Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Satyrn]

Out of curiosity, where did the bolded portion come from? I am guessing that is not PHB (unless is changed with a newer print run?). Thanks in advance for pointing me in the right direction!

It's from Xanathar's.

But even with that, [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] is leaving out all the places where the books say the opposite of that. The text for the Great Old Ones talks about some those patrons being totally oblivious/indifferent to the warlock's existence, or even how any patron might be different.

Some patrons are exactly what he's saying they are, others are nothing like that. Each of them is a unique snowflake.

 

[Warpiglet]

It's from Xanathar's.

But even with that, [MENTION=28301]smbakeresq[/MENTION] is leaving out all the places where the books say the opposite of that. The text for the Great Old Ones talks about some those patrons being totally oblivious/indifferent to the warlock's existence, or even how any patron might be different.

Some patrons are exactly what he's saying they are, others are nothing like that. Each of them is a unique snowflake.

Ah! Many thanks! Yes agree that seems to be inconsistent with some patrons...

I prefer the PHB description of a mentor and that once learned the powers are yours to keep...

I could see a patron refusing to teach more if a character was at odds with their agenda maybe? But even then the PHB talks about working against the evil aims of a patron as well...at least in some cases.

 

[5ekyu]

The HexBlade spam is ridiculous. Test your players and ask them if they read these parts:

"You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell—a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. The mighty sword Blackrazor is the most notable of these weapons, which have been spread across the multiverse over the ages. The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it. Many hexblade warlocks create weapons that emulate those formed in the Shadowfell. Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting. Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the first of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends."

To me it seems such a pact would never be granted to a good aligned PC (unless to subvert the PC) nor would any good aligned PC search them out. Using the tools to "manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends" to me means the hexblade probably wouldn't play well with others.

I am not even sure the Pact creature would continue to grant the Pacts benefits if you multiclass just to dip as:

"A pact can range from a loose agreement to a formal contract with lengthy, detailed clauses and lists of requirements. The terms of a pact—what a warlock must do to receive a patron’s favor—are always dictated by the patron. On occasion, those terms include a special proviso that might seem odd or whimsical, but warlocks take these dictates as seriously as they do the other requirements of their pacts. Does your character have a pact that requires you to change your behavior in an unusual or seemingly frivolous way? Even if your patron hasn’t imposed such a duty on you already, that’s not to say it couldn't still happen."


That seems to me the DM dictates ALL the terms and change them at ANY time for ANY reason. It is certainly within DM bounds to withhold Warlock features and benefits until you "show your devotion to me" i.e. gain more levels in the Warlock class.

So it seems you are zeroing in on one specific patron for your games - thats certainly a lot more "for setting consistency" than "because i said so" than banning all warlock multiclassing. Cannot speak for your setting and the limits you choose to set into its most powerful operators but for my worlds i can answer some of these...

1st Do the players need to read the bits about the new classes and patrons etc? yup, or at least, when we have that warlock-patron/player-gm pre-choice-talk i will make it clear to them how i run the patrons and how they vary quite a bit between one pact to another. Just like with clerics and to lesser extent every character alliances and deals are two-sided. The one's key to a class, race or background - even more so.

2nd Whether the Raven Queen, hex-patrons and hexblade could offer their pact to good aligned individual - of course. Whether or not they could have warlock's beholden to them that did play well with others, of course. Even an outright evil god/patron could... and relish in using them to serve their purposes - like say perhaps being very effective tools to work with others to weaken the patron/gods rivals. Right? Evil does not play well with others" includes at times "other evil" and why expend loyal evil deinzens when you can expend disposable gooders who owe you? The very powerful beings we are discussing here may not be as limited in my worlds as in yours - thats fine of course.

But the "one evil faction" using and backing "goodly do rights" to go kill the opposition is old classic solid staple storylines with plenty of analogs in real life and history. not sure why a Gm would want to limit that and ban it out of their games.

3rd As for the idea that a patron would somehow "punish" the pawn for gaining other levels in other classes - well, i supposed some might feel that way - but again if they see the pawn as a tool for being used - why object to your tool getting better by a means that doesn't need you to provide more power? other than maybe vanity sake, why not let your pawn gain ten levels in fighter and be an even better pawn? They still want what you give them and use it every day so... you still have them on the hook.

hold your big leverage for when they actually refuse to do something you ask... not when they just get more powerful on their own, right? makes more sense.

And yes... the discussion between player-gm about the warlock-patron and what that means is vital to the class - as is so very highlighted in the main intro to the warlock class.

But, that would apply - most of what you describe here in fact - that all applies whether multi-classing at all or primary-classing.

So this really seems more like a series of "trouble with the warlock" items than anything specific to multi-classing.

Right?

The good character hexblade - not just related to multi-=classing?
The patron hold back powers, patron might change up terms etc - multi and single class both right?

Sounds like you dont like warlocks or maybe hexblade warlocks. maybe that should be its own thread separate from multi-classing?

 

[5ekyu]

How would I find out?

And if he did, he blocked me because of one post which said that I fundamentally disagreed with his stance on multiclassing?

Seems an extreme reaction to a civilised post...!

IDK about how to find out but its never going to be able to see for sure whether it was one post or many or whatever led to the choice. people block. it happens.

 

[5ekyu]

Really? Here is a description of the Shadowfell:

"The Shadowfell, also known as the Plane of Shadow, was one of the planes of existence in various cosmological models. Its purpose and characteristics evolved as new cosmologies were formulated. Other names for this plane included Shadowland,[3] the Demiplane of Shadow,[4] and simply Shadow.[5]
It existed as sort of counterpart to the Feywild, in the sense that it was a reflection, or "echo", of the Prime Material Plane. Unlike the Feywild, it was a bleak, desolate place full of decay and death.[5][10]
“
It is the toxic plane of darkness and power.
It is the hidden place that hates the light."


All available information on the Raven Queen states that Raven Queen rules the ShadowFell, a dark, toxic place, and hates intelligent undead, that's why she battles them. She fights with Orcus over control of the dead, not because she thinks he is evil while she is good. To me its very unreasonable that any good aligned people would ever call on her for power nor make a deal with her wherein she controls all the terms. That's what other patrons are for.

I see your argument all the time by players who want to dip Hexblade for armor and weapons powered by their primary stat but want to be good-aligned to justify their selection. Maybe its me but to me its just an attempt at min/maxing a PC with just a veneer. At least put in the effort to re-flavor the subclass completely to make an attempt at getting it in.

Well, see here we get into that whole "how do you see the good alignment" or "alignment at all" blah blah blah blah blah blah ad infinitum.

So to step aside from that - i can *easily see* in stories, legends, myths and even IRL histories and events cases where "good folks" for "good reasons" took up deals with "very bad even evil types" to go after "even badder evil types." that may lead to a gradual shift towards neutrality or even evil and that is what often makes those stories and histories so damned compelling.

Now one can wave the alignment straightjacket flag and ban these... or one can see them play out as part of a danged good ongoing story of character de-facto rebirth and development.

its up to the GM.

but, as i read it, a perfect case for this could be a very good person, fighter, whatever - who sees something he cares about by some massively evil lich or such and who goes out for revenge/justice and that creates the opportunity for the RQ to step in and thru her intermediary cut a bargain, cut a deal... and gain a very "useful tool".

it all depends on how much a Gm wants to limit his patrons/divinities and how limited he wants his "stories" to seem.

 

[5ekyu]

Ah! Many thanks! Yes agree that seems to be inconsistent with some patrons...

I prefer the PHB description of a mentor and that once learned the powers are yours to keep...

I could see a patron refusing to teach more if a character was at odds with their agenda maybe? But even then the PHB talks about working against the evil aims of a patron as well...at least in some cases.

To be very clear - there is nothing in the warlock PHb that says "the powers are yours to keep" and quite a few places that go into the patron requiring services not in the past but also going forward into adventuring. i think it even specifically references the patrons demands driving the character to adventuring at the very close before going into mechanics (and especially mentions services performed even when it does make the vague master and apprentice reference for some patrons.)

But to be clear - as i have referenced earlier - a Gm and player need to be on the same page regarding this and other things *before8 the class is chosen - as they strongly suggest.

In my games, its made clear to the player that the service to the patron is *not* just a price to gain power but a price to keep using the power.... unless it isn't as it is entirely possible that *at some point* a given patron would say "ok good enough".

For the old ones i tend to references older WoD malkavians - powers that seem chaotic and even insane but with a "higher vision" that means their plans often have other meanings. So, expect the unexpected and unexpect it to maybe eventually kind of make sense if looked at upside down while drunk and covered in honey.

The main keys to it IMO and which i emphasize to my players seeking warlocks is "expect to be involved in their plots and intrigues". if you don't want a push towards fighting off intelligent undead, orcus minions and other shadowy goodness - do not take hexblade/raven queen. if you dont want to be involved with feywild, demonics, celestials and their business and needs - dont pick them as patrons.

**basically** your patron choice will shape the events you get drawn into, so make sure this is the direction you want your character to go.

 

[Warpiglet]

To be very clear - there is nothing in the warlock PHb that says "the powers are yours to keep" and quite a few places that go into the patron requiring services not in the past but also going forward into adventuring. i think it even specifically references the patrons demands driving the character to adventuring at the very close before going into mechanics (and especially mentions services performed even when it does make the vague master and apprentice reference for some patrons.)

But to be clear - as i have referenced earlier - a Gm and player need to be on the same page regarding this and other things *before8 the class is chosen - as they strongly suggest.

In my games, its made clear to the player that the service to the patron is *not* just a price to gain power but a price to keep using the power.... unless it isn't as it is entirely possible that *at some point* a given patron would say "ok good enough".

For the old ones i tend to references older WoD malkavians - powers that seem chaotic and even insane but with a "higher vision" that means their plans often have other meanings. So, expect the unexpected and unexpect it to maybe eventually kind of make sense if looked at upside down while drunk and covered in honey.

The main keys to it IMO and which i emphasize to my players seeking warlocks is "expect to be involved in their plots and intrigues". if you don't want a push towards fighting off intelligent undead, orcus minions and other shadowy goodness - do not take hexblade/raven queen. if you dont want to be involved with feywild, demonics, celestials and their business and needs - dont pick them as patrons.

**basically** your patron choice will shape the events you get drawn into, so make sure this is the direction you want your character to go.

If I was playing in your campaign I would consider a different class to play but be respectful of the structure of your world, patron and warlocks.

However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either. It only speaks to gifts being bestowed, secrets learned and so forth. In fact, a final showdown between a master and student sounds like a fun campaign idea. The book actually says that the warlock learns and grows in power and not that they are simply allowed to borrow power for so long as they behave. Of course it also states that there is price to learn and grow in power. What is the price for an uncaring GOO warlock I wonder?

My sense is that once you taste power you comply with tasks and the patron's orders because you want more. In your campaign it is also perhaps due to fear of losing already learned lore or bestowed gifts. I would not tell you you are wrong. I just would not do it that way and I would not think that I am violating RAW or RAI with a different take.
Note that there are examples of patrons being unaware of or uncaring toward the conduct of their warlocks.

The PHB clearly says that one should work with their DM to determine how big a part the pact will play in the adventuring career. It sounds like you encourage players to follow this advice.

In short, I believe there are contradictory statements and vague references because one size does not fit all patrons or warlocks--and I like it that way. I like the variety. Some patrons don't care about the presence of the particular character, some are demanding.

With this variety, a DM can go in many directions and there is a lot of space for DM and player to create. As with the thrust of my main argument in the thread though, I think we often see our preferences as "the way--RAW/RAI" where the books are much less prescriptive than we selectively recall. And I think most players and DMs fall prey to this without realizing it (self perhaps included).

 

[smbakeresq]

Well, see here we get into that whole "how do you see the good alignment" or "alignment at all" blah blah blah blah blah blah ad infinitum.

So to step aside from that - i can *easily see* in stories, legends, myths and even IRL histories and events cases where "good folks" for "good reasons" took up deals with "very bad even evil types" to go after "even badder evil types." that may lead to a gradual shift towards neutrality or even evil and that is what often makes those stories and histories so damned compelling.

Now one can wave the alignment straightjacket flag and ban these... or one can see them play out as part of a danged good ongoing story of character de-facto rebirth and development.

its up to the GM.

but, as i read it, a perfect case for this could be a very good person, fighter, whatever - who sees something he cares about by some massively evil lich or such and who goes out for revenge/justice and that creates the opportunity for the RQ to step in and thru her intermediary cut a bargain, cut a deal... and gain a very "useful tool".

it all depends on how much a Gm wants to limit his patrons/divinities and how limited he wants his "stories" to seem.

I see it as a player trying desperately to shoehorn a min/max concept into multiclassing with no effort.

The reason why I believe this is no one tried or suggested it as a concept until the UA came out then Xanthars came out, then they got “inspired.” No one even posted the idea for designers to borrow. It suddenly just “happened” to a lot of people.

Give the designers credit, they are far more inspiring then most people.

 

[smbakeresq]

Everyone could post their ideas they had but didn’t publish regarding this before it was allowed. I think the posts will be barren...

 

[5ekyu]

I see it as a player trying desperately to shoehorn a min/max concept into multiclassing with no effort.

The reason why I believe this is no one tried or suggested it as a concept until the UA came out then Xanthars came out, then they got “inspired.” No one even posted the idea for designers to borrow. It suddenly just “happened” to a lot of people.

Give the designers credit, they are far more inspiring then most people.

i cannot speak for your experience with your players.

i can only speak to mine and i have not found that any class or any sub-class has any sort of exclusively power gamer minmaxey sort of vibe from the players i encounter built into it. A Gm who took a story like what i suggested with the same regards as you seem to have - i would simply thank for his time and move on.

No sense spending my time with someone who as a start distrusts my motives in a friendly game.

RPGs and DND tend to involve trust - a lot put into the Gm by the players. Not gonna do that when we start from the Gm deciding i am trying some form of shoehorn or semi-sarcastic "inspired" riff.

The designers said they wanted specifically to add hexblade to provide a better vehicle for those wanting to run pact of the blade than what was provided. it was just one of the cases they referenced where what was included was intentionally meant to provide appropriate options to the PHB.

is it possible some folks who liked the idea were turned off by the poor PHB implementation - sure. Does that make them a target for derision when a better and needed option is provided? Nope. At least not to me.

But again, it sounds again like more a "problem" with the warlock - not multi-classing.