Forcing a Multi-Class

[Supplement Four]

Do you ever force your PCs to multiclass, even if the player doesn't want to go that way?

I will, in my upcoming campaign. I'll look at where their experience was gained and go that route.



For example, let's say a character starts the game as a Pirate class--a 1st level Pirate. During the first adventure, there's a mutiny (the GM kicking off the game with a bang), and to make matters worse, the ship stumbles into a storm during the fighting.

The character earns enough XP to make level 2.

As a GM, I look at this and restrict the character to only growing into a 2nd level pirate as his experience led him in no other direction.

Even if the player wants to multi-class. (I may consider an argument to multiclass into a Pirate/Soldier, but I defintely cannot see multiclassing into a Pirate/Thief or Pirate/Borderer or anything like that.)



Now, the campaign continues into part II. The second adventure begins with the character washed up on the beach of an island. Some Picts find the half drowned 2nd level Pirate, but to his surprise, they befriend him.

The character lives among the Picts. As there's always trouble in paradise, though, the rival Picts on the other side of the island attack, and our Pirate character helps his new tribe out, fighting the enemy.

After a while and a few adventures such as this with his new Pict family, the Pirate 2 gains enough XP to become a 3rd level character.

But, can he take that new level as a Pirate 3? I say, "No." You've got to look at where the experience was gained. This guy has lived among his Pict buddies for a while, learning thier ways, fighting with them, eating with them, probably boinking their women.

Here's where I'd force a multiclass on the character. He's become a Pirate 2 / Barbarian 1.

I wouldn't allow him to become Pirate 3 because he didn't do any "pirate stuff" that level.

(And, again, depending on the scenario, I would entertain an argument for a Pirate/Soldier instead of a Pirate/Barbarian, if the player preferes.)



What about you? Do you run your games this way? Or, do you allow your players to build their characters any way they want regardless of what happens in the game?

 

[thulsa]

Here's where I'd force a multiclass on the character. He's become a Pirate 2 / Barbarian 1.

I wouldn't allow him to become Pirate 3 because he didn't do any "pirate stuff" that level.

This might make sense from a "logical" point of view, but remember this is a game, and everybody is supposed to enjoy it. As a DM, you already control everything else in the game world, so let the players build their characters the way they want*.

- thulsa

* You may want to limit the selection of classes, feats, equipment, etc. (for example, "no splat books, just the core rules"), but you tell the players that up-front before they start making their characters. And try to restrict your NPCs to these limits as well, unless there is a good reason to introduce something special.

 

[Supplement Four]

This might make sense from a "logical" point of view, but remember this is a game, and everybody is supposed to enjoy it.

Good advice, and I respect the sentiment.

But, I don't run my games that way. Things have to make sense. And, my players seem to like the way I GM. We argue very little. Why? Because things make sense. They can expect that, if something doesn't make sense, then it probably won't be allowed in the game.

My players will be new to the Conan RPG, but from our past games, they know that if they want their barbarians to multiclass as thieves (one player has already inquired about this), then they're going to have to make an effort to make that happen "in game". Either I'll be nice (which I can be...if it doesn't seem like it) and throw in a traveler that comes by Seven Stones and just happens to be a thief class--who gets stuck there for the winter (thinking of this for the player that inquired as I do want him to play what he wants). But, if I decide against it, or if the player thinks I've decided against it (maybe I just haven't found the right moment to bring in the thief as we're starting the game during summer), the player knows he's got to do something in the game with his character to achieve what goals he wants to achieve.

If the player wants his character to be a thief, he might up and leave the clanholme, the way Conan did, to find his fortune in the South.

I'll play off of what the player has his character do. It's a symbiotic relationship, as you know.

With the OP, I was curious if I am alone in this style of GMing.

 

[Clovenhoof]

One of the old timers here does or used to run his games in that way, maybe Rabindranath, but I don't quite remember. It sparked some discussion back then.

For me, it's out of the question. I'd never prescribe to my players how they are supposed to develop their characters. As a player, I would not want to sit in a game where it's actually the GM who controls my character.

Besides, lookin at Conan's adventures, what kind of class mix would he have if Thurian life worked that way? Barbarian-2-Pirate-4-Borderer-4-Soldier-4-Thief-4-Nomad-2?

Another major objection I'd have is that this makes the player characters all alike in the long run. By necessity they all make the same experiences, and would be forced to take the same classes. In the end you're going to have a platoon of Pirate-Soldier-Nomad-multclasses who differ in only their one initial class choices.

If you want things to "make sense" that way, then a class-based system is not the best tool. Rather use a classless system to begin with.

 

[rabindranath72]

No that's not me
But I partly agree with the OP, though rather than "forcing" a multiclass combination, I might restrict which classes are accessible if they want to MC at all. If the PCs never go to sea, for example, nor go into the steppes or deserts riding, I would not allow Pirate nor Nomad, respectively. Seems just a matter of verisimilitude.
To me, having a class means almost complete dedication to a task/mindset. Acquiring a new class should see some very long association with people of said class and/or extensive field experience. Anything else, I would perhaps recommend acquisition of new skills or improving existing ones. For example, if a character stays for 1 week with pirates and he happens to gain a level, I might suggest he improves Swim or Climb, but getting a level in Pirate, no. After all, even Conan spent literally years adventuring just to gain a few levels in some classes.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I might restrict which classes are accessible if they want to MC at all. If the PCs never go to sea, for example, nor go into the steppes or deserts riding, I would not allow Pirate nor Nomad, respectively. Seems just a matter of verisimilitude.

That might be an option.
Anyway, a character should always be able to improve is _initial_ class. If you want to put it that way, the initial class depicts what a character _is_, not just what he _does_.

 

[rabindranath72]

Anyway, a character should always be able to improve is _initial_ class. If you want to put it that way, the initial class depicts what a character _is_, not just what he _does_.

Mostly, yes. Though consider the (admittedly extreme) reverse case of a Nomad who spends years with pirates on the sea. It would make definitely more sense for the character to improve as a Pirate rather than a Nomad.

 

[Spectator]

Interesting post topic!
It made me really think hard.
I think you could avoid the forced multiclass if you play your cards right.

For the most part EXP should be awarded for these types of activities; combat, problem solving, social interaction (roleplaying), and successful skill use. There ar a few others I'm sure, but these will compose the majority of interactions.

SO using the hypothetical of the nomad stuck on a pirate ship and getting enough EXP to advance a level you have two options:
1. The player wants to be a Pirate and you agree; then no problem.
2. The player wants to advance a level as nomad and you are not cool with it, but you can abide it if you can restrict the applicable feats and skills he can progress with.

To expand on #2, Don't let Norbert the Nomad to put any skill points on Ride or other land based/dependant skills. Consequently, the feats that the Nnomad can choose from should be diminished, in certain cases. You might allow the 3rd level Nomad to snag his Endurance Class feat, but I would recommend against granting Nomad Charge and Favored terrain for the 4th level. A benevolent GM could allow him to post-pone the benefit until he returns to his nomadic life or allow him to exchange those skills for skill points or non-land-based skills. An a$$hole GM, might tell the seagoing nomad too bad, you chose to advance in this class full well knowing you would not be able to ride a horse on a ship.

The interesting situation is if you were a nomad, fought on a ship and when doing land based raiding with your piratical brethren, you acquire a horse and do nomad things like recon-ing the village, and then flanking the village's defense forces and charging their rear ("That's what she said") while your pirate brethren assault the village from the front.

Neat topic, I guess you should very rarely force someone into a class, but you certainly constrain their current class. I tend to agree with the sentiment that people who want to advance in their skillset should, but caveat emptor.

 

[Supplement Four]

Well, let me say, too, that rather than be a hard-ass, I try to make my players happy and engage them in the game. As I replied to Thulsa, one of my players has already shown interest in multiclassing his Barbarian into a Barbarian/Thief. I do what I can, within reason, to accomodate him within the game--so that it will make sense.

I don't agree 100% with the statement that all PCs will turn out the same due to their shared experiences, but it is a comment worth remembering. I know it wouldn't be true in my game because, even though the players are sharing shared experiences, their interests can be appeased in different directions, too.

For example, lets say I accomodate the player who wants the Barbarian/Thief by going with what I said to Thulsa--a traveller, Thief class, gets stuck in Seven Stones for the winter, giving the player an opportunity to multiclass his Barbarian character.

Maybe another player isn't interested in that, though. So, he either focusses on being a Barbarian--or, maybe he finds a way to multi-class his character in a different direction.



I don't like "gamey" situations. I'm sure you've noticed about the game I'm setting up for my players. I didn't give them a choice of class or race. I simply told them that they'd be playing Barbarians in Cimmeria, and we'd take it from there.

I didn't want a typical rpg type scenario where there's a Scholar sorcerer, with a Zamorian thief, a Turanian Soldier, and a Hyrkanian Nomad, all come together with a Cimmerian Barbarian.

Instead, I ruled that all of the players in the campaign must start out as Cimmerian Barbarians, but where they go from there, is up to them, tempered by what happens in the game.

I named the player characters, and I gave them some juicy backgrounds. I made them Cimmerians, and I made them be 1st level Barbarian classed. But, then, I hand that over to the player--it's up to him to "own" this character, puts some meat on him, and make him the player's own.



I also don't want my players learning something like Lockpicking just because the character went up in level and can spend some new skill points. I want the character to find a logical means, in game, for his character to learn the skill.

Now, this may be that he gets an old door lock from a trader and carries it with him, practicing on it in his free time. Or, it may mean that he finds someone to teach it to him. But don't want him to just wake up one day ans say, "Hey! I know how to pick locks now! Awesome!"

 

[VincentDarlage]

I never, ever force a player to build his character any way other than the way the player wants. If I would like him to take the character a certain direction, i offer a carrot (a fate point, some other reward), but I would never force the player to play a character not of his own design.

In the case of the nomad on the pirate ship, maybe he never participated with the crew or learned how to do anything nautical, but continued doing survival stuff on islands and other foreign shores. I've certainly worked with plenty of people in my life that worked for years at a job, but never really learned how to do their job - but were really good at faking it.

 

[Supplement Four]

In the case of the nomad on the pirate ship, maybe he never participated with the crew or learned how to do anything nautical, but continued doing survival stuff on islands and other foreign shores.

I'm just looking for it to "make sense". I'd have no problem with a nomad on a pirate ship advancing in nomad if the advancement in skills and feats made sense (as Spectator said above).

And, I'll listen to a player make his case for what he wants, implied by Vincent's post above.

What I have a problem with is the Nomad getting better a riding a horse when he hasn't ridden a horse the entire level. Or, a barbarian putting skill points, into Open Lock, even if he's spending double points to do it, when the character has never attempted to open a lock before.

I award the bulk of XP for story goals, and then temper it with smaller awards for good ideas and roleplaying. I rarely give XP for combat (to avoid the, "Hey, there's something to kill, let's kill it and get some XP" syndrome).

So, when a character goes up a level, I look at where he got his points. And, I look at if the character has a trainer.

In my last AD&D game, the player playing the thief would carry around with him a door lock mechanism in his backpack. From time to time, usually at "camp" moments, the player would tell me, "My thief is fiddling with his lock." Once, in town, the group split up and went looking for supplies. When I played the thief, he went looking for a junk dealer to find a harder lock.

That's the type of stuff I want to hear from a player if he wants to advance in an area and doesn't have an obvious training path (like an NPC showing him the ropes).

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

I agree on the skill issue. If a player wants to drop points on a skill he hasn't had any experiences with at all, I'm probably going to at least ask for justification.
However, if its a class skill that they already had high points in, I'm much more likely to overlook it on the basis that it was already the characters specialty, and so it occupies most of his time, and there would likely be scenes that happened "off Camera" where he kept up on the skill (also from a metagame perspective, if it is the characters specialty, its in everyones best interest that he stays current on it)
As far as forcing or limiting their class selection, my answer is NEVER. I would never make them play a character they don't want to play... Now again, if they try something outlandish like tacking on Scholar with oriental magic in a Barachan Pirate game where not one single Khitan character has appeared, I would say something like, "Well, I can't see that happening without a mentor, maybe you should hold off till next level." and then work in a Mentor that can train them in that class over the course of that level.
As far as saying they can't take more levels in a class they already have on the basis of not doing enough of that classes schtick, I'm even more opposed to this. My reasons are twofold.
1) Once you have training in an area of expertise it is very easy to get better in that area, its the foundation skills in most areas that are the hardest to learn, once you're doing the job it just gets easier. So in my opinion it takes far less explanation to raise a class, than to buy a new one.
2) To say that one can't raise levels in a class, lets say Pirate, just because they didn't do anything "Piratey", is almost certainly untrue. If they used any of their Pirate class features, or skills, then they DID do Piratey things (regardless of the venue they used the aforementioned in). Then it becomes a question of, "How many times is enough to justify raising the class?" Should it be as many times per level as you have in the class? or maybe 5+half level?
Eitherway, it just comes out as just one more thing that I as GM would have to keep track of, in a game that already has ALOT of things for me to balance (Conan is many things, but light work to GM is not one of them). And ultimately it would be needless, since in any of those cases, mostlikely, the PC will still qualify.

 

[Supplement Four]

However, if its a class skill that they already had high points in, I'm much more likely to overlook it on the basis that it was already the characters specialty, and so it occupies most of his time, and there would likely be scenes that happened "off Camera" where he kept up on the skill

I would agree with the player here. It just has to make sense...

As far as forcing or limiting their class selection, my answer is NEVER.

And, I completely disagree here. Sometimes players are silly. Sometimes they want the world. Or, as Gygax says in the 1E AD&D DM's Guide, players are always trying to improve their characters to a point where it will unblanced the game. It's the DM's job to hamper them.

I agree with Gary.

If the 1st level Barbarian gains a level, and his player says he wants to multiclass into a Scholar that specializes in ancient Archonian magics, I'm most likely not going to allow that to happen, no matter how bad the player wants to play that particular multiclass.

I'm going to tell him, "Your character doesn't even know how to read. He thinks the written word is a form of magic, and he's highly superstitious. Now, I'm all for individuals breaking stereotypes, but how does this make sense that your Cimmerian Barbarain becomes a Scholar when he's spent his entire last level in and around his home village?"

I'll give the player a chance...but he better come up with something good that makes sense.

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

If the 1st level Barbarian gains a level, and his player says he wants to multiclass into a Scholar that specializes in ancient Archonian magics, I'm most likely not going to allow that to happen, no matter how bad the player wants to play that particular multiclass.

In that instance, as I mentioned above, I would try to find a reasonable compromise, yes everyone is working toward telling a story and YES that story should make sense, but the whole group should be working together.
Firstly, if a Character wanted to do something like that, they should have come to you with it first (and you as GM should then work in ways to explain it in play). I would never flat out say, "You can't do that.", I would first see if they planned on later taking more levels in Barbarian (or any other, more sensible class). And if so, then convince them to take that level now, and let me work in an explanation for them to learn Sorcery over the course of the next level.
It is NOT the job of the GM to limit or railroad the players in what they can play, it is the job of everyone at the table to work together to tell a story that everyone can enjoy. Obviously the choices made by the players should make sense, and be thought out beforehand, but it is just as much the GMs job to give them opportunities to justify the things they want in play.
A perfect example is the noble class. It says right in it that, if you don't take it at first level, then you need a good reason before you can buy it later. That doesn't mean you just say no. That means, if a player neither starts as a Noble, takes the Noble blood feat, or uses a multiclass build that has noble as a facet of it... Hes silently consenting to having to go through some in game (probably a full adventure in this case) explanation before he can take the class. (and again, its just as much the GMs job to provide those opportunities)
At the end of the day, an RPG is really no different than an improv session. You should never flat out say no, you should say, "yes, and..." or, "Yes, but..." Saying no is, in most cases a sign of either an overbearing GM, or an illdesigned story. It could be the sign of outlandish players, but in my experience this is the vast minority.

P.S. there is also the issue of multiclass builds. What if someone makes a sea Captain character. Would you block them from continuing in the path they built themselves on, on the basis that he spent his entire first level doing "Pirate" things and didn't do anything "Nobley"? In my opinion a multiclass build should be counted as its own class, separate from the classes that comprise it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Firstly, if a Character wanted to do something like that, they should have come to you with it first (and you as GM should then work in ways to explain it in play). I would never flat out say, "You can't do that".

Well, we can hem-haw around the bush about it, say that a GM should never tell a player "no", or we can be blunt and just say, "No, that won't work."

In an outlandish situation, such as a Barbarian learning the Ride skill without ever mounting an animal, we can say that we'd never tell the player "no", listen to his argument, and then tell him "no".

Or, we can just say, "no".

Yes, I'll listen to what the player has to say, and I'll try real hard to see his point. But, for all practical purposes, the answer is "no" whether you told him that from the beginning or comfortingly say that you'd never tell a player "no", but still give the same answer. No.

It's gotta makes sense.

From the responses I see in this thread, we all seem to be saying the same thing, except we're saying it in different ways.

I mean, nobody has said, "Yes, I'd allow a Barbarian to multiclass into a Barbarian/Pirate and slap some skill points into Profession-Sailor even though the Barbarian has never left Cimmeria."

Nobody is claiming that he'd allow that in his game, is anyone?



I think what people are saying (and what I'm saying) is that a GM might allow a Barbarian to multiclass into a Pirate even though the character has never left Cimmeria if there is clear intent by the player that the Barbarian character is training himself to be a pirate and improving skills that he can, in Cimmeria, that are common between the two classes (or pay double for cross-class skills), like Climb, Balance, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silent, Sleight-of-Hand, Tumble, and Swim.

I can definitely see a character multi-classing into a Barbarian/Pirate, even though the character has never left Cimmeria, if the player made a good argument that made sense and spent skill points in a reasonable manner to support his argument.

But...I'd still block special abilities like Seasmanship, skills like Profession-Sailor, and any Feat that the character couldn't learn in Cimmeria.

So...aren't we all really saying the same thing?

Or, would one of you GMs allow a Barbarian, who had never stepped foot out of Cimmeria, to multiclass into Barbarian/Pirate and buy the Profession-Sailor skill?

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

Yes, I'll listen to what the player has to say, and I'll try real hard to see his point. But, for all practical purposes, the answer is "no" whether you told him that from the beginning or comfortingly say that you'd never tell a player "no", but still give the same answer. No.

It's gotta makes sense.

Except, what I said was that, if the Player created the barbarian character with the intent to multiclass into pirate (or Acheronian Sorcery Scholar), he should have explained that to you at character creation. And from there it would be your job as the GM to work in aspects of the campaign to MAKE that advancement make sense.
If that player decided to add that class on the spur of the moment, when he got his level, then you should first discern how much he wants to take that class, and if hes willing to wait till later to buy it. If so, then you should work in justifications over the course of the next level.
In neither case are you saying no. In both, you are saying "yes, but..", in this case, "Yes, but you're going to have to wait till next level".
And in either case, that is part of your job as GM. To give the PC's opportunities to play/build the characters they want to play, in a believable way.

 

[Supplement Four]

And from there it would be your job as the GM to work in aspects of the campaign to MAKE that advancement make sense.

Absolutely. I said as much earlier in the thread. The idea is not to piss the players off. It's to have a fun game that all of us enjoy.

Part of that fun is the suspension of disbelief. Like watching a movie, when the suspension of disbelief is broken, it ruins it. Have the game "make sense" is another way of saying that the suspension of disbelief is maintained.

If so, then you should work in justifications over the course of the next level.
In neither case are you saying no. In both, you are saying "yes, but..", in this case, "Yes, but you're going to have to wait till next level".

LOL. My point to you has been...that's the same as saying, "No". I mean, we can make ourselves feel better by saying we never make a character to this or bar a character from doing that. But, that's really just politically correct BS. What we're doing is saying no and then re-assessing the character during his next level (basically, seeing where he gets his experience during the next level).

And in either case, that is part of your job as GM. To give the PC's opportunities to play/build the characters they want to play, in a believable way.

Now, that we can agree upon. Absolutely part of my job as GM is to stack the deck with things that will grap my players' attention and facinate them with the game world.

One of the tools I use to do that, though is....you guessed it...to make everything make sense so that suspension of disblief is maintained!

 

[Nyarlathotep5150]

In my opinion, telling the player to hold off till next level, then forcing in ways to officiate him buying it over the course of that level is not really the same as saying no.
If I said he couldn't take the level without any form of justification, and then made no effort to add in chances for him to justify it, that would be saying no.
Absolutely, I agree that in any game, any choice, whether by player or GM has to be logically explained to some extent. And as I pointed out, the Noble class gives that restriction in the class description (you can't just say, "Hey, I'm landed gentry now.")... Though they seem to have later loosened "Noble" to mean any leader (Crime Lord, Sea Captain), which makes the burden of explanation abit lighter.

 

[Supplement Four]

In my opinion, telling the player to hold off till next level, then forcing in ways to officiate him buying it over the course of that level is not really the same as saying no.

Well, no worries, mate. I think you and I are saying the same thing but expressing ourselves differently.

Cheers! :lol:

 

[Phobos]

I never force a player to take levels in a class or other, anyway, I got three classes a little restricted for multiclass: Noble, Scholar and Temprtress, and then, Barbarian and Nomad. Soldier, Borderer, Thief, pirate, gladiator, bandit, and healer are more "easy" to get levels if they desire, assuming they spend a certain time doing things associated with these classes.