Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

Grognerd said:

I'll let someone else rebut the other points, but I couldn't let this pass. At no point was this ever hinted or suggested in any way, shape, or form. In fact, should he meet a "real" worshiper of Odin, that just exploded an entire world of opportunity for roleplaying, exploration (trying to figure out who he really works for), conflict, etc. More than likely, the player would love the plot points, since they show the DM is interacting with his backstory in a very tangible way.

Your claim that he somehow limited the DM on how s/he presents Odin is unsubstantiated by what was actually said.

Click to expand...

Warpiglet said:

Fair enough. My preference is for a CHARACTER to have character and multiclassing or not is secondary. As for starting the thread and my arguments afterwards, I am actually in the camp of preferring minimal cheese and all of that.

However, I am not immune to some desire for power or ability. For example, i thought of playing a ranger/druid and really enjoying the ability to swing a big hammer while fighting alongside some conjured creatures.

Here, it just happens that I want to be able to fight. I guess there is some RP element to it--I was thinking of playing a former solider who no longer believes in fighting for honor and coin but rather survival and friends. BUT I did not want to do it with a scimitar or staff. Just preferred a big hammer. Seemed fun, 2d6 is nice, whatever.

There are many reasons to play an MC character that I think are valid and do not get in the way of immersion. I don't think it screams cheese or ridiculous even though I clearly want to swing martial weapons...

(then again, not optimized per se with many screaming about the risk of losing concentration and so forth with the druid spells...)...

Click to expand...

smbakeresq said:

Really? This was said

"

* we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells
* we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e

* we know that some fiends, like Lolth for example, are both fiend AND god​

Click to expand...

You are correct that he didn't explicitly state that. But he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.) He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.

Click to expand...

smbakeresq said:

You are correct that he didn't explicitly state that. But he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.) He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.

You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?

Click to expand...

smbakeresq said:

You are correct that he didn't explicitly state that. But he did say Odin is not omniscient (that's not true, there is no rule that explicitly states that, its up to the DM) and of course he KNOWS that Odin doesn't know anything about this particular relationship (how would the player know that to be true?, Its also up the DM.) He is forcing these ideas on the DM to create a PC.

You don't think that's limiting on how the DM presents Odin?

Click to expand...

Grognerd said:

[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]Which has nothing to do with Odin, so my point remains.



Which is pretty much standard. But it's worth noting that he only mentioned that there is nothing inherently within D&D that says that Odin must know, and only said this in response to your allegation, not as a part of the core presentation/paradigm.

Back to having nothing to do with Odin, which is what I was calling you out on. [/LEFT]



Again, as pointed out above, he only said this responsively. Which means it was part of a conversation. It was not part of the core paradigm.

So yeah.. you are definitely being disingenuous if you really want to claim that his core backstory as presented (prior to the -for-tat dickering that followed) was "forcing" the DM to present Odin in a particular way. And even if it was, it certainly was not forcing the presentation of Odin that you originally claimed in your post that I was responding to. Good conversations require integrity, not disingenuity.

Click to expand...

TwoSix said:

I think the crux of the disagreement is if I go the DM and say "Hey, I have an idea of a character with background X, and that background would need these certain ideas to be implemented in the campaign setting," there's nothing wrong with creating the background with the presumption that the DM will be willing to play along. You should be ready, willing, and able to write a backstory that references setting elements that you've created out of whole cloth.

Now, the DM might have a conflict. Maybe an element you referenced directly contradicts an important part of his overall concept. Or there's an element of play the DM would like to highlight that would align well with your background if you change a few details. That's all well and good. But gameplay is overall improved for everyone if the DM takes ideas the players present and says "Yea, I can run with this" even if it means he has to change some details of his headcanon.

Click to expand...

smbakeresq said:

Now you are insulting me and questioning my integrity and calling me out. He presented those things as his CORE PARADIGM, as absolute statements of fact in the campaign. Yes you modified your answer to delete those statements about Odin that I was %100 correct on and then claimed that you were making a general response, so NO your arguments do not stand. THATS disingenuous.

That's the end of it, don't respond anymore as it is relevant to the thread. If you want to insult me do it in a PM so it doesn't derail the thread anymore. If Black had a problem he would have mentioned it to me, he didn't. Move on.

Click to expand...

Cap'n Kobold said:

That raises an interesting question. Are there any published D&D settings around in which the gods like Odin are omniscient?[/QUOTE

I don't know. However I have never seen any that say as an absolute rule that "gods in D&D are not omniscient." I would think its up to the DM as to what gods are used and what their knowledge level is. In the Deities and Demigods book there was various references in each pantheon as to what each god knows, but IDR any blanket statement. I do remember a few that are neat though, the God Math gave himself the power to hear whenever his own name is spoken, and Death in Newhon (I think) instantly knows the entire life of any being he even glances at.


Obviously though this gets into greater theology questions. For example, a unique view in Christianity is that God is Omniscient and All-Powerful, and that Satan is but a loyal servant carrying out his task to test people. These are deeper questions though then for the game purposes.

In polytheism, its almost never the case that one god knows everything and is all powerful. They break up each part of life into a separate sphere of influence. If you are a person in D&D, a citizen of the fantasy world, this is a good idea, if you have a lot of Gods you believe in then you can have a lot of Gods on your side. With the right worship you can get the whole team.

If you can get your hands on a copy of the old book its pretty good reading in general.

Click to expand...