- it's overpowered, unbalanced, etc. If your DM is one of those people, understand that she is not alone, and is on the side of a great many thoughtful, highly experienced DMs.
Now the reality is that multiclassing isn't necessarily broken just in general, but that some forms of it can be game-breaking. This is why it's specifically listed as optional in the first place -- the writers knew that without careful DM oversight, multiclass characters could break the campaign. Many DMs are willing to allow it -- tons of them allow it without restriction, and just tweak the campaign to handle it.
But if your DM has decided no, that is not the type of work she wants to do, then she's not doing this to harm you, but to benefit you. A general ban on multiclasses means less work for the DM in one area (balance), which frees her up for time to do other things (like make up cool stories for you and your friends).
Again, trust your DM. Trust that she has the entire table's best interests at heart. And although maybe you will always believe she is wrong about multiclasses, at least accept that the motivation is not sinister. She's trying to give everyone a good game and this is one of the calls she has made that will allow her to do so. Given all the other work your DM is doing to please everyone at the table, maybe you can let her have this one....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
How the hell would you know? DM could be a complete *******...
Then find another DM. If they are a complete ******** then there's no point playing with them anyway.
I agree 100% that D&D is a collaborative game, however as the DM of the current campaign I still make those choices. I've for instance decided to not allow feats. Why? Because all players are new to D&D, and I know that while some of them would spend hours googling and grinding over which feats to choose, some doesn't care that much for those "details" of the system. As a DM I have decided on which rules I think the players as a group will enjoy the most. However - and this is important. I have told them exactly WHY I've chosen this on behalf of "us".
Another reason for a DM to choose away parts of the optional rules is to limit what rules you need to know as a DM.
Ludo ergo sum!
OP says she has known the group and the DM "for a long time." If the OP has known her a long time and the DM is a complete *******, why join the game?
I assume the OP is a rational person, and would not have knowingly joined a group run by someone who is known to be a complete *********.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You can be rational and still be desperate to play. :) I know because I've been there.
But yeah I didn't get that vibe from OP either.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
When I say trust your DM.... I mean, if the DM is someone you can't trust, don't be in that person's game. I would never play D&D in a game with a DM that I didn't think I could trust.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The fact that you are asking us makes me think that your relationship with the DM isn't as open as it should be. Unfortunately, if they say no, its the player's role to really just take them at their word, assuming that you have gotten a chance to voice your concerns.
Homebrewed by PhantomTim: Weapons | Items
Answer; while yes you can multiclass as per OPTIONAL rules, the GM has ultimate say.
Just talk to them about why or why not on the side.