Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[TheCosmicKid]

To this last point...I say, so what? I am now willing to kill some sacred cows of fluff. To the extent that classes are balanced, I am fine with sticking with them for the abilities...but am starting to wonder why would it be so terrible to play a warlock who seeks knowledge and power like a wizard (or in my mind as warlocks already do) without a patron at all? It's just fluff and between player and DM.

Fluff isn't "just fluff". Fluff matters. Fluff is why we're playing this game rather than Bridge. And yes, a player and DM can work together to refluff the warlock as a book mage - there's certainly no reason why a form of magic must be modeled one way rather than another. The concern is internal consistency. It is one thing to say, "The warlock is how book magic works in our world." It is a wholly different thing to say, "The wizard is normally how book magic works in our world, and the warlock is normally how pact magic works in our world... but we're gonna use the warlock rules for this one particular book mage because she happens to be a player character." That, to me at least, would be very jarring. Others may not care, but I think that if we're going to bother with all these different rules systems for magic, we should at least ground them with in-universe justifications for existing.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't know, I think this just proves how rigid and -gulp- superfluous the wizard class is. n_n

The wizard covered all arcane magic user archetypes (putting an asterisk next to the bard) for more than half the lifetime of this game. It's these Johnny-come-lately classes that are superfluous.

 

[Warpiglet]

Fluff isn't "just fluff". Fluff matters. Fluff is why we're playing this game rather than Bridge. And yes, a player and DM can work together to refluff the warlock as a book mage - there's certainly no reason why a form of magic must be modeled one way rather than another. The concern is internal consistency. It is one thing to say, "The warlock is how book magic works in our world." It is a wholly different thing to say, "The wizard is normally how book magic works in our world, and the warlock is normally how pact magic works in our world... but we're gonna use the warlock rules for this one particular book mage because she happens to be a player character." That, to me at least, would be very jarring. Others may not care, but I think that if we're going to bother with all these different rules systems for magic, we should at least ground them with in-universe justifications for existing.

I agree fluff matters. I agree with some sense of grounding. I do not agree that exceptions to the general rule derail anything. Look how loose the description of sorcerers are--many possible causes for the talent to emerge.

And if I make one up it wrecks the fabric of reality? To each their own! For decades our group usually follows the fluff as written. But in that span we have also deviated to create novelty and individualization. It has not caused us to doubt the fantasy any more than we do as adults with intact reality testing ability.

Think about this: I said I don't like spells being granted by patrons. The great old ones don't seem to grant anything! But I apply this to fiend patron abilities and it gets too loose? I dunno. That is too rigid of a make believe system for me and my pals.

I am not a munchkin showstealing cheese monger (at all!). But some flexibility is a hallmark of the game.

When they talk about making the game your own, I don't at all think they mean all of this should be constrained to crunch!

This is a taste issue, clearly. We play RAI as much as possible but allow much flexibility in narrative. It has never failed us.

 

[MoonSong]

The wizard covered all arcane magic user archetypes (putting an asterisk next to the bard) for more than half the lifetime of this game. It's these Johnny-come-lately classes that are superfluous.

Nop, the wizard/MU pretended to cover all arcane magic user archetypes, but only ever really covered one: booklearned spellcaster. It is completely useless to cover any other kind of spellcaster. If not, prove me wrong, show me a 2e or AD&D wizard/mage/mu that can be an innate spellcaster with zero book dependency.

 

[ad_hoc]

Agreed! Totally agree!

But judging whether or not a player is going to create a character to 'work well in the game' is not the same thing as 'wants to MC wizard'.

It is absurd to imagine that a player who wants to play a Wiz 7 is going to 'work well in the game', but a player who wants to play a Ftr 1/Wiz 6 is by definition a player who will not 'work well in the game', before he even explains his concept to you.

What is it about this PC that makes the game break down, that you know will make the game break down before you've even seen the character sheet?

I think we're firmly into mixed quotings/points made too long ago territory.

I made a post about why I don't like multiclassing early on.

I also think that tables get to decide whether something is appropriate for their game, multiclassed or not. We don't use the multiclassing rules at our table so it hasn't come up. At our table we are leery about anyone who tries to create a central protagonist character; esp. if they have a novel of a backstory. We tell them that if it doesn't come up in the regular course of play it doesn't exist. Pick your traits and lets go, no one wants to hear it.

So at some point I may have said something to that effect.

 

[MoonSong]

I agree fluff matters. I agree with some sense of grounding. I do not agree that exceptions to the general rule derail anything. Look how loose the description of sorcerers are--many possible causes for the talent to emerge.

And if I make one up it wrecks the fabric of reality? To each their own! For decades our group usually follows the fluff as written. But in that span we have also deviated to create novelty and individualization. It has not caused us to doubt the fantasy any more than we do as adults with intact reality testing ability.

Think about this: I said I don't like spells being granted by patrons. The great old ones don't seem to grant anything! But I apply this to fiend patron abilities and it gets too loose? I dunno. That is too rigid of a make believe system for me and my pals.

I am not a munchkin showstealing cheese monger (at all!). But some flexibility is a hallmark of the game.

When they talk about making the game your own, I don't at all think they mean all of this should be constrained to crunch!

This is a taste issue, clearly. We play RAI as much as possible but allow much flexibility in narrative. It has never failed us.

Why not make a "Sophia" patron that is literally knowledge itself? You could add some wizard spells, and the ability to swap a single spell known from a book each long rest?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?650123-Multi-classing-as-good-as-it-seems

Recently there was a discussion here about the relative power of multiclassing vs. Single classes. The argument seemed to go in two directions. First, some observed that multiclassing is/is not overpowered. But a second vocal group suggested multiclassing is all wrong much of the time for RP reasons.

I have seen other such threads too. How can you have a paladin/warlock or a warlock/sorcerer or a warlock/cleric or a (fill in the blank). But most notably there seem to be more objections about clerics, warlock and paladins based on their supposed fealty to a particular being or cause.

I am wondering why the lore of spellcasters is so sacred to some? My own history suggests when I play a paladin, it is LG and really hews closely to AD&D ideals. If I play a cleric, I have been clear about religious affiliation as more than an afterthought. Never liked clerics without a power to pray to personally. But that is personal preference only! I can see cool concepts that deviate markedly as very valid.

So this leads me to ask: of all the things we home brew and change, why are these seemingly sacred cows so sacred to some? Do we think the RP aspect is a balancing factor in some way?

I observe that many who dislike multiclassing seem to dislike deviation from very traditional fluff elements in classes.

On one hand I get it and on another it seems rather limiting. I know when I play a warlock, I like to imagine them being taught magic but also exploring and learning on their own from hints given. I don't like the idea of spells being granted. I take arcana skill and don't enjoy sub 10 intelligence for any caster. Does it matter that much that we stick with fluff as written?

Last initial thought: many people seem to object to changing the fluff but also being inspired by some ability before a story. I have developed a number of concepts after flipping through the PHB and thinking an ability looks fun only then thinking about what kind of character would employ it. Admitting this may get me accused of ignoring fluff or not being traditional enough, I realize.

I don't necessarily dislike multiclassing, and have used it for decades. I'm not a fan of "dipping" or designing 20 levels of character with all of the multi-classing planned out before the character ever sees play either. The mechanical aspects of multiclassing can sometimes be a bit of a challenge. For example, 1st level characters get a bunch of things right away. Thematically, that makes sense. They've been training for several years for their new avocation. But taking it as a second class doesn't provide that. In 3/3.5e for example, you would be older when you gained 1st level in certain classes, since it theoretically took longer to learn them.

We treat the characters as real people in a real world. So if multiclassing fits their circumstance, that's great. We've altered the rules quite a bit, though. We have a number of feats that serve the purpose of a "dip" in that you can gain some of the key abilities without getting all of the benefits of a given class.

Now when it comes to certain classes, it's kind of simple for me. One of the things I love about D&D is the historical research it can send you on if you'd like. I prefer the world to have a very real late-medieval feel, because I think the mundane base makes the magic more fantastic. Religion played a very central place in the lives of medieval people. In a world where the gods are known to be real, may have actually walked the planet, and that they grant very real magic and abilities, I think they would be that more important. What separates a layman from a cleric or paladin? Faith. Much stronger faith, and a much stronger commitment. If you're dedicating your entire life to your deity to the degree that they are imbuing you with their power, why/how would you ever change? Would switching to a fighter be leading you on that path? If your worshipping a god of war, perhaps. And that makes sense. But if you're worshipping a god of peace, or nature, or knowledge, etc., not so much.

Switching to warlock, where you are making a pact with another being for power? I think that's a pretty good recipe for being an x-level ex-cleric/1st-level warlock. So for me, divine classes are more than just learning a vocation. They are about fully devoting your living being to their cause.

Really what it comes down to, is that if you are multiclassing out of a cleric or paladin, then there needs to be some good justification to make it work. If you can provide that, no problem, as long as you maintain the tenets of your deity. Multiclassing in is no problem as religious conversions are not only a thing, but desired by the deities.

Warlocks, on the other hand, are quite different. Yes, they are making a pact with another being. But that other being probably doesn't give a crap if you use that power or not. If it's the traditional "selling your soul to a fiend" approach, then hey, they own you whether you choose to utilize their power or not. So I don't really care if you multiclass from that.

I'm not really concerned about tradition. I'm concerned about engaging with the setting. If you have an interesting idea and it works within the setting, then I don't have an issue with it. If you do have ideas of what you want to do in the future, I don't really have a problem with that, but will recommend you try to not let those plans/expectations prevent your character from growing in a different direction if that seems appropriate. Many of us have had plans for our future, and yet find that we end up in very different places than we expected. I don't really forbid any specific combination, and expect that there will be some reason for it in the narrative of the character's life. But that has to fit with the setting as well.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't necessarily dislike multiclassing, and have used it for decades. I'm not a fan of "dipping" or designing 20 levels of character with all of the multi-classing planned out before the character ever sees play either. The mechanical aspects of multiclassing can sometimes be a bit of a challenge. For example, 1st level characters get a bunch of things right away. Thematically, that makes sense. They've been training for several years for their new avocation. But taking it as a second class doesn't provide that. In 3/3.5e for example, you would be older when you gained 1st level in certain classes, since it theoretically took longer to learn them.

We treat the characters as real people in a real world. So if multiclassing fits their circumstance, that's great. We've altered the rules quite a bit, though. We have a number of feats that serve the purpose of a "dip" in that you can gain some of the key abilities without getting all of the benefits of a given class.

Now when it comes to certain classes, it's kind of simple for me. One of the things I love about D&D is the historical research it can send you on if you'd like. I prefer the world to have a very real late-medieval feel, because I think the mundane base makes the magic more fantastic. Religion played a very central place in the lives of medieval people. In a world where the gods are known to be real, may have actually walked the planet, and that they grant very real magic and abilities, I think they would be that more important. What separates a layman from a cleric or paladin? Faith. Much stronger faith, and a much stronger commitment. If you're dedicating your entire life to your deity to the degree that they are imbuing you with their power, why/how would you ever change? Would switching to a fighter be leading you on that path? If your worshipping a god of war, perhaps. And that makes sense. But if you're worshipping a god of peace, or nature, or knowledge, etc., not so much.

Switching to warlock, where you are making a pact with another being for power? I think that's a pretty good recipe for being an x-level ex-cleric/1st-level warlock. So for me, divine classes are more than just learning a vocation. They are about fully devoting your living being to their cause.

Really what it comes down to, is that if you are multiclassing out of a cleric or paladin, then there needs to be some good justification to make it work. If you can provide that, no problem, as long as you maintain the tenets of your deity. Multiclassing in is no problem as religious conversions are not only a thing, but desired by the deities.

Warlocks, on the other hand, are quite different. Yes, they are making a pact with another being. But that other being probably doesn't give a crap if you use that power or not. If it's the traditional "selling your soul to a fiend" approach, then hey, they own you whether you choose to utilize their power or not. So I don't really care if you multiclass from that.

I'm not really concerned about tradition. I'm concerned about engaging with the setting. If you have an interesting idea and it works within the setting, then I don't have an issue with it. If you do have ideas of what you want to do in the future, I don't really have a problem with that, but will recommend you try to not let those plans/expectations prevent your character from growing in a different direction if that seems appropriate. Many of us have had plans for our future, and yet find that we end up in very different places than we expected. I don't really forbid any specific combination, and expect that there will be some reason for it in the narrative of the character's life. But that has to fit with the setting as well.

How about my previous idea, that the eldritch patron doesn't really need consent to begin with? What if the patron is granting dark powers without the new warlock's knowledge, or even against his/her wishes? "Let's empower this servant of deity so the dark powers eventually corrupt him/her, even if I don't get their soul, them using the power I gave them is advertising and in the long run undermines faith in this deity. Besides good souls are worth more."

Also, who says it has to be you the one to sell your soul? There is precedent at least in modern media that someone sells their newborn's soul for power or something. (I can think of one DC character with that backstory, don't remember the name just the backstory, and the whole premise of the Reaper series of a few years back)

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Nop, the wizard/MU pretended to cover all arcane magic user archetypes, but only ever really covered one: booklearned spellcaster. It is completely useless to cover any other kind of spellcaster. If not, prove me wrong, show me a 2e or AD&D wizard/mage/mu that can be an innate spellcaster with zero book dependency.

You appear to have missed my ironical tone and my point: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the wizard is superfluous because the warlock can be refluffed into a book mage, then the sorcerer and warlock are just as superfluous because the wizard can be just as easily refluffed into an innate or pact mage. If, on the other hand, the fluff of the wizard is an obstacle to playing an innate mage with it such that a distinct sorcerer class is required, then the fluff of the warlock is just as much an obstacle to playing a book mage with it such that a distinct wizard class is required. It's really just a matter of one's approach to fluff. 1E and 2E adhered to the first philosophy; 3E and onward have held to the second.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But on this thread and others, I see a depressing tendency of, "I can't make sense of it, therefore you are not allowed to do it!"

How dare you stomp on my creativity due to your lack of it!

The one responsible for determining whether something makes sense in any given world is the designer. In most case, the setting designer is also going to be the DM.

The player may very well may have a plausible excuse for why a paladin could multiclass into warlock, but only the DM knows whether that explanation actually makes sense in their world.