Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Maxperson]

I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.

I was going by memory and I got confused between the playtest and current paladins. I don't think the PHB version requires anything, really.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't remember ever seeeing that requirement.

Giving it a bit more thought, while they didn't hard code lawful or lawful good as restrictions, the oaths themselves sort of soft code those restrictions in. The Oath of Devotion is the quintessential LG paladin of 1e-3e. In fact, the idea that there are oaths that have a series of tenets which you must adhere to is fairly lawful in its own right. The Oath of the Ancients is all about mercy, love, kindness and standing against wickedness. That's fairly clearly good, so I suppose NG, LG and CG are all options, except for the highly lawful part of adhering to an oath. The Oath of Vengeance has the greatest variety of alignment possibilities. It's pretty unlikely to be an oath a good person undertakes, but neutral or evil are options. Again, though, the oath part would seem to make lawful most likely.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the 5e PHB paladins.

 

[MoonSong]

Hi -

I think there's a piece of this that should be brought up logically. It's what agency means to a specific player. I'm not seeing a group discussion on agency.

Agency such that a single player is satisfied is fine if the player is choosing his or her own adventure.
Agency such that a single DM is satisfied is fine if the DM is writing a story and has no players.

In my opinion there's no such thing as either of these two examples when you have a group of players around a table. Agency for any player has to be influenced by all other folks at the table for everyone to be happy.

While this may result in individual sacrifices that may not suit any given player at any time, if everyone wants a long standing game it's the only way you're going to make it happen.

I would amend what you are saying to compromises instead of sacrifices. As long as they are trade-offs the social contract can be upheld. Because if these are indeed sacrifices, someone is chronically on the losing side every time. Or less extremely, the give-ins are too front loaded for one person and things don't last enough for the compensations to be gained.

Sorry if I'm babbling, but let's go back to your previous examples of your system. The first one is more of a compromise "You are not the chosen one, but you are still special in a way", fine. The second one is closer to a sacrifice, "You are not the well connected socialite that has friends everywhere, instead you are creepy, socially awkward, and deluded". The former is a concept getting adapted to the group's needs and wants -albeit by a shared public laugh at the player's expense-, the latter is a completely different character concept altogether, a total corruption of the original intent of the player -and with an even bigger laugh at the player's expense, more so because it comes from the figure of authority-, and the player has to go with it because that is the cost of playing in the group, which is desirable on itself, but still a net loss overall.

Perhaps it becomes a compromise in the long run, the player uses the knowledge imparted by the ghosts to actually get to befriend a couple of important people, or in a later campaign the DM compensates the player by being more permissive on something that is more acceptable, but only if the campaign/group lasts that long and the same player doesn't keep getting the short end of the stick consistently. In which case we are talking of a sacrifice.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

First off, I wouldn’t let players choose scores because you get that situation, %99 will never choose a bad score even if it makes sense PC build wise. It leads itself to power gaming and doesn’t force the players to make choices and be creative, although you choosing the 8 is creative it is also the first time your group did it.

/snip.

This is why I have such a problem with the whole "trust your DM" line that gets thrown about. Here we have a DM who is presuming that players will always act in bad faith and never choose a bad score. Players need to be "forced" to make choices and be creative.

Trust is absolutely a two way street. Why one earth would I trust you to run your game if you cannot trust me to run my character? If you feel that I need to be forced to be creative, why shouldn't I feel that you need to be forced to keep your hands off my character?

IOW, this is a very adversarial approach to DMing.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I would amend what you are saying to compromises instead of sacrifices. As long as they are trade-offs the social contract can be upheld. Because if these are indeed sacrifices, someone is chronically on the losing side every time. Or less extremely, the give-ins are too front loaded for one person and things don't last enough for the compensations to be gained.

Sorry if I'm babbling, but let's go back to your previous examples of your system. The first one is more of a compromise "You are not the chosen one, but you are still special in a way", fine. The second one is closer to a sacrifice, "You are not the well connected socialite that has friends everywhere, instead you are creepy, socially awkward, and deluded". The former is a concept getting adapted to the group's needs and wants -albeit by a shared public laugh at the player's expense-, the latter is a completely different character concept altogether, a total corruption of the original intent of the player -and with an even bigger laugh at the player's expense, more so because it comes from the figure of authority-, and the player has to go with it because that is the cost of playing in the group, which is desirable on itself, but still a net loss overall.

Perhaps it becomes a compromise in the long run, the player uses the knowledge imparted by the ghosts to actually get to befriend a couple of important people, or in a later campaign the DM compensates the player by being more permissive on something that is more acceptable, but only if the campaign/group lasts that long and the same player doesn't keep getting the short end of the stick consistently. In which case we are talking of a sacrifice.

I think that the words we use to explain things and connect with each other are very powerful tools that are often thwarted by the lens we read them through.

I think it's important to note that nothing in my original post would directly mean that the first player's character wasn't the chosen one, or the second was creepy, socially awkward, or deluded. It can be inferred if desired, but that has everything to do with the point you're trying to make from whatever point of view your experiences lend. Also, you're not babbling. I enjoy your posts.

That all said, you're largely right about the differences between sacrifice and compromise. Here's my take. If I see two players working back and forth on something then I label it compromise. If I have to enforce something it's likely a sacrifice. Now in the case of a sacrifice, I need to work to deliver value back to that player. In the case of a compromise, chances are those players are delivering their own value.

However, whether a player is deluded or not, has a lot to do with how the he or she plays the character and how the spirits come to him or her. Likewise, the guy with the magical spleen is only going to care about it if I as a DM constantly allow it to be a focus. The goal is to give everyone the chance to hang with friends, create part of the story and have their character be cool when they can be. Not to be malicious.

 

[5ekyu]

This is why I have such a problem with the whole "trust your DM" line that gets thrown about. Here we have a DM who is presuming that players will always act in bad faith and never choose a bad score. Players need to be "forced" to make choices and be creative.

Trust is absolutely a two way street. Why one earth would I trust you to run your game if you cannot trust me to run my character? If you feel that I need to be forced to be creative, why shouldn't I feel that you need to be forced to keep your hands off my character?

IOW, this is a very adversarial approach to DMing.

just my 2c... i think you are dead wrong here. yup. no question about it - just dead wrong.

Not in your conclusion or atitude or preference but in what was actually said.

" It leads itself to power gaming and doesn’t force the players to make choices and be creative,"

Which you re-interpreted as "Players need to be "forced" to make choices and be creative."

if i have 10 dollars and the option of buying two different 10 dollar meals i am forced to make a choice between them. check.

if i have a million dollars i am not forced to choose between the two 10 dollar meals - i can have both.

that is not saying that i have to be forced to then choose just one of them.

the "forced" part of the statement made does not say force is required - just that it is absent in one of the cases.

*you* added in the bit about players needing to be forced... that wasn't stated.

I have no dog in the fight over the merits of pick your stats and determine your stats by a method... you and the other can has that out.

In my experience if a player wants to play a lower stated character than the others at the table - i allow it. he is making that choice for his own enjoyment and its fine by me as Gm. As long as it meets the "danger worthy" scale of the campaign (and the other stuff the score probably doesn't impact) its OK by me. i personally don't see a thing "creative" about an 8 vs a 10 vs a 12 vs a 14 va... you get the picture. To be creative requires more than an integer for me.

 

[ScuroNotte]

I can't understand why there are some who are adamant about following what is in the book.

Whether multiclass or homebrew, if its not breaking and/or ruining the game and, most importantly, everyone is having fun, who cares. The true purpose of playing is to have friends get together or make new friends and have an adventure. To have fun and make memories. Isn't that the real reason we play?

 

[Erechel]

Ok. Let's go on the opposite direction. My biggest issue against multiclass is that it is very difficult to get it right. Most people that multiclass are looking for specific "builds", and so came the "dip" concept: maximize damage and DPR are usually the main subjects on multiclass. The concept behind the second class fails to keep true on these dips, and are usually for the forefront abilities. There are some classes more optimal than others for these: the star classes to dip ar rogue and bard, for the expertise (and perhaps the spells).

BUT the main problem with these is that aside for that classes there is hardly a reason to dip only one level.
1) There are stat prerequisites to multiclass. They aren't very hampering, but they exist, and they can divert a character from its focus.
2) Multiclass never grants the full spectre of proficiencies. Classes (such as barbarians) dipping on Fighter, for example, never gain Heavy Armor proficiency.
3) Falling behind. In theory, combos work swell, but in real gameplay, their real synergy quickly falls behind of a proper class.

Most builds are given with an objective in mind, such as having at 10th-level a certain amount of DPR via cantrips, or maximize certain effects, but in game they are delayed from powerful effects, having first tier abilities of their main classes for (at least) half of the second tier, and delay the 3rd-level boost (archetypes or powerful abilities such as 2nd level spells). One of the most praised combos, such Bardlock, needs at least 2 levels of warlock to have Invocations and 2 spells per short rest (without even hitting the Pact Boon), and 3 levels of bard to have an archetype; at fifth level you merely gain 2nd-level spells and only there gain expertise, whereas a single class bard has ASI, its Bardic Inspiration escalated to d8 and recharges on short rests, has 8 spells and 3 cantrips, and casts 3rd level spells such as Fear. At sixth level, while the Bardlock gains its first ASI, the Bard has another College feature, such as Extra Attack, Additional Magical Secrets, or Mantle of Majesty.

I have a sound example. My party has recently reached 6th level. As a human Battlemaster, I've reached 6th level with 3 feats: Prodigy, Alert and Shield Master (I had luck and rolled an 17 in stats, otherwise I would ditched Alert). And I'm a real beast: with +10 to Athletics, there is no troll, ogre or mount that could resist my shield shoves. I'm dishing 34+ damage each round, and knocking prone almost anyone with my shield (I'm mostly on horseback with a lance, thus also avoiding damage), I can't be surprised and I go first most of the time (+5 to Initiative). I have advantage on most of my attacks. Also, I have a ton of utility. With a crowbar or ram, I act as a rogue of sorts of the party, forcing chests and knocking down doors. Also, I have 6 skills, 3 languages and 3 tools (smith's, tinker and carpenter's). I can track, run, mount, bend bars, break and climb better than most classes. I'm scary as (Menacing Strike and Intimidation proficiency). And I can block bolts and such with my shield (I have 1 magic object, and is a +1 shield, -thus I have +3 to Dex saves-).

The bardlock in my party only recently had its expertise (one level before me), and he can't even cast 3rd level spells. Yes, he does 2d10+Cha with an Eldritch blast, and recharges healing spells on short rests, but that's all. The Tabaxi monk, also, can attack 3 times without expendig ki, moves 55 feet per round (Mobile feat+Monk speed), doesn't provoke OAs, and stuns up to 4 creatures per round, whenever he isn't controlling and moving the enemies in the battlefield. He can also climb, sneak, dodge and grab decently. Perhaps in 4 levels the bardlock catches up, but by then I will gather enemy info only by observing, I will have a 20 in strength, +13 to Athletics, reroll failed saves, 5d10 superiority dice and 7 maneuvers (and perhaps my flamethrower, with tinker tools and Alchemic fire).

I'm not saying that multiclassing is bad per se. I'm saying that it is difficult to get it right and advance properly without hampering yourself too much. Going back At this time, if he were a pure Bard or warlock, he could make my horse fly and I could rain death from the skies.

 

[Hussar]

I really gotta ask how you are dealing 34+ damage per round. Single handed weapon (since you have a shield) means d8+5 at best with your attacks. You'd have to get about 4-5 attacks per round to routinely do that kind of damage. Where is advantage coming from? Nothing from you grants advantage. And you do realize that those large creatures gain advantage on being pushed right? You've got d20+10, they've got Advantage d20+5 (give or take). You should be just about breaking even.

I mean, sure, with the BM, you're usually tossing an extra d8 on damage, but, only on 4 attacks per short rest (5? IDHMBIFOM). Unless your group is short resting after every encounter, you shouldn't be anywhere near this kind of damage.

I mean, the bard lock with eldritch blast alone should be dealing damage pretty close to what you are doing.

 

[Warpiglet]

Just as an aside, but there has never been an edition of D&D that did not have paladins of alignments other than LG. 1e relegated them to NPC status, though the DM could allow them as PCs if he wanted. 2e had specialty priests of I want to say Horus that were CG paladins. 3e had paladins of freedom, tyranny and slaughter. 4e just allowed whatever alignment you wanted to play. 5e only requires lawful at this point.

There's no need to challenge LG status when that status wasn't absolute by RAW.

In 1e there were only LG paladins...if your alignment actually drifted from LG, you lost all paladin powers.