Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[GMforPowergamers]

If Paladin 2/Druid 1/Cleric 2 is the most powerful 5th level character in the group, something is seriously wrong. Good grief, a Druid 5 is far, far more powerful than this character. Better shape change and access to 3rd level spells? A 5th level Land Druid can potentially cast fireball and there's nothing in your character that comes even close to the damage potential of that. Sure, you've got tons of 1st level spell choices, but, losing out on 2nd AND 3rd level spells?

Sorry, not seeing it.

I had an AC through the roof, I was good in melee and a great healer, and I could smite for nasty damage. I was pretty much the DPR king and had 2nd best HP and tied for 2nd best AC. The only one that was close would be the warlock, who could eldritch blast for 2 1d10 blasts...

 

[Arial Black]

Look, its the "if a pinch of salt makes supper taste better, adding a pound of salt must make it great" argument.

Sekyu, this was your reply to one of Ad Hoc's posts. My first post in this thread was a reply to an earlier Ad Hoc post. But now, I cannot find ANY of Ad Hoc's posts in this thread!

What's going on?

 

[ccs]

Quote Originally Posted by ccs View Post

In my games:
Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
Why can't cleric be MC with warlock?
Why aren't there non-LG paladins?
Why can't you play a drow or some other monster?
Etc etc etc?

All these questions and more can be summed up by the following statement: "Because I'm the DM & that's how I'm running things."

*Works calling, so I'll return to this later....

Because

In *our games* (as in games i play in) there is a step after the step you describe where players choose whether or not they want to play in that game.

So amazingly we end up with only getting to have actual games where there is enough agreement between both Gm and play that its the game they want to play.

So, guess its more like both sides have their own big swingings and only when they all put theirs away and reach a mutual agreement do we see play - do we actually have an "our game".

guess we are odd that way.

But gotta say - a Gm whose best answer about "why do things work this way in this world" is "because" would not inspire a lot of confidence for my players in terms of there being a world that "makes sense" **enough for my players** who usually like more in-game elements flow from in-game elements kind of feel to them. They are more inclined to like "lore" than "divine whimsy" for instance.

But thats them. it matches my style as well so... it all works out.

But many games have worked with "because" as core foundations too, i am sure.

Like I said, work was calling & I got cut off from finishing the post. I just got back around to finishing it a bit later than I thought....

1) I didn't think I needed to specify buy-in as a step in the process. If I'm DMing there's already buy-in.

2) The reason isn't simply "because". It's because over the years I've identified things that I don't enjoy DMing for &/or aren't compatible with the world I'm running. Same as any other DM. The former is really the most important though. Because if I'm not enjoying DMing then it's a waste of my time. And since I'm not paid to do this, guess what? That's right, I don't have to do something I'm not enjoying.
So. If you want to play, pick one of the many many other options that're still available & just save your MC Warlock-Paladin/Cleric build, your non-LG paladins, non-religious divine casters, monster PCs, Drow (and eventually psionics) for some one elses campaign.

The people I play with? They already know & accept this.
New people? They learn this before they're allowed to roll up a character. If they're making a character, that means they're OK enough with it.

 

[Hussar]

I had an AC through the roof, I was good in melee and a great healer, and I could smite for nasty damage. I was pretty much the DPR king and had 2nd best HP and tied for 2nd best AC. The only one that was close would be the warlock, who could eldritch blast for 2 1d10 blasts...

Again, how?

A Paladin 5 attacks 2/round, so, right off the bat, he's doubling the damage output of this character. Never minding having 6 smites/day plus whatever subclass powers and additional lay on hands. How is your AC any better than a normal Paladin? Full plate and shield plus, maybe Shield of Faith (which the 5th level pally can cast anyway). Nothing clerics or druids get at 1st and 2nd level really boosts AC.

I'm sorry, but, again, I'm really, really not seeing it. Your group must have been incredibly ineffective if the strongest DPR character in the group is this one. Good grief, a 5th level Champion would put this character to shame and that's probably the weakest DPR character in the game.

 

[5ekyu]

Shrug, Most Dm's have house rules and strange setting options or non-options and use or don't use optional rules as they see fit. In my experience players are many and DM's who can run a game are so few that if the game is good the DM gets a full table no matter what his personal add ons or no no's are. If it's no multiclassing or only playing Pathfinder or AD&D or OD&D or fate........players really want to play and will do just about anything for a decent game.

That last sentence "for a decent game" is pretty much exactly what i was saying abd what we seem to agree on.

Most of the time i have seen it "because i said so" does not equate in players' eyes to "a decent game."

 

[5ekyu]

Sekyu, this was your reply to one of Ad Hoc's posts. My first post in this thread was a reply to an earlier Ad Hoc post. But now, I cannot find ANY of Ad Hoc's posts in this thread!

What's going on?

Did ah hoc block you?

 

[5ekyu]

Quote Originally Posted by ccs View Post

In my games:
Why must clerics follow a god (or a pantheon of gods)?
Why can't cleric be MC with warlock?
Why aren't there non-LG paladins?
Why can't you play a drow or some other monster?
Etc etc etc?

All these questions and more can be summed up by the following statement: "Because I'm the DM & that's how I'm running things."

*Works calling, so I'll return to this later....

Because



Like I said, work was calling & I got cut off from finishing the post. I just got back around to finishing it a bit later than I thought....

1) I didn't think I needed to specify buy-in as a step in the process. If I'm DMing there's already buy-in.

2) The reason isn't simply "because". It's because over the years I've identified things that I don't enjoy DMing for &/or aren't compatible with the world I'm running. Same as any other DM. The former is really the most important though. Because if I'm not enjoying DMing then it's a waste of my time. And since I'm not paid to do this, guess what? That's right, I don't have to do something I'm not enjoying.
So. If you want to play, pick one of the many many other options that're still available & just save your MC Warlock-Paladin/Cleric build, your non-LG paladins, non-religious divine casters, monster PCs, Drow (and eventually psionics) for some one elses campaign.

The people I play with? They already know & accept this.
New people? They learn this before they're allowed to roll up a character. If they're making a character, that means they're OK enough with it.

I find for me there is a universe of enjoyable gameplay between "because i said so" and "DMing stuff i dont like" and also plenty of players who want to share a game in those places.

So neither of those has to drive my games either way.

Then again...

As i said in the ezrlier post...

"in terms of there being a world that "makes sense" **enough for my players** who usually like more in-game elements flow from in-game elements kind of feel to them."

If the answers to why not you provide is more than "because" and includes within the world why it makes sense that a divine being aka god is utterly incapable of sending an intermediary being to aid a chosen champion in a patron- warlock multiclass mode ("aren't compatible with the world I'm running") we may be seeing more than just because i said so and more players might buy in.

In my games its typically more frequent for divine being to use such intermediaries (really, kind of in a way - the clerics are just such themselves.) So having one intermediary collaborate (as patron) with another "junior" to "teach him the ropes" that the divine sees as a good idea... Not at all beyond the scope of divine being in my world - of any ilk.

Different ideas of what "gods" are capable of i suppose - and thats fine.

 

[Seramus]

Sekyu, this was your reply to one of Ad Hoc's posts. My first post in this thread was a reply to an earlier Ad Hoc post. But now, I cannot find ANY of Ad Hoc's posts in this thread!

What's going on?

That sounds like a Block. It means you cannot see his posts, and he cannot see your posts. You also cannot see entire threads if he started them, even if you have replies in them from before the block.

 

[GameOgre]

That last sentence "for a decent game" is pretty much exactly what i was saying abd what we seem to agree on.

Most of the time i have seen it "because i said so" does not equate in players' eyes to "a decent game."

Decent game has nothing to do with rules. A good DM can run a game in the worst rpg and have the players cheering for more.

 

[Sadras]

That sounds like a Block. It means you cannot see his posts, and he cannot see your posts. You also cannot see entire threads if he started them, even if you have replies in them from before the block.

It is a pity because the block feature also messes with the post count sadly and linking posts.