• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Explainable multiclassing

KahlessNestor

Adventurer
Since this is a thing you're currently mulling over, consider the following:

Let's say I've signed up for your campaign, and that you haven't ruled out any specific race or class options--and, if you'll allow it, starting at 4th level (I think it unlikely that I'd want to join a low-level 5e campaign again, it's too meatgrinder-y). I tell you, openly and frankly, that I've had an idea that really struck my fancy, a character that is Proficient in all skills (eventually), but that I'll need to multiclass (and take feats) to do it. The character, we'll call her Rhiannon (one of my favorite female names), grew up as the prodigy daughter of a moderately well-off human family, one that could afford to send her to an actually good school (as much to keep her occupied and out of their hair as to indulge her abilities). So she was educated in all the formal subjects, including music and magic--mechanically, she's a Variant Human Bard, who took up the College of Lore at 3rd level. Variant Human grants 1 bonus skill, plus 2 from whatever her Background is (I'm partial to Academy Graduate, a homebrew BG from the ENWorld forums); Bard naturally gives you any 3 skills, and Lore gives you an additional 3 skills, for a running total of 9 skills, and two of them have Expertise. Variant Human also grants a bonus feat--which, in this case, is Skilled, granting a further 3 skills for a running total of 12 proficient skills at 3rd level.

During or after her formal education, Rhiannon to a realization: she doesn't just hunger for knowledge. She feels a genuine transcendent element to it; she reveres it in some sense. Moved by this epiphanic experience, that Knowledge is an ineffable transcendence rather than just a feature one can possess or lack, she attempts to join the formal clergy of the/a deity of knowledge, and is thus Bard(Lore) 3/Cleric(Knowledge) 1. Though the addition of a little bit more martial skill is welcome (Medium armor and Shields), it is the additional education that she really longs for, giving her an additional 2 languages and 2 skills (probably Religion and Nature, running total 14) plus effectively getting Expertise with them (her proficiency bonus is doubled for those skills). However, she finds the clergy stuffy and rule-obsessed: they really don't care all that much about learning ALL there is to learn, and rather about preserving and documenting and cataloging, which she considers the least interesting aspect of Knowledge--particularly when they turn a blind eye to both useful and fascinating skills like...say...lockpicking!

So she leaves the Church, though not the faith, and strikes out on her own as an adventurer-for-hire (aka, campaign begins). The plan for the character, at that point, is to have her further indulge her hunger for knowledge of a less-savory variety, and thus have her take a level of Rogue at character level 5--dabbling just enough in the shadowy arts to become an expert on the book-learning side of things. (If you've played Morrowind, Oblivion, or Skyrim, think of the character Yana from the Lockpicking skill book The Locked Room--the "professional amateur," who delights in learning all the esoterica of lockpicking for the joy of learning, not the function.) Mechanically, this gives her a skill from the Thief list (probably Stealth; total 15), proficiency with Lockpicks (which, while technically a Tool proficiency, is practically a Skill of its own), and Expertise proper with a further two skills (for a running total of six, or five+Thieves' Tools), plus Thieves' Cant which complements her broad spectrum of known languages (Common, 1 from Human, 1 from BG, 2 from Knowledge Domain).

Should the character last to 6th level or beyond, she would return to the arts she had left: because really, the only secrets left to be revealed are those of a purely magical nature. She lacks only 3 out of the 18 skills; a second application of the Skilled feat solves that problem, though technically the feat doesn't specifically say it can be taken twice. By continuing as a Bard, Rhiannon will gain another four Expertise skills, for a grand total of 8 out of 18 Expertise'd skills. She speaks/writes five languages and Thieves' Cant; she has proficiency with both Thieves' Tools and a single game set (probably a chess-type game, though if "cards" in general is allowed that might work too), as well as three instruments. And, finally, whenever she makes an ability check that doesn't benefit from proficiency--which, now, only means Tools she's not proficient with and any checks that can't normally get proficiency e.g. Initiative--she still gets half proficiency because of Jack of All Trades (as all level 2+ Bards would).

Or, if that was TL;DR:
Narratively start as the precocious daughter of a well-off family who voraciously consumed knowledge in her formal education, found faith in Knowledge itself but disliked the strictures of the formal Church, so she is off to pursue the things she couldn't learn properly in the temple or the library. Once she's drunk her fill of the larcenous lifestyle, the higher mysteries of magic call to her, mysteries spanned through their whole breadth by the disciplines she learned back in school. She'll face every challenge with a wry smile, a sprightly tune...and a polymath's brain.
Mechanically start as Bard(Lore) 3/Cleric(Knowledge) 1; take 1 level Rogue; resume Bard for remainder of levels.

So now the question is: is this me being "powergamey" or in it only for the "overpowered" abilities, or is it me being interested in a solid story about a character with a clear motivation behind her actions? Is it, perhaps, both things? Would you allow me to do this?

---

On a separate subject: don't forget that Paladins are no longer specifically servants of deities. Their power may easily come from conviction alone, from thoroughly believing in an ideal rather than being purely servants-in-shiny-metal (or shiny leather, since Dex is a valid stat for Paladins now). As you've noted, an Oath of the Ancients Paladin can have an explainable link to the Fey; I would similarly argue that the Oath of Vengeance can be linked to either of the other two Warlock Patrons. I mean, it says right in the description that, "To these paladins--sometimes called avengers or dark knights--their own purity is not as important as delivering justice." That bespeaks of a character willing to go to great lengths to see a particular outcome, even if it means sullying themselves with dark deeds and dread consequences, which is very much like what a Fiend Pact could involve. The temptation to make a rash deal for the power to defeat a foe when all seems lost can be perilously great--particularly when your powers do in fact revolve around defeating such foes!

1. Yes, I would allow your skill monkey character. Youhave good thought out story.

2. The whole "strength of conviction /oath" for paladins in the current edition doesn't fly with me. It doesn't make sense. Clerics and paladins have gods. Pethaps if I were playing Star Wars and ising the Force. Possibly your idea might work for an evil deity, but not the good or even neutral ones.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

KahlessNestor

Adventurer
I could see a few different ways you could narrate a paladin/warlock. Here we go:

- The paladin is a knight of an order that champions a set of ideals that aren't embodied in any one god. They're devout in their calling, so much so that the gods who oversee those portfolios they represent (again, assuming your campaign world has specific, active gods) grant them sufficient divine power to manifest their faith in those ideals in the world. They don't answer to one god, don't put a name on the source of their power, so when they call upon those powers they're not "divine power granted by Sanctimonius the Lawful" and "demonic power granted by Hecubus the Impolite;" they're just the magic of their order.

- The otherworldly power who grants the knight her power is masquerading as an agent of her patron god. Maybe the entity is a deceitful one who fancies itself a corruptor of that god's faithful. Maybe the god and the other entity are locked in a battle for that mortal's soul, and the player's actions during the campaign determine the outcome. Whatever the cause, these two beings are both supplying power to one person, who thinks it's all coming from the same place.

- The holder of the paladin's pact actually is an agent of the god he worships. Sir Ponciface is so purely devout in his faith that his patron god has appointed an angel to attend him. Their souls are bound together, and when Sir Ponciface speaks, the angel's voice sings backup. The paladin's pact is another manifestation of divine magic, PRAISE BE, thankaSanctusamen.

- The paladin's patron diety is of a completely different sort than the standard jealous, no-gods-before-me Judeo-Christian god. The oath of service doesn't have an exclusivity clause. The pact is a tool to be wielded by the knigt, and the patron god blesses the arrangement knowing that the knight will continue to champion the god's causes with all the power he's given, regardless of source.

These are all assuming a game world in which the gods are specific entities with well defined portfolios, who have official churches where they're invoked by name. If your game world diverges from that standard on any point, the possibilities only expand.

Your first idea, the paladin is still getting their power from the gods. As soon as you pact with an enemy, that power should be gone. Same with the second. Third MIGHT be doable, but there are no current pacts with such beings. Fourth would depend on the god, but I don't see most good gods allowing it. Possibly fey pact.
 

77IM

Explorer!!!
Supporter
One of my guidelines as DM is, "Let the players play the characters they really want to play." The DM already controls the whole universe, while the players only control their PCs; so I try hard not to take any of that control away from them.

If the player of a mysterious ranger suddenly declared that they were actually the long-lost heir to the throne, who am I, the DM, to disagree? I see multiclassing as no different.
 

I don't consider this important at all. I encourage players to play characters, not balls of stats. Only being interested in mathematically optimal characters is to miss a lot of cool opportunities for roleplaying.

[...]

If you consider wizards to be incredibly rare and 15thlevel ones even more so, along with the lifetime of discipline and study it takes to achieve that, then yes, having him decide to hulk-out one random day seems stupid. Like I said, I probably wouldn't forbid it, but I'd want a really good explanation.
These two paragraphs seem like they're in direct contradiction to me. If you encourage your players to play characters rather than balls of stats, how can you deem a character's decision "stupid" when literally all you know about the character is the one statistic: "15th-level wizard"? Precisely because taking a barbarian level is mechanically suboptimal, there's probably some interesting roleplaying reason behind it.
 

Shendorion

First Post
Your first idea, the paladin is still getting their power from the gods. As soon as you pact with an enemy, that power should be gone. Same with the second. Third MIGHT be doable, but there are no current pacts with such beings. Fourth would depend on the god, but I don't see most good gods allowing it. Possibly fey pact.

I'm interested to hear more about why the power "should" be gone, and whence comes the assumption that the pact is with an enemy to their patron gods. Only one of the explanations acknowledges an adversarial relationship between the god and the other entity.
 

Shendorion

First Post
Both thise scenarios seem implausible to me. The first, I think, would demonstrate lack of faith and possibly involve loss of paladin abilities. The second might piss off the warlock patron and lose those powers. Gods are jealous things.

Gods are jealous things at your table.

That phrase at the end is important. Your gods might see fit to abandon anyone whose faith wavers, to cast followers aside rather than fighting for them. That could be why these concepts seem implausible to you. Not all pantheons are written thus, and even in a world of jealous gods, there is a solid thematic precedent for two extraplanar powers engaging in a contest for one mortal soul.
 

aramis erak

Legend
For my home game, yes, I require training - but it's just normal level training.
For my in-store game, no. It's AL, so no explanation needed. (Not that players haven't given it anyway.)
 

MG.0

First Post
These two paragraphs seem like they're in direct contradiction to me. If you encourage your players to play characters rather than balls of stats, how can you deem a character's decision "stupid" when literally all you know about the character is the one statistic: "15th-level wizard"? Precisely because taking a barbarian level is mechanically suboptimal, there's probably some interesting roleplaying reason behind it.
There's no contradiction. Yes, characters are more important than stats. 15th level wizard isn't a stat though, it encompasses a lot territory within which to roleplay. Treating it like a hat which the character can remove at will is treating it like a stat. Like I said, I might allow multiclassing even to barbarian, but I'd want a good explanation...a roleplaying one. Like I also said, whether or not it is mechanically optimal is irrelevant. The issue I have with multiclassing into barbarian is it is more of a character origin than a trained profession. As such both it and sorcerer don't really fit with the other class types.
 

KahlessNestor

Adventurer
One of my guidelines as DM is, "Let the players play the characters they really want to play." The DM already controls the whole universe, while the players only control their PCs; so I try hard not to take any of that control away from them.

If the player of a mysterious ranger suddenly declared that they were actually the long-lost heir to the throne, who am I, the DM, to disagree? I see multiclassing as no different.

I don't consider it taking control away. I consider it helping them integrate their ideas into the campaign setting. This is supposed to be COLLABORATIVE storytelling. I'm pretty easygoing in what I would allow, but as much as I'ma brony, I would probably say no if someone wanted to play Twilight Sparkle in my D&D.
 

KahlessNestor

Adventurer
I'm interested to hear more about why the power "should" be gone, and whence comes the assumption that the pact is with an enemy to their patron gods. Only one of the explanations acknowledges an adversarial relationship between the god and the other entity.

I'm working on the tradition that paladins and clerics frequently have lost access to their abilities because of alignment violations. I know that's not as much a thing in 5e as it used to be, but it seems thematically appropriate. Otherwise you're just a fighter tjat prays really good (or not, with the Oath thing in 5e). There are 3 possible pacts, 2 of which are evil (fiend and great old ones), and fey pact could be evil (unseelie or whatever ). So the preponderance of options leans toward evil. That's kind of the warlock's schtick. Look, I'm all for warlocks, using the power of evil to defeat it and all that. Just don't mix it with my paladins, who are supposed to be the opposite, all that is good and noble and true.
 

Remove ads

Top