Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
Whether your multiclass for mechanics or story, it doesn't really matter much to me. As is, I've only seen a couple of multiclass PCs in 5e. One was a fighter/cleric who did it for story reasons, the other was a fighter/swashbuckler who did it for mechanical reasons.
I'm also all for the whole paladin/warlock or cleric/warlock multiclass. I see no reason why these need to be mutually exclusive and if you really need story reasons then it doesn't need much of a story to say the Asmodeus has a conquest paladin/fiend warlock or the Corellon has a cleric/archfey warlock.
I'm also all for the whole paladin/warlock or cleric/warlock multiclass. I see no reason why these need to be mutually exclusive and if you really need story reasons then it doesn't need much of a story to say the Asmodeus has a conquest paladin/fiend warlock or the Corellon has a cleric/archfey warlock.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
I don't like multiclassing for 2 reasons.
1. It is clunky. The game is designed so that at level 1 the class has chassis abilities. Things like armour, weapons, skills, HP, etc. Multiclassing combines 2 chassis together and it is clunky. This leads into #2.
2. I like the strong archetypes that D&D is able to deliver. This is one of the best strengths of the game. Characteristics of characters need to be strong and clear for them to stand out at the table. Multiclassing muddies the waters. It also makes it harder for the DM and the rest of the party to play off the character because their archetype isn't as strong.
1. It is clunky. The game is designed so that at level 1 the class has chassis abilities. Things like armour, weapons, skills, HP, etc. Multiclassing combines 2 chassis together and it is clunky. This leads into #2.
2. I like the strong archetypes that D&D is able to deliver. This is one of the best strengths of the game. Characteristics of characters need to be strong and clear for them to stand out at the table. Multiclassing muddies the waters. It also makes it harder for the DM and the rest of the party to play off the character because their archetype isn't as strong.
Warpiglet
Adventurer
In many fantasy movies or fiction, many of the characters powers are not mapped to a game class. Why couldn't an evil sorcerer both consult with evil beings while also using force of will and study?
In short the whole point I am making is this: why so warlocks represent someone consorting with devils in a pact vs. them being a sorcerer of some stripe who gets the powers from discipline and study? Would it break the game to make this assumption, or just create a different image or RP situations?
In short the whole point I am making is this: why so warlocks represent someone consorting with devils in a pact vs. them being a sorcerer of some stripe who gets the powers from discipline and study? Would it break the game to make this assumption, or just create a different image or RP situations?
Tony Vargas
Legend
In one setting, the two were linked. Sorcerers bargained with or coerced 'spirits' for overt magical power like fireball-tossing or flying or making someone you didn't like get sick & die, but were able to do so because they were essentially psionic, blessed with preternatural force of will that could communicate with/coerce said spirits - and also be used against other people to read/influence thoughts or create sensory illusions ('all in your head,' not like D&D illusions). If you just did the later, you were an 'Enchanter,' if you did the former you were a more powerful/feared 'Sorcerer,' but the underlying abilities were the same, it was just how you applied them, and how in deep you were willing to go with more powerful spirits you weren't able to just mentally coerce.
No good reason. A warlock could be able to use a spell because he made a deal with a devil; a Sorcerer because he's the great-grand-nephew of a devil; a wizard because he found the spell in a spellbook penned by a devil (for the sake of argument). They're all still throwing the same spell. Nothing requires a game to mechanically model the same power (magic) being used the same way (casting a spell) to accomplish the same thing (whatever the spell does) at all differently just because they were acquired differently or might look/feel different on some fluff level.
To me it is like having a LG Drow Paladin of the Sun. When I say I don't like it, I am not saying you cannot do it. I am sure that you have a special reason for it that is rich in your own backstory. I'm allowed to not like it though. A campaign is only made up of 4-5 characters through who's eyes we see the world. Such a character has just ensured that 90%+ of the "screen time" that Drow get in the campaign will be as LG protectors of the innocent who love sunlight.
Whenever we come up with a special ("snowflake" has too much of a loaded meaning) variation from expectations, we push the world as it is being viewed in that direction. Picture a campaign as a TV show, whatever has screentime is what the audience will understand. Remember the old adage of "show, don't tell". We can talk about how Drow are evil etc, but if what we are showing is a good and kind Drow all the time, then the world rings false. I started a Warhammer campaign and no player chose any character in keeping with the tropes, I decided to just abandon it and play on the Sword Coast instead. They all had good reasons why their character was the exception to the norm.
The same goes with Paladins who have a special reason to make an infernal pact, or with Clerics who split their duty between the Lord of Light and an ancient horror from beyond the stars.
Of course, sometimes a character is designed from the start to be multi-classed and that is less jarring. Like a bard/thief who gets into noble houses to perform then robs them. A skald who has a pact with the vestiges of fallen ancestor kings. Even a paladin who follows a diety, but has a special (warlock) bond with one of their saints. If they start that way it is almost never jarring and with a few levels warning a DM and player can direct RP in that direction pretty naturally.
Whenever we come up with a special ("snowflake" has too much of a loaded meaning) variation from expectations, we push the world as it is being viewed in that direction. Picture a campaign as a TV show, whatever has screentime is what the audience will understand. Remember the old adage of "show, don't tell". We can talk about how Drow are evil etc, but if what we are showing is a good and kind Drow all the time, then the world rings false. I started a Warhammer campaign and no player chose any character in keeping with the tropes, I decided to just abandon it and play on the Sword Coast instead. They all had good reasons why their character was the exception to the norm.
The same goes with Paladins who have a special reason to make an infernal pact, or with Clerics who split their duty between the Lord of Light and an ancient horror from beyond the stars.
Of course, sometimes a character is designed from the start to be multi-classed and that is less jarring. Like a bard/thief who gets into noble houses to perform then robs them. A skald who has a pact with the vestiges of fallen ancestor kings. Even a paladin who follows a diety, but has a special (warlock) bond with one of their saints. If they start that way it is almost never jarring and with a few levels warning a DM and player can direct RP in that direction pretty naturally.
Tallifer
Hero
To clarify, when I say that I allow my players freedom, I mean that they can use whatever rules mechanics they want, but I do make sure that their story fits (or changes in some good way) our campaign setting. For example if a player wanted to play a Lawful Good Drow Paladin of the Sun, I would probably decline unless he refluffed something (paladin of the inner sun of pellucidar under the earth? a lost tribe of drow from before the fall of xendrik?)
Last edited:
Greenstone.Walker
Adventurer
I think this is a symptom of some classes being mechanical-only but other classes being mechanics and story.
The idea of a fighter doesn't rely on any fluff. You know how to fight. There's no reliance in anything in the game world. A warlock or cleric, however, is bound up with something in the game - a patron or deity. D&D 5E has tried to remove the link between clerics and paladins and in-game deities, but most of us players ignore that.
The idea of a fighter doesn't rely on any fluff. You know how to fight. There's no reliance in anything in the game world. A warlock or cleric, however, is bound up with something in the game - a patron or deity. D&D 5E has tried to remove the link between clerics and paladins and in-game deities, but most of us players ignore that.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
I agree.
I think a lot of people are also selfish in character creation. They want their character to be the protagonist rather than part of an ensemble.
Not only is that character representing Drow, but the character is also going to be hogging screen time.
Backstories only exist if they influence the story. Background traits through Inspiration allow for the backstory to shine through. But that's it, 4 things that sum up the character. Everything else about that character is created during play.
A player could write an entire novel's worth of backstory for their character and it still wouldn't exist. To all of the viewers (other players) they are just a LG Drow who wants to hog the game by telling everyone about it.
...Instead...make a character who will bolster the story and the other characters. Or in other words, it isn't 1 player's story.
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
I think the whole LG drow paladin of the sun is a great story. Imagine living in darkness your whole life and then, after a harrowing journey upwards, you stand in a cave mouth and see the sun in all its glory, feeling its warmth wash over you, tears flowing because the sight is so beautiful to you and your eyes are super sensitive to sunlight. That's a great story and I'd be perfectly fine with a LG Drow paladin devoting himself to worship of the sun/sun god.
Similar Threads
