Multi classing Objections: Rules vs. Fluff?

[Arial Black]

You bring up some interesting points, and I'd like to address each in turn with a contrasting view:-

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.

In 5e (and since 3e), there are no 1st level MC characters. This is because of how the game mechanics work: you get one class level per character level, therefore if you only have one character level you can only have one class.

Up until then, you either started as a 1st level single class, or as a 1st/1st multi-class, or as a 1st/1st/1st multi-class, and stayed that combination of classes that each got improved relatively equally ('relatively' owing to the different XP tables for each class). The only exception was the (amazingly rare) dual-classed human.

Oh, and BECMI had 'elf' and 'dwarf' as classes, where 'elf' was really a fighter/mage.

But, they are all D&D. We can expect to create our PCs, using the rules, and craft their story around that resulting character sheet.

So, I could be making a PC for BECMI or 1e or 2e. Let's say that, mechanically, he is an elf trained in the arts of magic and war.

* in 1e, fighter/magic-user 1/1

* in 2e, fighter/mage 1/1

* in BECMI, elf 1

But it is the same character concept each time: an elf trained in magic and fighting for literally at least 50 years before turning up as a level 1 PC. At least as compelling a justification for his 1st level abilities as any single class wizard or paladin.

Great. Now I'll use the same character concept and make a PC in 3.5/PF/5e. If I get to 20th level, I might end up 10/10, or maybe 11/9 or 12/8 or something, but not a 'dip'.

We already have decades of D&D experience that this is a perfectly valid concept. There is no reason to forbid it!

We also know that, at level 1, he won't be multi-class yet; I have to wait until level 2 minimum. This is not a problem with my concept! This is simply a consequence of the way the levelling rules work!

So the objections I see on this forum on the lines of "It takes years to learn to be a level 1 wizard! It doesn't make sense to suddenly gain your 1st level of wizard overnight!" are easily rebutted. The problem here is not that I didn't put in the years of study: I put in 50 years, thank you very much! The problem is that I can only actually use the ability of one of my two classes until I've killed 300xp-worth of goblins!

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.

Let's say you are a paladin, totally dedicated to both you god and your oath. Now let's say you take a level of fighter, or 'dip'...something. "Oh, no!" I hear you cry. "You've abandoned your god and your oath! You've stopped being a paladin!"

Rubbish! I'm still a paladin, still loyal and dedicated to my oath and my god. Learning a few combat tricks doesn't change that, developing abilities through my heritage doesn't change my faith, the fact that (unknown to me) my parents bargained my soul to a fiend before I was even born before they abandoned me on the steps of the temple doesn't prevent my from using my paladin abilities in any way. Certainly not rules-wise!

So DMs are literally inventing ways to nerf your character choices, by making up increasing desperate 'reasons': MC PCs don't stop being one class when they take a second. Maybe you cannot worship two gods, but there's nothing stopping one patron from trying to subtly corrupt the agent of a good god. Will he be corrupted? See next week's exciting episode! That Pal/War is not an invalid character concept, it's a great one!

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.

Weren't you listening to a word I just said!

Or maybe I could have made wiser choices while quoting. But I addressed this already.

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.

See! All very reasonable. I just wish more DMs were as reasonable, and fewer resorted to spurious 'reasons' to reject a concept before even listening to your idea.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You bring up some interesting points, and I'd like to address each in turn with a contrasting view:-

In 5e (and since 3e), there are no 1st level MC characters. This is because of how the game mechanics work: you get one class level per character level, therefore if you only have one character level you can only have one class.

Up until then, you either started as a 1st level single class, or as a 1st/1st multi-class, or as a 1st/1st/1st multi-class, and stayed that combination of classes that each got improved relatively equally ('relatively' owing to the different XP tables for each class). The only exception was the (amazingly rare) dual-classed human.

Oh, and BECMI had 'elf' and 'dwarf' as classes, where 'elf' was really a fighter/mage.

But, they are all D&D. We can expect to create our PCs, using the rules, and craft their story around that resulting character sheet.

So, I could be making a PC for BECMI or 1e or 2e. Let's say that, mechanically, he is an elf trained in the arts of magic and war.

* in 1e, fighter/magic-user 1/1

* in 2e, fighter/mage 1/1

* in BECMI, elf 1

But it is the same character concept each time: an elf trained in magic and fighting for literally at least 50 years before turning up as a level 1 PC. At least as compelling a justification for his 1st level abilities as any single class wizard or paladin.

Great. Now I'll use the same character concept and make a PC in 3.5/PF/5e. If I get to 20th level, I might end up 10/10, or maybe 11/9 or 12/8 or something, but not a 'dip'.

We already have decades of D&D experience that this is a perfectly valid concept. There is no reason to forbid it!

Unless we didn't like the concept in the earlier editions, perhaps?

I don't have an issue with multiclassing, though, although I sometimes have an issue with the mechanics. Regardless, I can make any of them work. My primary issues are with the optimization approaches, dips into other classes, etc.

Note that this isn't the only place that the "I'm 150 years old" doesn't necessarily make sense. In my campaign, the answer is to embody the "standard" multiclass options into a single class, such as an elven class that embodies both fighter and wizard (my campaign is still very largely based on the AD&D approach). However, we also modified the class rules across the board. At every other level you get a "good" benefit, and on the others a "better" benefit. So our progression goes like this: Feat, proficiency, ASI, field of expertise (which is a sub-category of a skill, such as climbing, jumping, running or swimming for athletics). At 1st level characters gain a class defining feature, and at 2nd level they gain an archetype/subclass defining feature. When you multiclass, you have to take two levels to gain all of the benefits of the class.

To better mitigate dips, and at the same time allow more options, we have feats that provide sort of a "class lite" approach. So you can get some of the key options without having to multiclass.

We also know that, at level 1, he won't be multi-class yet; I have to wait until level 2 minimum. This is not a problem with my concept! This is simply a consequence of the way the levelling rules work!

So the objections I see on this forum on the lines of "It takes years to learn to be a level 1 wizard! It doesn't make sense to suddenly gain your 1st level of wizard overnight!" are easily rebutted. The problem here is not that I didn't put in the years of study: I put in 50 years, thank you very much! The problem is that I can only actually use the ability of one of my two classes until I've killed 300xp-worth of goblins!

Yep. And we also know that it functions differently if you choose to multiclass later in your path. Then it's no longer a "1 level penalty" as you imply, it's just switching classes to something different that you haven't necessarily used or spent any time learning, which we know because we've been following your exploits for all this time now.

However, we also put rules in place to address that "when the heck did you learn that?" other than it growing organically in the play. For example, if you know you want to multiclass into wizard in the future, or even just take a feat that allows spellcasting, you can start learning cantrips two levels before. In our campaign, when you're learning a spell, you can still try to use it, but something might go wrong. So you start with two cantrips and things might go wrong, then four cantrips, and they still might go wrong, to I've learned how to use magic (take a feat or multiclass) and now I have all cantrips and no chance of failure under normal conditions. In the meantime, we see the character growth as the game progressses.

Let's say you are a paladin, totally dedicated to both you god and your oath. Now let's say you take a level of fighter, or 'dip'...something. "Oh, no!" I hear you cry. "You've abandoned your god and your oath! You've stopped being a paladin!"

Rubbish! I'm still a paladin, still loyal and dedicated to my oath and my god. Learning a few combat tricks doesn't change that, developing abilities through my heritage doesn't change my faith, the fact that (unknown to me) my parents bargained my soul to a fiend before I was even born before they abandoned me on the steps of the temple doesn't prevent my from using my paladin abilities in any way. Certainly not rules-wise!

To which I would say a paladin is already a fighter, so might not be available to multiclass regardless. While your heritage might not affect your faith, it still could affect your abilities. If your religions is opposed to witchcraft, for example, then practicing witchcraft may very well result in the loss of your divine powers. And I can't stand the idea that as a "fallen paladin" you simply gain other powers. Loss of powers is loss of powers. That's quite different than changing fealty to another deity, but even that is something that a deity wouldn't take lightly. You'd probably have to prove your worth before you regain powers from me. For most, being a fallen divine character should be devastating, and usually an all-consuming drive to regain their deity's favor.

So DMs are literally inventing ways to nerf your character choices, by making up increasing desperate 'reasons': MC PCs don't stop being one class when they take a second. Maybe you cannot worship two gods, but there's nothing stopping one patron from trying to subtly corrupt the agent of a good god. Will he be corrupted? See next week's exciting episode! That Pal/War is not an invalid character concept, it's a great one!

Weren't you listening to a word I just said!

Or maybe I could have made wiser choices while quoting. But I addressed this already.

See! All very reasonable. I just wish more DMs were as reasonable, and fewer resorted to spurious 'reasons' to reject a concept before even listening to your idea.

So if you look at my original post, it was in response to why some DMs are against allowing certain multiclass combinations. To me there are a number that are not allowed for many of those reasons. But, like most rules in my campaign, that doesn't mean that I might not make an exception for the right character-based reasons. That is, not only is it an exception to the rule, but it's the same in the setting itself - a very rare occurrence.

In general, like AD&D, dwarves cannot be arcane spellcasters in my campaign. Sure I could have gone along with the bandwagon in 3e and allowed all of them to be so. But my concern is more focused on the integrity of my setting, and continued to recognize (as I had already done before) that there are exceptions to that rule, perhaps because of some other unknown heritage in their blood.

In my case, I'm not nerfing anything. I'm simply still not allowing something that hasn't been allowed in my campaign for 35+ years. Yes, the game itself has altered their design, but that's not my setting, nor is it my game. In my world, not all of those changes have happened. They can create as many new races as they'd like. It would be quite rare for one of the new ones to appear in my campaign, though. Much rarer than allowing normally unusual (in my campaign), multiclass options.

My choices for what is allowed or not is always dependent on the setting and narrative, not arbitrarily stating, "I don't like these multiclass options, so they aren't allowed." In addition, I recognize that multiclassing is created, in part, because it recognizes that people do change, and may continue down a different path. So I look for alternative ways to allow that as well, rather than going all in with a new class.

I wouldn't consider any reason "spurious" without being part of the campaign in question and understanding the DMs objections to a given rule. I can just as easily argue for either side in a forum like this. I'd need to see what other factors are at play, and for me it's entirely a question of what makes sense in the campaign. The DM is a player too, and if a given concept that another player will be using intrudes upon their sensibilities or isn't the sort of thing they like in their game for whatever reason, that has to be taken into account too. For example, warforged. A cool enough concept I guess, but closely tied to a specific setting. Even when running a public campaign where I'm playing by RAW in terms of race/class options, it just doesn't fit well in my campaign. In the AD&D era, there were all sorts of setting specific classes, races, monsters, etc. And I love that. Because it helps define the setting, and makes it different from others. So even if I'm running something in the homogonized version of the Forgotten Realms that has arisen over the years, I just don't feel that it fits and it's not a race I want in the Realms. You can come up with all sorts of justifications, refluff it, whatever. It still just bugs me. I have still had a couple of warforged pop up in my public campaigns, but in general I stick with the Realms-specific/not other setting-specific races and classes. I'm sorry if that ruins some people's fun, but it just doesn't fit my setting. I don't see it as any different than saying, "no, you cannot have a vulcan in this Star Wars campaign."

So yes, I'm inflexible at times. I'm not apologizing for it. You'll know all of my restrictions and such before you join one of my games. I don't want to exclude anybody, and would love to have them join even if their cool character concept isn't allowed. I'm hopeful that they'd be able to find an alternative (and I'll help to make it as close as I can) and they'd really have fun.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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-

Yes, the spellbook has been a mechanical 'hardwired' part of the wizard since it was the magic-user, and yes, in every edition in some form, be it memorization or preparation, you could re-imagine or re-skin it, but it was class-defining.

OTOH, 5e is all about taking a chainsaw to the rules to try to make 'em better, so why not just lop that sucker right off...?

Unless we didn't like the concept in the earlier editions, perhaps?

Nonsense! Everyone loves the classic game!

Up until then, you either started as a 1st level single class, or as a 1st/1st multi-class, or as a 1st/1st/1st multi-class, and stayed that combination of classes that each got improved relatively equally ('relatively' owing to the different XP tables for each class). The only exception was the (amazingly rare) dual-classed human.

Dual-classing was a tad obscure, but it did presage 3e style MCing, and the 1e Bard, which used dual-classing as a prerequisite, presaged the PrC. I just find that interesting.

So, I could be making a PC for BECMI or 1e or 2e. Let's say that, mechanically, he is an elf trained in the arts of magic and war.
* in 1e, fighter/magic-user 1/1
* in 2e, fighter/mage 1/1
* in BECMI, elf 1

* in 3.0, out of luck, you'd have to wait until 2nd level.
* in 3.5, you can use 0-level rules to start 'multi-classed' at level 1.
* in 4e, you could start as a Fighter with the MC Wizard feat or vice-versa.
* in 4e with the PH3, you could hybrid Fighter|Wizard.
* in 5e, MCing is optional, but without it you can still start as a Wizard with the Soldier background, and choose the Bladesinger Tradition for the traditional elf fighter/magic-user (or, with a bit more difficulty, perhaps fighter with the sage background and go EK), (elven fighter/magic-user/thief? swap the Criminal background for the Soldier. half-elf fighter/cleric/magic-user? Acolyte.)
* in 5e with MCing, just start at 3rd level, then you can play a traditional elf fighter/magic-user or even half-elf fighter/cleric/magic-user if you wanted.

If I get to 20th level, I might end up 10/10, or maybe 11/9 or 12/8 or something, but not a 'dip'.
We already have decades of D&D experience that this is a perfectly valid concept. There is no reason to forbid it!

Reason can judge it a poor choice, though. In 3.x, for instance, giving up caster levels is a bad idea.

The problem here is not that I didn't put in the years of study: I put in 50 years, thank you very much! The problem is that I can only actually use the ability of one of my two classes until I've killed 300xp-worth of goblins!

Better start with wizard, then. Your fighter training just needed some real battlefield experience to kick in.

 

[ClaytonCross]

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.

I totally agree. But that also means this is Table buy in that players have to know and agree to. Where this comes up here a lot on the forums is GMs say they are going RAW make the character you want... then the player shows up with a character the GM doesn't like for their own reason but doesn't want to say "No because I said so" and be the "bad guy" after playing saying play what you want. So the will use fluff to justify "roleplay regulations" that are supposedly a requirement that comes from fluff and try enforce it on players as "RAW" so that they can call the player breaking RAW, making the player the "bad guy" for "knowingly stepping out of line". A GM is not wrong for defining his table rules and world then create rule of play for their campaign. Where the friction is created is a player hearing a "Its RAW" roleplay regulation when they can see its not and have a character idea they try to argue the rules they agreed too. If the GM just comes out and says "I don't like it and want to do it differently at my table" I think its usually works better. Some GMs have dug in on the "Its RAW" argument so long and so deep that they come to the forums saying it like that's how it is only to run into the same augments that jaded them in the first place.

I have run into this first hand. Usually it stems from a GM who thinks he is willing to let players build "any character you want to play" only to find out their is a combination the GM doesn't like for real world mechanic reasons (Gnome with a 6ft battle axe, longsword instead of short sword while wielding a shield), conflict with GM setting vision (Rapiers are often considered renaissance era 14th-17th centuries and makes GMs think three musketeers instead medieval era 5th-15th centuries which is commonly the basis for fantasy stories, while they overlap the rapier is only a late 1500 century weapon, Also, Races: GM: If is not human, dwarf, elf, gnome, or halfling its evil! Player: That's fine I am playing a Drow/Duragar/Deep Gnome GM: 0.0 EVIL!!! Payer: But you said...), old version change reasons (old classes had hard rules for oaths etc that don't exist the current game so the player is following current rules and doesn't fallow old edition rules that the GM expects even though they were removed for a reason), unforeseen player vs player conflicts they don't want to deal with (taking few levels in class to be good at skill another character considers theirs like dipping rogue and having a rogue in the group or DPR competitions instead of fighting as a team), or simply not being fully aware of all the classes and subclass to the degree of the player who made it (GM:Your warlock is evil because your patron is evil!!! Player: Er… My Patron is an Arch Fey tree hugger who values all life and sent me on a mission to stop one warlord and end this war so it would not burn down its forest to forge weapons and needlessly kill thousands of peasants who don't want to fight...GM: What that's not a thing... you know what a witch is? Player: well according to PHB I can be a nature based good witch I don't have to be a demon worshiper".

Basically, GMs need to review player characters to see if they fit their campaign. If they have an issue with something say "ok, Sorry to cramp your style BUT in my campaign I don't want this but this is ok" It does not have to be RAW or RAI then just let players know as soon as possible so they don't settle on a character and show up to the table only to have issues with the group / GM then passive aggressive attempts to "fix" this issue after the fact make it a much bigger issue than it had to be. Its the player being to told to change their character or the rules don't allow their character after the player is invested in it that usually makes this a real debate in my experience. Don't tell me to play anything then on the first session tell the paladin he has a strong desire to kill me because I showed up with a demon spawn tiefling and in this campaign they are considered evil and kill on sight even if they aren't evil. Just let me know in advance, Tieflings are not allowed as player characters in this campaign setting. I will build a different character. The same applies to multi-classing etc. I need to find a trainer for a few session before I can multiclass? Sure, just don't let ne try to multi-class for 3 session and invest in the idea to tell me I am failing to multi-class because I am a warlock and my patron is preventing me from communicating with Deities and becoming a cleric. If you tell me before I multi-class so I don't show up with character I can't player and you don't waste 3 sessions of playing to find out it was never and option I can make other plans. If your letting your players "attempt" to multi-class for multiple sessions, then put a roll in it and let them know a rough odds IRL, so that they don't waste time on Zero chance endeavors only to found out and argue later.

Table party group planning with GM character review. I recommend it.

 

[Arial Black]

There are 'right' and 'wrong' ways for DMs to judge potential new MC PCs (any new PC, actually!):-

Wrong: Player: "I want to play a multi-cl...."

DM: "Stop right there! How dare you try to sabotage my campaign, you entitled snowflake!"

Right: Player describes concept, both fluff and crunch. If MC, player describes expected path and breakpoints, and the fluff reasons why all this is going on. Was this PC trained to be MC ever since childhood, but the game mechanics prevented actually being MC at level one? Or, just like mutant abilities can be latent and express themselves at puberty or in response to some trauma, will your sorcerer abilities kick in around 6th level? Unknown to you, you parents bargained your soul to a fiend before they left you on the steps of the temple, but only now (at this level) is the fiend taking an interest in you?

DM considers, hoping to be able to say yes rather than looking for any excuse to say no. Maybe there are one or two things which make it incompatible with your campaign, but see if your player is willing to knock it into shape so that you can say yes.

TLDR; instead of a knee-jerk rejection, consider the idea fairly. How hard can it be?

 

[Oofta]

There are 'right' and 'wrong' ways for DMs to judge potential new MC PCs (any new PC, actually!):-

Wrong: Player: "I want to play a multi-cl...."

DM: "Stop right there! How dare you try to sabotage my campaign, you entitled snowflake!"

Right: Player describes concept, both fluff and crunch. If MC, player describes expected path and breakpoints, and the fluff reasons why all this is going on. Was this PC trained to be MC ever since childhood, but the game mechanics prevented actually being MC at level one? Or, just like mutant abilities can be latent and express themselves at puberty or in response to some trauma, will your sorcerer abilities kick in around 6th level? Unknown to you, you parents bargained your soul to a fiend before they left you on the steps of the temple, but only now (at this level) is the fiend taking an interest in you?

DM considers, hoping to be able to say yes rather than looking for any excuse to say no. Maybe there are one or two things which make it incompatible with your campaign, but see if your player is willing to knock it into shape so that you can say yes.

TLDR; instead of a knee-jerk rejection, consider the idea fairly. How hard can it be?

But what happens if the gods are fairly active and people would have to undergo what amounts to a thorough background check? Or if the deity would effectively fire the cleric if they were tainted?

To a lot of people, the "fluff" and background of the world doesn't really matter much. It's all just background set-dressing that has no little or no real impact on PCs. In a lot of campaigns the background and world-building is critical and somewhat inflexible. Most campaigns are probably somewhere in-between.

I'll always work with a player on concept, but some concepts simply won't work in a way that is logically consistent with the way I view the world working. This isn't just multi-classing, for example I don't allow drow as PCs because they're the equivalent of the boogie-man in my world and would make no more sense than playing a gelatinous cube. Well, okay, jello-man might be kind of fun, but I'll just say no to the Drizzt clone every time.

 

[Arial Black]

But what happens if the gods are fairly active and people would have to undergo what amounts to a thorough background check? Or if the deity would effectively fire the cleric if they were tainted?

To a lot of people, the "fluff" and background of the world doesn't really matter much. It's all just background set-dressing that has no little or no real impact on PCs. In a lot of campaigns the background and world-building is critical and somewhat inflexible. Most campaigns are probably somewhere in-between.

I'll always work with a player on concept, but some concepts simply won't work in a way that is logically consistent with the way I view the world working. This isn't just multi-classing, for example I don't allow drow as PCs because they're the equivalent of the boogie-man in my world and would make no more sense than playing a gelatinous cube. Well, okay, jello-man might be kind of fun, but I'll just say no to the Drizzt clone every time.

I'm all for working together to try and make it fit. On these boards though, there's a lot of knee-jerk rejections, some so fast that the player is chastised for destructive behaviour before the word 'multi-class' has finished escaping their mouth!

And, a divine background check? Sure, when you sign on, but every send of every minute of every day for every worshipper? Especially when the sneaky fiend would be trying to circumvent such oversight and only needs to succeed with one target rather than every possible target.

What if the warlock class is taken first? The good god might rejoice in gaining a new paladin, desperately trying to foil the machinations of that fiend.

That's my point: hearing what the reason actually is first, and accept/reject second. If reject, then advice on what to change to make it work.

 

[Oofta]

I'm all for working together to try and make it fit. On these boards though, there's a lot of knee-jerk rejections, some so fast that the player is chastised for destructive behaviour before the word 'multi-class' has finished escaping their mouth!

And, a divine background check? Sure, when you sign on, but every send of every minute of every day for every worshipper? Especially when the sneaky fiend would be trying to circumvent such oversight and only needs to succeed with one target rather than every possible target.

What if the warlock class is taken first? The good god might rejoice in gaining a new paladin, desperately trying to foil the machinations of that fiend.

That's my point: hearing what the reason actually is first, and accept/reject second. If reject, then advice on what to change to make it work.

Some of us who would not allow certain combinations have thought long and hard about the issue. I could give you a long breakdown of why I wouldn't allow it, but honestly you don't seem to care. You seem to have already decided that my decision is based on a "knee-jerk reaction" or that I'm doing it just to be an ass. If I misunderstand what you're saying please let me know.

As a DM, I want a living breathing world. A world where PCs may change the course of history, and not always in the way I expect. My world has absolutely been impacted and molded by my players and I'll try to figure out a way to make their vision work.

Ultimately the world has to make sense to me. Sometimes the answer to the question "can I ___" is going to be "no". If that means you would not want to play in my campaign, so be it. Not every game is for every person.

 

[Arial Black]

Some of us who would not allow certain combinations have thought long and hard about the issue. I could give you a long breakdown of why I wouldn't allow it, but honestly you don't seem to care. You seem to have already decided that my decision is based on a "knee-jerk reaction" or that I'm doing it just to be an ass. If I misunderstand what you're saying please let me know.

There's a misunderstanding. I've said what the good/bad divide is, and on which side of the divide the 'knee-jerk' lies. But I'm not accusing you, because you've shown that you do give it serious consideration, which is on the good side of the divide, even if you rule against me this time.

As a DM, I want a living breathing world. A world where PCs may change the course of history, and not always in the way I expect. My world has absolutely been impacted and molded by my players and I'll try to figure out a way to make their vision work.

Ultimately the world has to make sense to me. Sometimes the answer to the question "can I ___" is going to be "no". If that means you would not want to play in my campaign, so be it. Not every game is for every person.

Or, if you say 'no' to this PC (after due consideration, and I feel that the adjustments required to make it okay take it too far away from my concept) then I'll save that concept for another time and use another concept/PC.

 

[Patrick McGill]

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.

Not to derail your response, but there is indeed a rule that allows the DM to choose to allow feats and multiclassing in 5e unless I am very much mistaken.