Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Ilbranteloth]

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)

The “selling your soul” was just an example. Your idea of the patron granting them without their knowledge is also a cool one. My point is that there is theoretically a benefit to the warlock’s patron, whether the character chooses to remain a warlock or not.

Whereas in Realmslore, and sometimes D&D lore, editors gain power through active faith and worship. The relationship is different. A divine class is somewhat evangelical, and as long as the later classes help promote the deity, then they can do so without losing any of their divine benefits.?

No such agreement is necessary for a warlock. I think the game leaves it pretty open to interpretation, although that could also be because the cleric/deity relationship has been well established in the D&D world since the beginning, and it bears a close resemblance to the concept of faith and religion in the real world.

The warlock concept most closely mirrors the idea that the patron derived a benefit in some other way. Since there isn’t a clear way for them to demand service from the warlock in a way similar to the cleric, it seems pretty logical that the benefit may come later, such as after the death of the warlock.

The idea of patrons actively trying to influence them is an interesting twist. It would lend itself well to a mechanic like the corruption mechanic in the 5e Adventures in Middle Earth.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

But you literally can't refluff a wizard into something that isn't a wizard, the mechanics get in the way of the new fluff. Yeah my patron gave me power in the form of a spellbook that I have to mantain just like anybody who hasn't sold their soul for it/magic runs through my veins, so much that I depend of an external item to cast spells and if it was lost or destroyed I'd be rendered powerless.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

But you literally can't refluff a wizard into something that isn't a wizard, the mechanics get in the way of the new fluff. Yeah my patron gave me power in the form of a spellbook that I have to mantain just like anybody who hasn't sold their soul for it/magic runs through my veins, so much that I depend of an external item to cast spells and if it was lost or destroyed I'd be rendered powerless.

If you can get rid of a warlock's patron when the mechanics say "choose a patron" in no uncertain terms, then you can get rid of a wizard's spellbook. Don't try to pretend that one is easy but the other is an impossible obstacle to your creativity. The PHB itself suggests a couple of ways to refluff the book.

 

[MoonSong]

If you can get rid of a warlock's patron when the mechanics say "choose a patron" in no uncertain terms, then you can get rid of a wizard's spellbook. Don't try to pretend that one is easy but the other is an impossible obstacle to your creativity. The PHB itself suggests a couple of ways to refluff the book.

The wizard spellbook is overall a mechanic, with explicit rules for what happens if you lose it or it gets destroyed and how to replace it, and you need it at the very least once each time you level up. It has been that way all the way back to AD&D -or worse, because back then you needed it every single day-. -And I'm talking mostly across the editions-

Also I just read the wizard section on spellbooks, it says nothing about refluffing a spellbook into a non-book (that, or you need to give me the exact page number). All I can find says "Your spellbook is a unique compilation of spells .... it might be *a few short descriptions that all refer to different shapes of a codex*". Even if refluffed, it remains an external physical object that can be taken away. Completely unlike Warlock patrons that come with next to zero strings attached, barely none if we go into mechanics. In a way the Warlock's patron is 99% fluff and the wizard spellbook is 99% mechanics. One can easily be refluffed away, the other not so much.

 

[cbwjm]

You could easily just not use a spellbook. Remove it completely and you have up to 25 spells known at level 20. Ritual casting could be just like it is for bard, if you know it, you can ritually cast it.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The wizard spellbook is overall a mechanic, with explicit rules for what happens if you lose it or it gets destroyed and how to replace it, and you need it at the very least once each time you level up. It has been that way all the way back to AD&D -or worse, because back then you needed it every single day-. -And I'm talking mostly across the editions-

Also I just read the wizard section on spellbooks, it says nothing about refluffing a spellbook into a non-book (that, or you need to give me the exact page number). All I can find says "Your spellbook is a unique compilation of spells .... it might be *a few short descriptions that all refer to different shapes of a codex*". Even if refluffed, it remains an external physical object that can be taken away.

Hmm. Must be in the DMG or something, but somewhere in 5E it discusses tattooing spells on your body instead of using a spellbook. So, not necessarily an external object. And even if I'm completely imagining this - well, I successfully imagined it. You could have too.

Completely unlike Warlock patrons that come with next to zero strings attached, barely none if we go into mechanics. In a way the Warlock's patron is 99% fluff and the wizard spellbook is 99% mechanics. One can easily be refluffed away, the other not so much.

The game: "Warlocks are beholden to otherworldly entities of vast power, and forever at risk of displeasing them."
You: "Pfft, that's just fluff, we can change it."

The game: "Wizards have spellbooks, and can lose them."
You: "That rule is set in stone and there is no way of altering it!"

I don't get it.

(I mean, "zero strings attached"? Warlock pacts? Seriously?)

 

[MoonSong]

You could easily just not use a spellbook. Remove it completely and you have up to 25 spells known at level 20. Ritual casting could be just like it is for bard, if you know it, you can ritually cast it.

But that is no longer refluffing, at this point you are in the realm of houseruling.

 

[cbwjm]

But that is no longer refluffing, at this point you are in the realm of houseruling.

The ritual casting thing? I guess you could just ignore it. Seriously, if I wanted to play a spellcaster with inborn power and none of the sorcerer subclasses were interesting to me but I liked the look of the diviner for a kind of oracle type character, then I'd choose to be a wizard and not use the spellbook and just use my spells prepared as spells known.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

The Wizard aka Magic-User did indeed cover all possible archetypes for arcane spellcasters in AD&D. It's just that spontaneous zero-book arcane spellcasters were not a possible archetype in that game.

Somehow, the idea came about that D&D was some sort of generic do-anything fantasy simulator, but it was never really true. D&D presents a very codified type of world, which can't reasonably reflect any type of fantasy world that isn't already derived from D&D. At best, it can put vague guidelines into the DMG about how you might be able to invent a new class to represent a different kind of spellcaster, if that's part of some new setting that you're inventing. Class creation is always going to be more of an art form than a science, though.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The answer is in past editions alignment and sticking to an oath/code of honor/path/ideal for the special classes (ranger/paladin/druid/etc) was indeed part of the "balance" in exchange for all the cool stuff you got. So that's sort of become imprinted in the genetics of the overarching metagame.
Personally I'm fine with sacrificing the sacred cow - if you can come up with a neat idea to do so. Personally I can see a lot of possible ideas for the warlock/paladin. A paladin devoted to a holy cause but also under the sway of some kind of demonic shadow weapon is like 70s/80s fantasy 101.
On the other hand, besides feats multiclass /is/ the main way min/maxing gets silly in 5e. But it's not as silly as it was in 3.5, so I kind of remain ambivalent to it. Until players ask about polearm mastery/sentinel with a quarterstaff and shield, or dual wielding lances. Then my ambivalent genial DM facade melts away to reveal the demonic grognard within.
Edit: I have more to say and didn't want to doublepost:
One reason you see reaction especially to Warlock multiclassing is because of the way Warlock spell slots work. That affects class features from other classes in a profound way, which is why you see Warlock pop up so much in optimization discussions. Being able to use spell slots and get them back with a short rest, and those spell slots all being the highest level that your spell slots can be, really super charge certain class mechanics. The reaction comes from the folks who don't like bottom-up character development; i/e conceptualizing the possible interplay of mechanics before the story and flavor of the person.
In my personal opinion, bottom up or top down is fine as long as at the end you have a character that can add to the story at the table. If you're a walking frankenstein creation with no veneer of background flavor or anything to add to the narrative, that's when I get.... ​hasty.

I 100% agree with everything you said but I also think that is only part of it. I think if people are honest it comes down to using character preconceptions to attempt to delegalize a style of play and say someone is wrong instead of agreeing to disagree. While old additions had oath/code of honer/ideal for specific classes the developers deliberately pulled away from that allowing greater flexibility in both role play and multi-class of characters. Anyone who has looked at the warlock in the PHB knows that the Arch Fey & Hexblade not the typical "you serve and evil patron" that the Fiend is and that the Fiend patron description even says you can go against your patron which doesn't have any negative effects on character progression but it does "recommend" some possible GM story repercussions. The Old One patron basically says your so insignificant the patron is unaware of you or doesn't care about you basically giving these warlocks the freedom to do as they please. Divine patrons could even be considered good.

All that said, My GM doesn't like multi-classing. Their is no rule preventing me from multi-classing. My GM doesn't want to ever say he is restricting players just because he doesn't like something. So what does he do? He does what most people arguing against an idea they don't want but can't justify within rules without saying "because I don't like it", He creates a "roleplay requirement" that effects rules interactions in order to stop the player doing something for meta-game reasons. "Warlocks are evil and Clerics good so your chosen deity will not except you. Me: so my character is evil? GM: no you are what your actions make you. Me: So why does my deity think I am evil? GM: because your a warlock ", Your Dragonic blood as sorcerer prevents you from being imbued with the magic of the Arche fey", "your The Old One patron deafens your cries to the deity preventing you from swearing in to its service". When I joined my GM said play whatever you want (because this is what he felt he should say). I showed up with a Tiefling druid/rogue when meeting the party the GM said "his eyes show him as demon, The paladin player immediately has an uncontrollable need to kill you." I escape as a cat out a arrow slit portal window. I get to the woods... roll a survival check. You are attacked by hellhound you lose 25 of 35 health... I turn into a horse, double move, cunning action move 180ft out of combat range, it pursues 50ft speed, falling behind.. Suddenly from over 200ft behind it moves past and in front of me attacks and knocks my character out.. (Other player leans in: I guess he didn't tell you he hates nonhuman characters and multi-classes, Me: uh no, he said play what I want, other player: he doesn't want to restrict you but he will try to kill you off if your not human, you multiclass, or your a warlock. Just a heads up for your next character) Point of my story? People feel like bad guys when they restrict players so don't, then try to rationalize a reason to push players away from choices and explain why they right to do so instead of saying its just how they feel. "I don't like it in my game because I think your going to power game" or "its overly complicated", or "your stepping on some elses role", or "I have a hang up that if you look evil or play a class that I consider evil you will be treated as and enemy even though your alignment is good and your saving children from a burning building". Instead they rationalize why a player is "wrong", "a power gamer", "not role playing", all in order to call the player the bad guy so they don't feel bad about restricting them because they want to and not due to a RAW reason. This not to say you shouldn't as a player findout what your GM doesn't like and avoid those things. You should. Your playing together and in their world. Avoiding stepping on their narrative toes will make your play better. I just think most of the time that is how it should be approached instead of people taking the "your stupid or evil" approach to through story to prevent actions through Roleplay regulations instead of RAW.