Player Help Disagreement with DM over subclasses and meta gaming [Archive]

View Full Version : Player Help Disagreement with DM over subclasses and meta gaming

huginn

2021-09-19, 11:30 PM

kazaryu

2021-09-20, 12:17 AM

Cheesegear

2021-09-20, 12:35 AM

The DM pulled a new rule on us and said that in character we have no knowledge of subclasses, feats or anything else we get get after 1st level. We have to somehow find out about what get at higher levels without metagaming

Red flag.

1. You have to ask the DM's permission for a subclass or feat, etc. The DM says you can have it, but you have to roleplay for it. This may lead to you finding a 'trainer' or some sort of personal quest. None of which the rest of your party are going to care about, because they also each have their own trainers and storylines to follow. This will almost definitely lead to a fracturing of the party since everyone will want to do their own thing.

2. Alternatively, it's the DM's way of railroading you into specific subclasses that will 'organically' show up from time to time. If you get trained by NPC, you will now be a Paladin of Ancients. 'But I don't want to be a Paladin of Ancients...' Too bad, that's the NPC that's in the story, and if you want to be a Paladin, you're going to be a Paladin of the Ancients because that's what I said is in the story.

I also have to wonder how it works for Level 1 Subclasses (Sorcerers, Warlocks, etc.).

Has anyone ever encountered this kind of ruling? If so how did it go?

The only thing even remotely close to this sort of thing I've ever run is when a player has told me what they wanted to be, and I organised for story elements to show up in the story in order to make it make sense.
(e.g; Character wants to multi-class into Warlock during the campaign, but also where does the Patron come in? Well I have to make that, make sense later on. I have to plan for that.)

Townopolis

2021-09-20, 01:07 AM

Edit: TL;DR - Your DM may have a plan, and it may even be a good one; they probably don't, and it probably isn't. Talk with as many people from your group as you can to get an idea which and which.

I'm struggling to see this going well.

I want to second the suggestion that you ask the DM how they see this going down and draw conclusions from there.

Oh, you should also talk to the other players. If any of them have played with this DM before, find out if this is something they've done before. If it is, try to find out how it went. If it's not, is it something the DM has mentioned wanting to do before, and how did they talk about it? What purpose have they mentioned to other players when talking about this? Or is it something that's coming out of the blue for the whole party?

The most charitable assumption I can come up with is that your DM wants your characters' advancement to be more grounded than the usual "Ding! Now I can shoot lightning out of my pecs when I rage!"

Unfortunately, I anticipate this combining very poorly with the rate at which characters get new class features, especially early-on, when you're expected to level up fairly frequently. It could be that your DM is planning on stretching out the overall timeframe such that the party has weeks, months, or even years of downtime between levels. Even then, though, are you going to narrate or RP through discovering and getting training for all your new features? Every party member?

I'm having trouble seeing it be anything other than a colossal time sink. You could try to make finding everyone's new features be a short adventure, but that relies on everyone being cool with the concept and probably adventuring without all your features... frequently.

Ultimately, find out if the DM has done this before. If they have, and they still have players coming back after, and those players think it'll be fine, then it may well be fine. If they haven't done this concept before, then... it's... I think it's theoretically possible to run this concept well, but EXTREMELY improbable, especially on a first try.

And it's particularly unlikely that the DM has a real, grown-up plan if they never mentioned this in session 0. A DM who has put a lot of thought into this idea would usually bring it up in session 0. A DM who doesn't either thought up the idea between sessions or deliberately withheld the information, most likely in an attempt to pre-empt the immediate protestation that this idea rightfully provokes.

So, again, ask the DM how they expect this to go down. If they're not forthcoming with their ideas and vision, that's a BIG red flag. Also ask the other players if they have experience with this DM doing this or similar things in the past, and if so how that went.

Frogreaver

2021-09-20, 01:37 AM

strangebloke

2021-09-20, 02:28 AM

If this had come up earlier in group discussion and you'd agreed on it mutually this would be something neat to try (even while I think it would be an overall bad idea)

But it didn't and you didn't.

As a result the flags this DM are flying are positively Chinese. Or Albanian.

Kane0

2021-09-20, 03:20 AM

Uh, im not sure what your DM means but it sounds like you need to find trainers , do research, etc in order to level up? Or just wants levelling to be more organic and less 'this is my build'
That sort of thing should have been in session 0, bit of a poor move to spring it on you afterwards.

But talk it over

Mastikator

2021-09-20, 03:26 AM

No sure what that means exactly, I think you need to ask your DM if you need to go on a quest to become a totem warrior. And importantly: what happens if you don't go on these quests for all these subclasses, are you just level locked?

ianm1981

2021-09-20, 05:32 AM

Id suggest keep the meta but take it out of the game and let the GM be the one to introduce the requires trainers or challenges you need

You as a player of course know exactly what feats etc you want to take. So throw the GM a bone and write some side fiction that supports your aims. Make up a trainer NPC, maybe write a half page of backstory For example on how they were a veteran of the last war and retired to the family farm in <NEARBY VILAGE> but they've been struggling lately with <SIDE QUEST>. then offer it to the GM as a potential option for them to include in the game.

Some GMs might not like this but most I've found love the idea of giving depth to the world by including player input. I also like it as a GM as it give me an insight on how the players are viewing the world themselves.

If they really take to that idea though suggest setting up a page on obsidian portal. You can create a campaign there and then give players varying rights to produce pages within it for their notes, NPCs they've met etc. We used it to for players to add rumours and background locations, random NPCs etc. You end up with a great wiki about the campaign world.

Carlobrand

2021-09-20, 06:17 AM

Id suggest keep the meta but take it out of the game and let the GM be the one to introduce the requires trainers or challenges you need. ...

I'd agree with this one. I'm frankly struggling with how the DM rationalizes in-world characters not knowing X or Y exists when legends are being told of heroes that could do X or Y. It's one thing for the DM to say you need trainers - though that's likely to come back and bite him when several players choose to spend time trying to find several different people that can teach them the specific abilities they want, when he'd rather the party get on with the adventuring. It's quite another to say you had no idea that such a thing existed when it's very likely to end up in some bard's tale or in the childhood stories of legendary heroes that motivated you to become an adventurer in the first place.

da newt

2021-09-20, 07:27 AM

Yup - talk it through. My biggest question to define at session zero would be 'Does a Player pick a Subclass/feat/ASI or does the DM dictate?' (I'd be tempted to very purposefully emphasize the specific word DICTATE to ensure the DM understands)

Does this mean PC's can't get subclasses or feats unless the DM decides to present an opportunity to earn them in game? A Player would like to play a GWM Zealot Barbarian - the DM decides they are a telepathic wild magic barbarian. (I'd seriously think about passing this game)

Maybe it's just the DM wants to add subclasses / feats in as something to RP around, party of the story arc? No big deal, a PC has agency but needs to incorporate it into the game play. (sounds good to me)

What about Clerics? They pick a domain at lvl 1.

MoiMagnus

2021-09-20, 07:53 AM

I joined a new game and we had a session zero and had a game session a week later.

The DM pulled a new rule on us and said that in character we have no knowledge of subclasses, feats or anything else we get get after 1st level. We have to somehow find out about what get at higher levels without metagaming

I have no idea how to react to this rule. Has anyone ever encountered this kind of ruling? If so how did it go?

Here is my most kind interpretation of the GM's ruling:

Your character doesn't have a priori knowledge of high level capacities. For example, a wizard has no knowledge of whether they might one day be able to travel through planes, or if it be forever impossible for them. Same for a cleric, who will see resurrections as a miracle they will likely never witness.

Since this also applies to subclasses, it means, for example, that a level 1 Fighter is not aware that they might one day be able to do magic, up until they find someone to train them at magic (just before level 3).

Additionally, the GM probably has some plan on how to handle level up with more roleplaying than usual.

Small question:
Did the GM said anything during session 0 said anything about GM homebrew, and how closely the 5e rules will be followed?
Because if I had a plan along the line of "after level 3, the PCs are send to a earth-like world without magic, so the classes will be heavily homebrewed past that point, and the players will discover their new class at the same time as the players", I would definitely drop hints early on to make sure the players are ok with that.
[Mind you, I would not try that in a long campaign. I keep my weird twists for one-shots and very short campaigns. But I've heard about GMs trying those thing on long campaigns too]

Burley

2021-09-20, 08:04 AM

The DM pulled a new rule on us and said that in character we have no knowledge of subclasses, feats or anything else we get get after 1st level. We have to somehow find out about what get at higher levels without metagaming

Emphasis mine.

You're not supposed to know those things IN CHARACTER. That doesn't mean you can't plan for things, out of character. It just means that, in the game, your rogue isn't going to be planning on having the Mage Hand cantrip next week when they become an Arcane Trickster.

This still means that, if you're a lvl 1 fighter, you can use interesting tactics, setting the stage for Battle Master at lvl 3.

Until your DM actually puts your game on rails and removes your ability to have fun, assume that this rule is to facilitate better role play and increase the DM's enjoyment at the table.

False God

2021-09-20, 08:08 AM

The fact that you had a Session Zero and then got this rule pulled on you is a huge red flag.

What he's going for is simple enough: You don't know what class abilities you might have in the future, so you have to find someone to train you.

You should probably see if he's open to "self training" and experimentation, if you want to continue playing this game.

My personal stance would be I don't like new rules "popping up" after we were supposed to have discussed all of that, and I don't really like the DM gating what little access to the game I have as a player behind additional hoops. Don't get me wrong I've run "training rules" before, but they need to be clear, up-front, and fairly readily available. Especially for low levels. If players have to "store" their levels and start falling behind the party; because say there's no druid circle to train you here or the church isn't the one you worship; you'll wind up some pretty big party disparity pretty quickly, and at low levels when you don't have a lot of fudge room, that can be a problem.

Corey

2021-09-20, 08:35 AM

Frankly, the current suddenness of increasing in power seems weird to me. For example, my characters' backstories often have them wielding more magical power at Level 0 than the rules strictly support. (And DMs commonly say they like my backstories.)

If the DM wants players' increased abilities to be a particularly huge surprise to them, I wonder what purpose that is supposed to serve.

Kurt Kurageous

2021-09-20, 08:43 AM

Never seen this in a game of D&D, and I go back to 1980.

My thought, go to the biggest city in the world. That place should have access to all of the resources, or a sage who can tell you where they are. Unless of course the DM wants to drive away players.

D&D is supposed to be entertainment. All efforts to make it more like a job have failed.

Abracadangit

2021-09-20, 09:25 AM

Edit: TL;DR - Your DM may have a plan, and it may even be a good one; they probably don't, and it probably isn't. Talk with as many people from your group as you can to get an idea which and which.

This sums it up nicely, for me.

In a play-by-post game that I'm running, since everyone is a D&D newcomer, I parceled everyone into a little, individual mini-tutorial adventure. So the rogue got a little sneak attack tutorial, the casters got a magic tutorial, and so on, and then they met up shortly after. But nothing was withheld from them, they just learned about things as they played.

And now that they're in the main game, there's still extra abilities for them to find in the world, but it's on top of their regular level allotment.

So I don't know what your DM's planning, but like Townopolis said -- could be cool, but somehow, I'm betting not.

KorvinStarmast

2021-09-20, 10:01 AM

I have no idea how to react to this rule.
1. Tell him this, very clearly: You don't get to tell me that I can't read the PHB for my chosen class. (I am completely on board with him asking players to not pursue other classes in the PHB. That approach lets each player present their PC class to the others, and it can be kinda neat to not have the meta knowledge bit operating)

2. Training is, IIRC, a variant rule in the DMG. Go along with it if that's what he wants.

What about Clerics? They pick a domain at lvl 1. Bingo.
And Sorcerers have an origin at level 1
and
Warlocks have a patron at level 1,
and
have favored enemies at level 1 and a favored terrain ...

About Feats.
Our first DM did not allow vHuman (in retrospect, I wish he'd been more open to that, but we were all new to this edition and it worked out well enough) so we were not even eligible for feats until level 4. Somehow, we had fun. :smallsmile:

Burley

2021-09-20, 10:11 AM

1. Tell him this, very clearly: You don't get to tell me that I can't read the PHB for my chosen class.

The DM didn't say the OP can't read the book. The DM said that characters don't have that information In Character.

This, honestly, is not that big a of a deal. Everybody jumping in and waving their red flags is the alarming thing. Characters shouldn't have any idea of what abilities they get next level, but that doesn't mean players can't know.

All y'all need to stop pushing this player into torpedo-ing his new group with suggestions like "Go ask all the other players how they feel so you have a strong case against the DM" and "Tell the DM they can't make rules."

Just go with it, dude. If it affects how you play, you talk about it. But, the OP hasn't actually been negatively affected yet.

KorvinStarmast

2021-09-20, 10:14 AM

The DM didn't say the OP can't read the book. The DM said that characters don't have that information In Character. And we once again confront the specter, the myth, of player/character separation.

But the advice in general so far in the thread, that one can summarize as
"talk with the DM about this, what's going on?"
is good advice and is Step One in a case like this.

Asking a bunch of strangers on the internet who are not playing at the table is a crappy Step One.
:smallbiggrin:

Rebecca-47

2021-09-20, 10:45 AM

Emphasis mine.

You're not supposed to know those things IN CHARACTER. That doesn't mean you can't plan for things, out of character. It just means that, in the game, your rogue isn't going to be planning on having the Mage Hand cantrip next week when they become an Arcane Trickster.

This still means that, if you're a lvl 1 fighter, you can use interesting tactics, setting the stage for Battle Master at lvl 3.

Until your DM actually puts your game on rails and removes your ability to have fun, assume that this rule is to facilitate better role play and increase the DM's enjoyment at the table.

Yeah this is my interpretation, too. This doesn't even sound like a "rule" to me, it just sounds like the DM is trying to give you roleplay opportunities within the game.

Until we know how this "rule" is actually going to be implemented, though, I don't think we can really give you a proper answer. Ask your DM to clarify what this means for your campaign.

zlefin

2021-09-20, 11:14 AM

Sounds sketchy, and in much need of elaboration on how the DM expects it work out.

It feels like it breaks verisimilitude for me. While knowing the finer details of 9th level spells may be obscure, I'd expect that anyone in a guild, or an army, or some other places, would have encountered some people with the specializations obtained at level 3 (or their NPC equivalents), and would thus know about those options at least. Stories of battles and heroes are very common, so I'd expect there to be lots of them talking about the great powers used, or how hero X was a master of the Y.

However it's still a red flag that the DM didn't mention this at session 0. This is exactly the kind of thing session 0 is for, and a DM that forgets to bring up basic rules at session 0 is a problem. Who knows what other rules they'll have forgotten to mention they're using?

dragoeniex

2021-09-20, 12:04 PM

Talking out what the DM thinks this will look like is the best first step. If it's just the idea of "your character discovers new abilities on level-up they didn't have prior knowledge of," that's pretty harmless. Takes away some of the intent of roleplaying studying a future spell or feat, but it's livable.

My biggest concern would be if the DM means a character can't use any level-up features (except HP) until they take time to learn it in-session. If you have a party of 4, going through that process 4 different times/ways every time a level is gained will be tedious at best. Unless, perhaps, the DM is open to working out a consistent mechanic for the players. An NPC always waiting at home base, dream sequences of exciting battles, characters off-handedly noting how they just accidentally blew up a statue and huh guess I can do that now...

I'd be curious to hear how your talk goes, regarding the intent.

Ganryu

2021-09-20, 12:18 PM

I'm... uh, actually in a game like this. It's hardly a bother because we have a good DM. Infact, at the start, he wanted us to reflavor everything, it was actually the table rule, and made finding people classes honestly a bit fun for me, and the other players, who are all veterans at the game.

It's a case of the world isn't going to know about Lvl 12 rogues. But that one sneaky hero who is leagues above the rest? Everyone knows that guy. It's more of an immersion thing.

Most classes are different in the MM than they are in the hands of a player, players are unique, and that's the feel he's going for.

That said, be careful. You're supposed to be having fun, if you're enjoying the table, great. If you aren't, not good.

DM springing rules is always a bad thing, but I've played with every homebrew under the sun just about, so it's more about how the rules presented than the actual rule. The fact he has this as a rule? Not a problem. Fact he sprung this AFTER session zero? Bit of a red flag.

One of the alright campaigns I was in was actually super weird in that everyone was lvl 0, and certain actions in session zero gave you X class (Could pick subclasses). Like the person trying to fend off monsters with impromptu molotov's ended up as artificer. DM let everyone know ahead of time that was a thing, asked everyone's opinion, and it was fun because of that. But if a DM pulled that as a surprise, everyone would have been pissed as hell and left right there (Rightfully so)

So, in the words of Megamind: "PRESENTATION!"

huginn

2021-09-20, 12:38 PM

Emphasis mine.

You're not supposed to know those things IN CHARACTER. That doesn't mean you can't plan for things, out of character. It just means that, in the game, your rogue isn't going to be planning on having the Mage Hand cantrip next week when they become an Arcane Trickster.

This still means that, if you're a lvl 1 fighter, you can use interesting tactics, setting the stage for Battle Master at lvl 3.

Until your DM actually puts your game on rails and removes your ability to have fun, assume that this rule is to facilitate better role play and increase the DM's enjoyment at the table.

I have a couple concerns or issues with with what the DM said
This wasn't mentioned during session 0 and we had 1 game session where everyone meet and we did some minor stuff. On some level its not what the DM said but when.

While I can understand that at 1st level I won't know everything there is to know about my class this seems of going to the other extreme. I wrote a one page background where I received military training as a ranger in Cormyr. Does it make sense that the ranger who trained me not to tell me about spells,fighting styles and subclasses?

Ionathus

2021-09-20, 01:30 PM

There's also the potential that your DM is doing this because they want the stories and subclasses to be believable and not feel anachronistic or out of place.

Which is a noble goal, but is entirely backwards for vanilla 5e. The DM is supposed to pick which sourcebooks are allowed up front, and then the DM is supposed to be in charge of narrative legwork to make everything in those books available and logical in the world of the game. Your DM is essentially making their story come first, before your character choices, which is a huge problem because (I believe) your decisions are supposed to change the story -- the DM is just responsible for creating an immersive, reactive world in which to make those choices.

Player choice comes first when we're talking about PC builds. This reeks of the DM trying to write your character for you.

Cygnia

2021-09-20, 01:45 PM

How well do you know this DM outside the game? Is he a friend or just some guy you met at Ye Olde Gaming Shoppe/Discorde?

1Pirate

2021-09-20, 07:12 PM

As a result the flags this DM are flying are positively Chinese. Or Albanian.

More like the Soviet Union flag, because "in Soviet Russia, subclass picks you!"

KorvinStarmast

2021-09-21, 10:32 AM

On some level its not what the DM said but when. Expectations mismatch, 101.

While I can understand that at 1st level I won't know everything there is to know about my class this seems of going to the other extreme. I wrote a one page background where I received military training as a ranger in Cormyr. Does it make sense that the ranger who trained me not to tell me about spells, fighting styles and subclasses? No, it doesn't, but unless you discuss this with your DM, instead of strangers on the internet, you won't come to a consensus with the DM on how to proceed.

Also: If all of the rest of the players are totally fine with this, maybe you need to roll with it.
Go along with them and see how it plays out until you get to level 3 and have that sub class choice to make.