Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Oofta]

Then you, and they are considering them to be something they are not. They are explicitly not spells, and not supernatural.

Spell-like did not have a meaning in 4e, but in other editions it refers to magical powers (which exploits explicitly were not), which among other things, might have the exact same effects (both mechanical resolution & 'fluff') as a specific spell, but without components, would not function in anti-magic, would be subject to magic resistance, and could be dispelled if the spell they called was subject to dispel magic.

None of those things applied to 4e exploits.

I accept that you and your fellows suffered from that misapprehension, and if there is a valid underlying opinion, I would be open to hearing it.

I am cutting you miles of slack in the name of courtesy.

Dictionary.com defines supernatural as: "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

Powers allowed PCs to do things that were not physically or logically possible even using action-movie physics and logic. Therefore we considered them supernatural.

They emulated things that in previous editions that could only have been done with spells. Therefore we considered them spell-like. Not spells, spell-like.

I don't get why you're getting your grundies in a bundle here. I'm never going to agree with you because I'm simply stating an opinion that I and many people had. We didn't care what the label said then and we still don't. Not everybody limits their opinions to the letter of the rules and only the rules.

 

[JonnyP71]

Where I have no objection to multi classing is where it simply provides some variety of play that suits my aim. I really like the fighter-magic-user of old (played some elves here and there) and as a result find multiclassing scratches the itch.

Those classic roles - the magical Elven swordsman, the stealthy little Halfling who's quite handy with a shortsword,... they are fine, and I like to see those portrayed in 1E/2E - the Basic D&D Elf and Halfling are essentially along those lines by default!

I might be a little more welcoming to 5E multiclassing too if everything was chosen at character creation, and thus affected the whole adventuring career - your example of a Fighter/Wizard - the player would announce that when initially creating the PC, and then would take alternate levels in each class 1/-, 1/1, 2/1, 2/2 etc... I'd have no problem with that method. I'd allow a maximum of 3 classes using the core 4 (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief), or 2 classes using any others, and some combinations really don't work in my head, so I wouldn't allow those, eg most classes with Paladin!! It those limitations were the norm then it wouldn't make me so grumpy. Instead we get Paladin/Warlocks and other such nonsense, along with all those portmanteau names - Bardbarian, Sorlock, Sorcadin blah blah go away.

Damn I'm an old grognard

 

[Oofta]

To be fair, in the absence of anything like 3.5 Natural Spell, he'll have to resume his humanoid form to do so.

Good point. It would behoove him to to multi-class into sorcerer and use subtle spell. No somatic components.

 

[Satyrn]

Good point. It would behoove him to to multi-class into sorcerer and use subtle spell. No somatic components.

The druid's actually got a homebrew invocation that lets his chain pact familiar (it's a living Cthulhu plushie - so cute!) cast his spells for him.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Dictionary.com defines supernatural as: "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

Powers allowed PCs to do things that were not physically or logically possible even using action-movie physics and logic.

Many powers did, such as wizard/warlock spells or Paladin's prayers (though some arguably didn't, in spite of being supernatural in nature - just like how a psychic can claim supernatural power, even though they don't have it, you can conceivably exercise supernatural power in a way that seem natural or even mundane).

It's debatable that any exploits at all crossed that line (depending mainly on how you visualize them, which, of course, is something left up to the player, making it genuinely subjective), but, action-movie physics & logic is pretty darn permissive. You gave several examples, above, and it's not hard, at all, to visualize them happening in an action movie. Maybe a chambara movie featuring a supremely skillful ninja in the case of blinding barrage...
...which doesn't make it supernatural or inappropriate as a rogue power, but did make one wonder why it was /1st level/.

Therefore we considered them supernatural.

Which is explicitly not the case, so you considered them to be something they were not. If you mean that as a metaphor, of course, it might not be entirely unreasonable, but that didn't seem to be the way you stated it. Certainly, with as much rancor as the false statement "fighters cast spells" caused in the edition war (and with vast irony, as little as the true statement "fighters in 5e can cast spells," provokes the same) it would be, at best, a poor choice of metaphor.

They emulated things that in previous editions that could only have been done with spells.

If you mean 'emulated' in the sense of achieved mechanical effects, like, say, restoring hps, then you are still wrong, since even utterly mundane actions in past editions could restore hps (just not many). If you mean 'emulated' in the sense of doing in-fiction things that could look like in-fiction things spells did, well, it depends on how each power is described by the player using it. You could describe both Cloud of Daggers (Wiz at-will 1) and Blinding Barrage (Rogue daily 1) as the character tossing a lot of daggers into a small area. In the case of the wizard, it'd be pushing it, since no daggers are actually used in casting cloud of daggers, but you could. It'd still be a spell, though, still require an implement, still do force damage instead of untyped like actual daggers, still create a Zone susceptible to Dispel Magic, and still in no way qualify him for the Daggermaster Paragon Path.

One of the oddities of D&D, though, has long been that things that realistically can happen - like, say having your hand cut off - often can't happen in D&D without bringing magic into it - like, say, a Sword of Sharpness. So there are some things that previous editions were being 'unrealistic' in restricting to only being possible with magic. In older editions' defense, though, there simply wasn't a skill system so giving a monster or NPC or even class a 'spell' to emulate a extraordinary skill, like a Ranger slipping through the woods without being followed, was not unheard of (give him Druid spells, he'll be able to cast Pass Without Trace).

I'm never going to agree with you because I'm simply stating an opinion that I and many people had. We didn't care what the label said then and we still don't. Not everybody limits their opinions to the letter of the rules and only the rules.

You don't have to agree with my opinions (that, for instance, class balance can be a good thing), but, it would be a courtesy if you found ways to express your own opinions that are distinguishable from factual misstatements about the game in question.

 

[Oofta]

The druid's actually got a homebrew invocation that lets his chain pact familiar (it's a living Cthulhu plushie - so cute!) cast his spells for him.

Well then it doesn't matter because I don't allow druids to multiclass with warlock. Good thing we straightened that out.

 

[Satyrn]

Well then it doesn't matter because I don't allow druids to multiclass with warlock. Good thing we straightened that out.

Luckily for my druid, I'm the DM.

 

[Oofta]

Luckily for my druid, I'm the DM.

Obviously you are playing the game wrong if you don't play it like I do. A cthullu plushie as a pact familiar? That's just udderly ridiculous.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

But my sorceress magic is in her blood, why would she stop having it just because she has learned how to fight with weapons and wear armor? Or because she made a deal with an entity of dubious standing and morals?

That was kind of my point. Sorcerers can be rationalised as a MC at any point, without necessarily any anchors to the character's previous history or encounters. In your case, if the PC is already a sorcerer and wants to MC into a Fighter, say, to me that's fine (assuming there is a reasonablly compelling desire to do so).

It's when someone randomly decides that they fancy BOOM WILD MAGIC MANIFESTS that makes me stroke my beard as to their reasons. Obviously, there can be perfectly good reasons to do so. However, it mjst be said that in the middle of a campaign, suddenly having sorcery bubble up through you would be a fairly major development, story wise.

There is a reason the Quick Build suggested background is Hermit for Sorcerers - it carries the implication that (a) those around the sorcerer drove them away, probably muttering darkly about the evil eye and almost certainly whilst waving a combination of pitchfork, torch, feathers and tar, (b) the newbie sorcerer went off into the wilds to explore these strange new powers/come to metaphysical terms with the changes to their being, their very essence, that it indicates (glancing from their glowing hands to the freshly-incinerated goatherd yonder whilst whispering "what...am I? I...I don't know anymore" as the rudderless ungulates mill around their legs), or (c) both.

This is all presumed to have taken place before the adventures start, off-camera, so to speak, and represents a major part of the character's personality and motivations. So when it happens at, say, Level 6, it's gonna be a Big Deal to that person, regardless of their prior class. I mean, just osme of the reactions one might expect:
Fighter: "So, I'm a wizard now? Wtf?"
Cleric: "Why do I need the gods when I am myself a source of raw magical power?"
Barbarian: "Throg make boom. Throg scared of self"
Bard: "Woah! Omg omg omg this would make a really kewl story! How does it work? I mean, I didn't sing or anything! I gotta work this out this out for myself"
Druid: "Ah. Am I closer to nature now? Or further away? Is this refined sugar magic as natural as my demerara version I'm used to? I think I shall be a badger for a while and have a think about this"
Warlock: "Pfft! Who needs Asmoxyleucreuxerces anyway? I'm a Bad Ass without any patronage now! Stupid name, anyway."
Wizard: "Really? REALLY?? All those years of study in the Arcanum without getting a tan or a sex life was for NOTHING?" /tears up spellbook in inchoate rage
Ranger: "I'm no longer following these tracks. I AM the tracks. And the woods they're made in. My God, I...I think I just Drizz't on myself"
Rogue: "YES! I totally just stole RAW MAGICAL AWESOME. I am the BEST thief in the whole world! Shazam! Hey, guys, check out what I can d..." WILD MAGIC SURGE FIREBALL "Uh..guys? Guys?"

Yeah, I'm messing around here. But you get the idea. To me, if you start as a Sorcerer, MC away, for sure. So long as somethign compels you to do it, character-wise. But a sudden MC into Sorcerer seems like a cop out. I'd be more inclined to say, OK, you gain the Magic Initiate (Sorcerer) Feat, instead.

But that's just me.

 

[Oofta]

You don't have to agree with my opinions (that, for instance, class balance can be a good thing), but, it would be a courtesy if you found ways to express your own opinions that are distinguishable from factual misstatements about the game in question.

Many powers in 4E were labeled marshal. I and my group were of the opinion that many martial powers were supernatural spell-like abilities that did not model actions a truly mundane fighter could achieve.

The latter is as factual as the former and is in no way a misrepresentation of what the rules text said.