Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Elfcrusher said:

I hope the DM doesn't reply, "Let me see your backstory. Was that already in there? Because you can't just narrate new stuff into your backstory whenever you want."

Click to expand...

"Uh, my backstory, yeah, well, umm . . . I took the outlander (guide) background . . . is that what you mean? I hope that's what you mean, cause I got nothing else."

That's how my table roles.

Elfcrusher said:

Ok, but will you admit that there are many...countless...possible answers, all of which are equally valid?

It would have been perfectly valid for Bilbo to refuse to go on the Erebor Quest, because after all he's a Hobbit and that's "what a Hobbit would do".

It's also perfectly valid for Bilbo to go on the quest, because he's also part Took, and that is (sometimes) what Tooks do.

Click to expand...

Sure, there are lots of things that Bilbo might do in that situation. What I decide that Bilbo would do may well be different from what you decide that Bilbo would do, and neither of us is wrong as long as we're both being honest with ourselves and our interpretations of that characters.

Elfcrusher said:

So what does one do in that case? Personally, I go with a choice that I think will make for a better story.

Click to expand...

That's meta-gaming, though. You're making a decision about what Bilbo would do, based on information outside of the game world, that he couldn't possibly take into consideration. It goes against the first step, where you make an honest interpretation of the character.

If your real reason for having him take that action is that you think it will make for a better story, then it doesn't matter how well you try to rationalize it as something he would do, because your bottom line is already written.

Of course, this specific example just highlights the need to create a functional character before the game begins. If the game won't move forward for a hobbit who doesn't accept the quest, then it's important that you create a hobbit who does have a good reason to accept the quest, so that your role-playing decision won't grind the game to a halt when you get there. Likewise, you probably shouldn't make a character who is a loner that goes off on their own, because role-playing that character authentically would probably mean splitting the party and making players sit out for long periods of time.

5ekyu said:

I am also sure that patrons who choose pawns that will devote and pledge them selves to a cause the patron wants to see supported is also workable as long as not opposing. Sounds like Warlock paladin to me.

Click to expand...

Well, your statement clearly indicates that you believe the PC is a pawn with a clear implication that if the PC/Pawn does something to oppose the patrons cause then the patron is in the position to and will react accordingly.

That sounds like the DM, who controls the patron, determines what the patrons goals and desires are and can dictate what actions are in accordance with its goals and desires and can withhold powers granted to assure compliance.

I said that 70 pages ago and was ridiculed for following "fluff" language that wasn't actual a "rule."

I am in agreement with you though, what you say is correct. Unmentioned but assumed is that the paladin part of the equation, the divine being that grants you spells and other abilities, probably wants a say in the matter also.

I will say, without actual "rules" evidence, that that patron and divine being are many orders of power more intelligent and wiser then the PCs, with eons of experience in dealing with their "pawns" such that pulling a fast one on them probably has a very low probability of succeeding. In game terms, don't let the PC's bully you into something for their character, make them explain it somehow. If they cant make it sound reasonable to a powerful entity with vast resources, it probably isn't.

pemerton said:

The only game system I know that uses gold stars is Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant, and they're not an award "just for participating".

But anyway, how does your table decide which of the players does and which doesn't get to play a "special PC"?

Click to expand...

Alright, you must either not be from the US or are intentionally playing dumb if you do not get my real world reference about getting rewarded just for participating.

FrogReaver said:

I was asking specifically about a cleric adding a level of warlock. Why do you play that as being something impossible in your world?

Click to expand...

Because if I am using a world with active deities, they might the jealous kind who do not like being cheated on by the people they grant powers. Worlds with more active deities tend to also be worlds with more conflicts between the deities, so trying to get powers from two different sources could be more dangerous than just becoming an ex-cleric or whatever. If it is a world with distant deities, then it is more likely I would allow a good character concept that used more than one divine source for powers. And in a world with very distant, or missing deities, then the powers available would be limited in level.

Enevhar Aldarion said:

Because if I am using a world with active deities, they might the jealous kind who do not like being cheated on by the people they grant powers. Worlds with more active deities tend to also be worlds with more conflicts between the deities, so trying to get powers from two different sources could be more dangerous than just becoming an ex-cleric or whatever. If it is a world with distant deities, then it is more likely I would allow a good character concept that used more than one divine source for powers. And in a world with very distant, or missing deities, then the powers available would be limited in level.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it was this thread that inspired me or another recent one, but I recently read someone's tale of two sphinx courting by play-by-messenger chess. It has inspired me to add in an very long running chess match between Bahamut and an ancient white dragon known as the Ice Queen.

Bahamut, a good god, lives in the city above the megadungeon and readily available if the players want to talk to him. The Ice Queen is as evil as any white dragon, and is available as a warlock patron. The Ice Queen's warlocks are primarily used to deliver notes back and forth between the two. Because of this arrangement, a player seeking to multiclass into a warlock with the Ice Queen as patron can do so most easily by visiting Bahamut - indeed, Bahamut actively recruits warlocks for the evil dragon - and the god will help the PC with the rituals needed to make the mystical connection with their patron.

Then, as long as the warlock delivers a message (eventually), the god and patron really don't care what the PC does.

(This idea is probably also inspired by those people here who seemingly insist there's no way a good god could accept their clerics making pacts with evil patrons.)

Satyrn said:

(This idea is probably also inspired by those people here who seemingly insist there's no way a good god could accept their clerics making pacts with evil patrons.)

Click to expand...

I would argue that anyone who goes around recruiting warlocks into the service of an evil dragon is probably not a good person, let alone the Ultimate Embodiment of Good. It could make sense if it's just a minor deity, though, like Hercules; he may be a decent guy, but he's still just a dude, and nobody is perfect.

I guess it's the difference between a good god, and a God of Good. (My settings tend more toward the latter than the former.)

Saelorn said:

That's meta-gaming, though.

Click to expand...

Ah, right. You're one of the posters who thinks that all metagaming is bad. I have lines I try not to cross (for example, I'll let new players figure out that trolls regenerate) but if I think, "Hey, it seems like the DM is putting a plot hook in front of me" I won't agonize over whether or not my character would follow that hook. Instead I'll try to think of a reason why my character would follow that hook. Maybe that's not pure enough for you, but if so, man, your way sounds rigid and un-fun to me. Like I'm getting scored for technical points in my roleplaying or something.

Of course, this specific example just highlights the need to create a functional character before the game begins. If the game won't move forward for a hobbit who doesn't accept the quest, then it's important that you create a hobbit who does have a good reason to accept the quest, so that your role-playing decision won't grind the game to a halt when you get there. Likewise, you probably shouldn't make a character who is a loner that goes off on their own, because role-playing that character authentically would probably mean splitting the party and making players sit out for long periods of time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I pretty strongly disagree with this, too. I'd rather start with a sketch and then let the character form and evolve while I play. Again, it requires the kind of player narration that a few of you find so heretical. Whatever. Game on.

Elfcrusher said:

Maybe that's not pure enough for you, but if so, man, your way sounds rigid and un-fun to me. Like I'm getting scored for technical points in my roleplaying or something.

Click to expand...

The only one who really knows whether you're role-playing, or just rationalizing, is yourself. Personally, I'm not going to take a shortcut, because that would defeat the reason for why I'm playing the game in the first place. If other people at the table are secretly rationalizing their own actions, then I'll never know, so I try to not worry about it. I'm not going to second guess their motivations, for much the same reason that I'm not going to watch their dice.

But as far as 5E is concerned, meta-gaming is explicitly called out by the rules as being a bad thing, so I'm also not going to advocate for anyone following that path.

smbakeresq said:

Well, your statement clearly indicates that you believe the PC is a pawn with a clear implication that if the PC/Pawn does something to oppose the patrons cause then the patron is in the position to and will react accordingly.

That sounds like the DM, who controls the patron, determines what the patrons goals and desires are and can dictate what actions are in accordance with its goals and desires and can withhold powers granted to assure compliance.

I said that 70 pages ago and was ridiculed for following "fluff" language that wasn't actual a "rule."

I am in agreement with you though, what you say is correct. Unmentioned but assumed is that the paladin part of the equation, the divine being that grants you spells and other abilities, probably wants a say in the matter also.

I will say, without actual "rules" evidence, that that patron and divine being are many orders of power more intelligent and wiser then the PCs, with eons of experience in dealing with their "pawns" such that pulling a fast one on them probably has a very low probability of succeeding. In game terms, don't let the PC's bully you into something for their character, make them explain it somehow. If they cant make it sound reasonable to a powerful entity with vast resources, it probably isn't.

Click to expand...

To be clear as i said about oatron choosing pawn - thst was a patton pov, not mine. You seem to have jumped from npc to gm.

Some patrons will see their warkocjs as pawns. Some may see them as business partners. Some may see them as allies in a common cause.

No matter what, those patrons are NPCs not pets and not power vending machines.

Its just to me as much a nonsensical a notiin to declare all patron divine combos are going to cost you levels or powers or that gods can use minions for cleric-warlock support as it is ti insist the patron-divine side has no power in the deal.