Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

Warpiglet · Jul 12, 2018

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?650123-Multi-classing-as-good-as-it-seems

Recently there was a discussion here about the relative power of multiclassing vs. Single classes. The argument seemed to go in two directions. First, some observed that multiclassing is/is not overpowered. But a second vocal group suggested multiclassing is all wrong much of the time for RP reasons.

I have seen other such threads too. How can you have a paladin/warlock or a warlock/sorcerer or a warlock/cleric or a (fill in the blank). But most notably there seem to be more objections about clerics, warlock and paladins based on their supposed fealty to a particular being or cause.

I am wondering why the lore of spellcasters is so sacred to some? My own history suggests when I play a paladin, it is LG and really hews closely to AD&D ideals. If I play a cleric, I have been clear about religious affiliation as more than an afterthought. Never liked clerics without a power to pray to personally. But that is personal preference only! I can see cool concepts that deviate markedly as very valid.

So this leads me to ask: of all the things we home brew and change, why are these seemingly sacred cows so sacred to some? Do we think the RP aspect is a balancing factor in some way?

I observe that many who dislike multiclassing seem to dislike deviation from very traditional fluff elements in classes.

On one hand I get it and on another it seems rather limiting. I know when I play a warlock, I like to imagine them being taught magic but also exploring and learning on their own from hints given. I don't like the idea of spells being granted. I take arcana skill and don't enjoy sub 10 intelligence for any caster. Does it matter that much that we stick with fluff as written?

Last initial thought: many people seem to object to changing the fluff but also being inspired by some ability before a story. I have developed a number of concepts after flipping through the PHB and thinking an ability looks fun only then thinking about what kind of character would employ it. Admitting this may get me accused of ignoring fluff or not being traditional enough, I realize.

Patrick McGill · Jul 12, 2018

The answer is in past editions alignment and sticking to an oath/code of honor/path/ideal for the special classes (ranger/paladin/druid/etc) was indeed part of the "balance" in exchange for all the cool stuff you got. So that's sort of become imprinted in the genetics of the overarching metagame.

Personally I'm fine with sacrificing the sacred cow - if you can come up with a neat idea to do so. Personally I can see a lot of possible ideas for the warlock/paladin. A paladin devoted to a holy cause but also under the sway of some kind of demonic shadow weapon is like 70s/80s fantasy 101.

On the other hand, besides feats multiclass /is/ the main way min/maxing gets silly in 5e. But it's not as silly as it was in 3.5, so I kind of remain ambivalent to it. Until players ask about polearm mastery/sentinel with a quarterstaff and shield, or dual wielding lances. Then my ambivalent genial DM facade melts away to reveal the demonic grognard within.

Edit: I have more to say and didn't want to doublepost:

One reason you see reaction especially to Warlock multiclassing is because of the way Warlock spell slots work. That affects class features from other classes in a profound way, which is why you see Warlock pop up so much in optimization discussions. Being able to use spell slots and get them back with a short rest, and those spell slots all being the highest level that your spell slots can be, really super charge certain class mechanics. The reaction comes from the folks who don't like bottom-up character development; i/e conceptualizing the possible interplay of mechanics before the story and flavor of the person.

In my personal opinion, bottom up or top down is fine as long as at the end you have a character that can add to the story at the table. If you're a walking frankenstein creation with no veneer of background flavor or anything to add to the narrative, that's when I get.... hasty.

The Crimson Binome · Jul 12, 2018

Back in my AD&D days, my DM disallowed multiclassing for clerics. The argument was that clerics were so incredibly rare because you had to have a lot of faith in your deity, and if you had that much faith - if you believed so hard that your deity actually gave you magic powers out of it - then you wouldn't be able to (or even want to) pursue some other path to power, because doing so would necessarily compromise your faith.

I've always considered that to be a compelling argument, given the premise of a certain type of world, where divine power is only granted to the most devoted. While AD&D never allowed multi-classing for paladins, the same argument would apply. I like that very traditional type of lower-magic world, where there's less extreme variations within each character class, so it makes sense that I would keep such restrictions in place throughout later editions.

Of course, not everyone plays in that sort of world, and the argument doesn't really hold up if you compromise the premise too much. If paladins and warlocks can both just draw power from the fey, then you don't have to compromise your faith in order to multi-class between them; or if the gods grant powers on some basis besides just faith, then there's no reason you would lose those powers by pursuing some other path.

Oofta · Jul 12, 2018

As [MENTION=6749334]Patrick McGill[/MENTION] mentioned, the mechanical issue I have with multi-classed warlocks is the spell recovery on short rest. That's fine for warlocks because they have limited spell utility but it throws the balance off for other spell casters. It affects games like mine where I regularly have 5-10 combats between long rests where resource attrition is a big part of the challenge more than some games where you can effectively long rest whenever you want.

I'm considering in my next campaign having a house rule that you can only get back warlock spells during a short rest. The power used for warlock and divine/arcane spells is simply too different. There is no "mana" pool. Cleric/wizards or cleric/sorcerers that worship a god of magic get a pass because their deity probably granted mortals arcane magic in the first place.

From a fluff perspective, the problem that I have with certain classes multi-classing is that they are supposed to be dedicated to a specific power. A cleric in my world is the walking-talking embodiment and ambassador of their god. They are Odin's spear on the material plane or Loki's knife in the darkness. They are given divine power because they carry out the will of their god.

But warlocks kind of have the same story, just from a slightly different perspective. They get power because of a bargain with a greater power, but they are just as beholden to that power as the cleric.

So I don't allow cleric/warlock multi-class than I would allow a cleric to multi-class back into cleric to worship two different deities to get two different domains.

Paladins are a little different because they get their power from their oath and their conviction. As long as their pact doesn't conflict with their oath, it would be OK.

But maybe the biggest complaint I have is because the people that I've seen do it are multi-classing strictly for increased power, not because it makes sense for their character. They are doing a cheesy build only for the sake of a (perceived) power boost. Of course that's just a personal pet peeve, and one I should probably get over. :blush:

Fleetwood C. DeVille · Jul 12, 2018

Patrick McGill said:
On the other hand, besides feats multiclass /is/ the main way min/maxing gets silly in 5e. But it's not as silly as it was in 3.5, so I kind of remain ambivalent to it. Until players ask about polearm mastery/sentinel with a quarterstaff and shield, or dual wielding lances. Then my ambivalent genial DM facade melts away to reveal the demonic grognard within.

Yes, any attempt to break the game should be met with EXTREME PREJUDICE.

Excuse me, I have to go whip up a stat block for the Demonic Grognard.

Tony Vargas · Jul 12, 2018

Happilly, Multiclassing, like the equally* controversial & game-breaking Feats, are optional rules, so as a DM, don't opt in, and as a player, simply don't use them for your character, yourself. (Yes, someone else might: let them. If you want to dictate how everyone at the table plays the game, DM it.)

* equaling 'not really all that much.'

Shiroiken · Jul 12, 2018

There are really three types of people who RPGs.

ROLE playing game - focus on fluff
role playing GAME - focus on crunch
role PLAYING game - the normal people who just play the game

I focus on the ROLE, and find a lot of silly/stupid ideas used to cover up various mechanical monstrosities fairly offensive in games I'm running or playing in. Those sacred cows are SACRED dammit!

Others focus on the GAME, and see nothing wrong with reskinning or reflavoring things if it gives them the desired mechanical result. I'm sure they get offended by our views as well, but have no idea how. They like the sacred cows served medium rare.

The vast majority don't visit forums or other social media to rant about how the game SHOULD be played, and just play the damn game. They generally don't sacrifice sacred cows without cause, but have no problem doing so if they get a character they like. We should all be more like this category, but then no one would be around to post here

Blue · Jul 12, 2018

Warpiglet said:
I have seen other such threads too. How can you have a paladin/warlock or a warlock/sorcerer or a warlock/cleric or a (fill in the blank). But most notably there seem to be more objections about clerics, warlock and paladins based on their supposed fealty to a particular being or cause.

...

So this leads me to ask: of all the things we home brew and change, why are these seemingly sacred cows so sacred to some? Do we think the RP aspect is a balancing factor in some way?

Here's how I look at things. A complete character fits both the setting and the rules. There are plenty of examples where a character doesn't fit the rules and would not be allowed. But not fitting the setting is also a thing: Burger McKing the Cow-stealer probably wouldn't fit into a grimdark setting even if the rules are correct.

For many, the idea of making a pact with a patron and also having the pure devotion needed for a cleric or paladin doesn't work for the setting they are envisioning.

For me, I don't see that as a hard and fast rule. I want something that makes sense in world, but there's a lot of options. Easy example, a Archfey patron and a Oath of the Ancients Paladin. But others as well. "I did something dreadful as a youth, has this connection to tempting power but has tried to live a life of devotion since." Sometimes backslides during play for a delicious drama of which side do I favor - expediency or devotion?

Tallifer · Jul 12, 2018

I loved 4th Edition most because it explicitly stated that fluff is malleable: let the players' and dungeon masters' imagination soar: create your own worlds, characters and backstories.

As a dungeon master in 5th Edition, I allow my players the same leeway. They are limited to the mechanics of the rules; but they can change the appearance, background, names, etc to fit their own concepts.

The Grassy Gnoll · Jul 12, 2018

Wow, you guys just dodged a lengthy bullet. I spent 20 minutes writing a really long post and when I hit submit I had been logged out and it has now, alas, been lost to the ether. Damnit.

Anyway, main points (sans carefully worked beautiful turns of phrase):
- To me: character development is more importnat that mechanical benefit.
- Sorcerers are a pain because your charcater is just going along, minding his own busin...WILD MAGIC! With no in-game relevance, I am now a fighter 13/sorcerer 1 and my scaled cantrips from out of nowhere are SUHWEET.
- Warlock patrons should be controlled by the DM as to when they occur/could reasonably be encountered to acquire a devotee.
- MCing with a few closely-related classes excepted should be a Tarzan swing - abandoning one liana to move forward with a new one. I.e., a NEW career rather than a little side quest (nb level of pre-game assumed skill development to reach L1 in your original class).