Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

TheCosmicKid said:

Must have gone to a high school where the big, mean science geeks picked on all the poor, defenseless cool kids.

Click to expand...

It's tough out there for a Muggle...

TheCosmicKid said:

Must have gone to a high school where the big, mean science geeks picked on all the poor, defenseless cool kids.

Click to expand...

It isn't that. It is just that, well the archetype itself is highly uninteresting to me. I cannot find any single thing about it that sounds even remotely appealing. Then there's this over exposition to it (it is one of the most popular classes out there), and seeing it used as an excuse for powergaming -if not actual munchkinism-. And of course being told over and over the last few years "Just fo play a wizard", "what you want is a wizard" over and over has just soured upon me.(There's more personal stuff, but basically my own power fantasies don't involve books on any way or shape, my day job involves plenty of them already thank you.)

_________________________________

During a feverish dream recently, I got a plot bunny for a D&D inspired story. I hope to do it soon. Part of it got me thinking on this Warlock class -if I ever get it off the ground it'll be obvious why-. I in this thread it has been said that no member of a divine class would make a pact as it would be faltering on their faith. And even with sorcerers, as it would mean they don't trust in their own power or something. But that is assuming the pacts are all transactional contracts with clearly spelled out conditions, who says a warlock is even a willing subject? It is entirely possible an entity just wants to empower someone as a means of advancing its own goals! Maybe they are hoping to corrupt the paladin, or to sway a servant of the gods into forgoing them, or just plain increase its influence on the world by flaunting its presence, the patron doesn't need anything as superfluous as the other party's consent. This idea basically justifies any and all warlock multiclassing at once!

MoonSong said:

It isn't that. It is just that, well the archetype itself is highly uninteresting to me. I cannot find any single thing about it that sounds even remotely appealing. Then there's this over exposition to it (it is one of the most popular classes out there), and seeing it used as an excuse for powergaming -if not actual munchkinism-. And of course being told over and over the last few years "Just fo play a wizard", "what you want is a wizard" over and over has just soured upon me.(There's more personal stuff, but basically my own power fantasies don't involve books on any way or shape, my day job involves plenty of them already thank you.)

Click to expand...

And my power fantasies don't involve being born better than other people, but you don't see me ragging on sorcerers.

MoonSong said:

But that is assuming the pacts are all transactional contracts with clearly spelled out conditions, who says a warlock is even a willing subject? It is entirely possible an entity just wants to empower someone as a means of advancing its own goals! Maybe they are hoping to corrupt the paladin, or to sway a servant of the gods into forgoing them, or just plain increase its influence on the world by flaunting its presence, the patron doesn't need anything as superfluous as the other party's consent. This idea basically justifies any and all warlock multiclassing at once!

Click to expand...

Not all pacts are transactional and explicit - I would be immensely surprised if a Great Old One knew or cared what a "contract" is. But I feel like it is essential that it's voluntary in some way. If you have power for reasons beyond your control, you're more on sorcerer territory conceptually.

TheCosmicKid said:

And my power fantasies don't involve being born better than other people, but you don't see me ragging on sorcerers.

Not all pacts are transactional and explicit - I would be immensely surprised if a Great Old One knew or cared what a "contract" is. But I feel like it is essential that it's voluntary in some way. If you have power for reasons beyond your control, you're more on sorcerer territory conceptually.

Click to expand...

To this last point...I say, so what? I am now willing to kill some sacred cows of fluff. To the extent that classes are balanced, I am fine with sticking with them for the abilities...but am starting to wonder why would it be so terrible to play a warlock who seeks knowledge and power like a wizard (or in my mind as warlocks already do) without a patron at all? It's just fluff and between player and DM.

I enjoy a creepy guide/tutor/bad influ nice myself and the fun of designing them. But I despise the idea of a patron "granting spells." My new position is "why not make something cooler?"

I would suspect this talk would get me yelled at by much of the anti Multiclassing crowd....

Re: Warlock/Cleric concepts and fluff

I have a character concept (ie fluff) where a cleric of good is tempted by darkness in a morally ambiguous world. Yes, gods of good and evil explicitly 'exist', but they are far removed from the mortal realm, even from 'epic' mortals.

In this world, the concept is for me to play a cleric of light that taps into warlock as he delves into a forbidden (heretical perhaps) tome of knowledge (pact of the tome). The 'pact' is really just a conduit to this power (fiendish patron for my purposes). Since both Light Domain and Fiendish pact have a lot of 'fire' associated with it, spellcasting shouldn't be a giveaway that something is amiss.

I haven't made/played this character - its just a concept. However, I can see the "dual masters" argument being not a preventative to the build but a role-playing hook. The fictional parallel would be The Witcher. As long as the patron is neutral or has little to know agency, (or I suppose the gods for that matter, but harder to Grok) the fiction of the cleric/warlock is fine.

ad_hoc said:

The player is free to find another table, or write a novel on their own.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a player who wants to make his own character, according to the rules, is not allowed to do so if you wouldn't play such a PC yourself?

Are you suggesting that a player who has a backstory that you didn't think of is an entitled snowflake out to mess with your carefully crafted story, and must be banned from your table?

Sure, it's possible for a DM to have houserules for a particular campaign. These should be made clear before the players generate their PCs. So if you decide that on this world anyone who studies wizardry cannot study anything else(!) then at least players don't bother making wizards if their concept is a MC wizard.

I have to say that your scenario make little sense to me. Sure, you could say that the study of wizardry is so all-consuming that you cannot do that and study something else at the same time. Fair enough.

But what about the things the PC did before studying magic? How is the fact that I was an urchin who learned, as a matter of survival, rogue stuff. How does that prevent me studying magic later?

What about a wizard who gets fed up to the back teeth of all this study, and stops studying magic? What prevents him from now learning combat tricks? What prevents him being called by his god to be a paladin/cleric? What prevents some dark power trying to corrupt him by 'gifting' him with warlock abilities?

You are not making sense. Worse, you are preventing players from using their creativity; they must use yours.

Perhaps you should write a novel instead of being a DM. After all, D&D is a game of shared storytelling. If you don't allow the players to add to the game world, you're doing it wrong.

Arial Black said:

You are not making sense. Worse, you are preventing players from using their creativity; they must use yours.

Perhaps you should write a novel instead of being a DM. After all, D&D is a game of shared storytelling. If you don't allow the players to add to the game world, you're doing it wrong.

Click to expand...

If the player isn't going to create a character to work well in the game then no one is obligated to play with them. It doesn't matter if something is 'in the rules' we can and will say to someone that we don't think they are right for our game.

Life is too short.

I gave experience for the last two contradictory positions. While I like the former, I think each DM should define their parameters. I would not play in the second group...but understand my play style is not everyone else's. But agree with arial black...that sure sounds...constraining...and not super fun

Warpiglet said:

To this last point...I say, so what? I am now willing to kill some sacred cows of fluff. To the extent that classes are balanced, I am fine with sticking with them for the abilities...but am starting to wonder why would it be so terrible to play a warlock who seeks knowledge and power like a wizard (or in my mind as warlocks already do) without a patron at all? It's just fluff and between player and DM.

I enjoy a creepy guide/tutor/bad influ nice myself and the fun of designing them. But I despise the idea of a patron "granting spells." My new position is "why not make something cooler?"

I would suspect this talk would get me yelled at by much of the anti Multiclassing crowd....

Click to expand...

I don't know, I think this just proves how rigid and -gulp- superfluous the wizard class is. n_n

ad_hoc said:

If the player isn't going to create a character to work well in the game then no one is obligated to play with them. It doesn't matter if something is 'in the rules' we can and will say to someone that we don't think they are right for our game.

Life is too short.

Click to expand...

Agreed! Totally agree!

But judging whether or not a player is going to create a character to 'work well in the game' is not the same thing as 'wants to MC wizard'.

It is absurd to imagine that a player who wants to play a Wiz 7 is going to 'work well in the game', but a player who wants to play a Ftr 1/Wiz 6 is by definition a player who will not 'work well in the game', before he even explains his concept to you.

What is it about this PC that makes the game break down, that you know will make the game break down before you've even seen the character sheet?