Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

Mechanically speaking you left out very important mechanics, rules about dueling ability, weapon properties, creature size, and interaction of all those. Plus the comparison should be between a Lance and a Pike, the closest comparison.

Lance - IMO the two handed property was not added to allow the classic jousting scenario with a shield. Clearly the lance requires 2 hands to use unless you have some other assistance, this is reflected in being mounted.

Since this was not added small creatures can use it use it one handed.

Since anyone can use it one handed you can use dueling. Dueling was added to some martial classes to reflect their greater skill in using smaller weapons, this evens out the damage trade vs a larger weapon for those classes. I don’t think it was intended for the Pike, the lances closest relative, see rules, and thus not a pike used mounted.

The dual wielder feat was intended to use 2 full size weapons at once, not 2 lances from a mount. I don’t KNOW this but I suspect that was the case.

I get that it is RAW, but this isn’t a balance issue, it’s an absurdly issue. It’s a fantasy game, but I don’t think I know a DM that would allow a halfling on Golden retriever with 2 lances attacking with each and then get a bonus action attack again.

Or another way, how would players react if a goblin rode up on a wolf and attacked 3 times with a lance. “Wait a minute here!” Would be the mildest response.

But if your DM does a small Paladin on his mount should always use 2 full size lances and dual wielder feat combined with 2 weapon fighting and then just switch to two small weapons if need be.

Ok so, i listed the weapon properties in the pro and con - some not by name but by effect because saying "special" did not seem to be very informative.

Second, you do not get to pick which and only which weapons get to be compared. i chose two for their melee strength and sane damage dice to avoid having to try and assess the value of pike d10 vs lance d12.

But if you want to add it to the mix fine

lance
pro - 1d12 damage + reach
con - two handed unless nounted, disadvantage within 5' (tyhe most common melee range)

greataxe
pro 1d12 damage
con - heavy and two handed.

pIKE
PRO REACH
CON d10 HEAVY TWO HANDED

Lets assume pike is the norm - the baseline.

Great-axe adds extra damage and removes reach. A gain and a drop. Are they equal? Varies by campaign.

lance added extra damage, changed the disadvantage penalty feature (heavy) from "for small creatures only" to "for everybody at 5' range only" and reduced the two-handed to "mounted only." So, ups and downs and mixed bag of nuts to be sure but the "mounted only 1 handed" thing definitely carries some heavy baggage - that whole horse or other mount type thing.

So, again, not seeing the built-in weapon imbalance there.

Now, i can only guess that by "dueling ability" you may mean the Dual Wielder feat and not the Dueling fighting style or some other "ability" you may be thinking of... like maybe a sub-class ability? i do not know.

But regardless of what you were referring to - if it is a feat or a class feature then the issue is not with the lance at all but with whatever class feature changes that lance.

Its like when people want to yell and fuss about how powerful eldritch blast is and compare it to other cantrips... but want to include three or four invocations and warlock hexes into the mix *for one side* and not take into account other class anf feats when comparing.

For example, after you make sure and claim what all i left out...

lance and dual wielder feat...

compare to greataxe and great weapon master feat for the 5/10 and bonus action "cleave" thingy
compare to pike (or others) with pole arm master for the bonus attack and Ao on entry.

I do not see this as screaming OMG the lance is broken to me when it gets the feat in play.

As for what you feel, what you prefer, what you divine as the reason behind the shadow of the intent of the dream of what someone else thought lance properties were to represent... thats between you and your mirror.

as others have pointed out, martial skill could be defined and depicted as every bit a magical effect as anything else can. So maybe its the bound macguffins holding up the lances for the paladin.

they style of a campaign is determined at the table and very fantastic style and tone games might well be just fine with the war dog mounted pally halfling with his lances.

you want a little more down to earth campaign, great! All power to you. Simply try and put in place rules you all agree on to reflect that and ways to discuss out the edge cases that go beyond RAW and printed rules.

neither is right or wrong.

neither deserves scorn.

 

[Satyrn]

Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!

DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...

Player: Who cares what you're doing? This is a chance for you to scrap it all, and BUILD YOUR SETTING AROUND MY TWO SENTENCES! Make it work. You will work harder!

*fin*

One person's flavor, is another person's nightmare.

Something something awesome space-gnome werepaladin lovechild.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But it doesn't. It never will. ALL players are expected to come up with their own backstory, even if it's as cursory as "I'm a dwarf. Here's my axe". The examples are just to help get the creative juices flowing. The book is also formatted in such a way that players who have never played an RPG before can read the book and understand what's going on, and the examples help explain it.

But the examples are. Not. Rules.

For the backgrounds, sure. The backgrounds are intended to be examples. And if you want to find a single rule in the PHB that lets a player unilaterally change whatever fluff they want, then the backgrounds are where you should be looking, because it's entirely expected that the players will do so. We know that, because it says so.

Not the classes, though. (Or races, for that matter.) There's nothing anywhere which suggests that a barbarian could ever possibly be something that doesn't fit the general description presented in the class section. If your idea for the origin of your barbarian-class powers is that you aren't actually a barbarian as the book describes one - or as the DM describes one, if they use their DM powers delineated in the DMG to change such things - then you're not following how the game is played, and you need to consult with the DM to see if they can use their DM powers to change the rules on your behalf.

The fluff of a class is no less a rule than the mechanics. It's just a difference between a qualitative rule and a quantitative one. And of course, the DM is free to change any rule that they feel like, on their own behalf or at the request of a player. Players do not have that agency on their own, though.

 

[5ekyu]

OK. I have thought of a very succinct way to express the thought. This is merely an example.

What if a particular Warlock essentially gets power from study with the help of a mentor? What if the Warlock still learns and grows in power even if he disobeys his mentor?

I am arguing that:

1. All of the warlocks in your world could be stricken powerless for this even if the PC is not

2. If a player has an idea that breaks your typical world assumptions, it does not tear down your world, make it common or destroy anything

Allowing snowflake fluff does no harm on a grand scale. An exception is just that. Every other warlock may function just as you believe they function even if the PC does not.

Second example:

1. All clerics follow a deity and belong to a church in a game world...except the PC. The PC follows a philosophy and does not belong to a hierarchy. (That seems to break from PHB fluff).

Even if this cleric deviates from the typical, your world can still be entirely populated by normal clerics, church hierarchies and deity lovers! The character does not have to alter anything other than his character's story. Other NPCs would not whine about clerical powers being attached to Gods because they would be devoted, not understand what is going on with the PC. The world would operate as you designed with...an exception. It could even be the only one to exist.

The answer to the "what if..." is simply put "agreeing to this means also saying that the other warlock in this world who made a deal that risks interference from their mentor are dumber than the PC because they chose a route to the same power that saddles them with a burden of cooperation and risk of loss."

Why wouldn't as soon as this option exists every other warlock and furture warlock want to find that better deal too?
Why wouldn't every other patron want to snuff this out because they risk losing their own pawns/allies/partners?

if i set up shop outside a McDonalds and start giving away just as good burgers and shakes and fries and everything else on the menu for free - wouldn't McDonalds start to do something about it since i am effectively going to shut them down.

By removing the "patron plays a role" aspect... effectively moving it entirely out of play - you are creating a character with the same powers and none of the obligations.

That paints the rest of the world of warlocks and patrons in a whole new light.

There is no solid answer to "why did all these guys ALL choose the lesser option that gets them no more power but instead gets them obligations and services to perform"?

While the run-to-example- for new-fangled-player-agency types is the straight to powerless, bad GM extreme - there is a lot of room between "no patron really in play" and "you did not obey powerless" and that is where Gm discussion with player about patron and relationship come into play.

let me be clear...

As far as i am concerned... player and Gm discuss warolock-patron, cleric-diety, barbarian-civilized, etc and the result is:
Mutual agreement and the character is played - success.
Mutual negotiation and something similar is played they are both happy with the compromises to either the character, the world or both- success
Disagreement and the player chooses to not play that character class but plays another - success
Disagreement and the player decides this game is not for him and leaves, never playing - success
Some other result that leads to disagreement on this matter during play - failure.

 

[Warpiglet]

For the backgrounds, sure. The backgrounds are intended to be examples. And if you want to find a single rule in the PHB that lets a player unilaterally change whatever fluff they want, then the backgrounds are where you should be looking, because it's entirely expected that the players will do so. We know that, because it says so.

Not the classes, though. (Or races, for that matter.) There's nothing anywhere which suggests that a barbarian could ever possibly be something that doesn't fit the general description presented in the class section. If your idea for the origin of your barbarian-class powers is that you aren't actually a barbarian as the book describes one - or as the DM describes one, if they use their DM powers delineated in the DMG to change such things - then you're not following how the game is played, and you need to consult with the DM to see if they can use their DM powers to change the rules on your behalf.

The fluff of a class is no less a rule than the mechanics. It's just a difference between a qualitative rule and a quantitative one. And of course, the DM is free to change any rule that they feel like, on their own behalf or at the request of a player. Players do not have that agency on their own, though.

I believe the DM has the power to disallow any fluff changes made by a player. But then I question why they would necessarily want to do that. I argue that if it is about the PC, it really cannot alter the world much if the PC is an exception and if the DM desires, the only exception.

It is really a taste thing. Much of the fluff in the PHB is not as clear cut as some would assume. Read the warlock text for example and count the contradictions. Uncaring power, micomanaging power, power uninterested in patron, willing contract, contract done unwillingly, tricked into contract, learn and grow in power, power granted....

the list goes on. There is a lot of room to play here. What is the hexblade patron, really? I say it is a connection to the power of death for my PC...another says it is Raven Queen or a weapon that might be made by her etc etc etc

If I am DM, I don't feel a need to prescribe the specifics for a specific PC. I can, but why? How would this enhance their fun? How would it enhance mine?

 

[5ekyu]

Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!

DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...

Player: Who cares what you're doing? This is a chance for you to scrap it all, and BUILD YOUR SETTING AROUND MY TWO SENTENCES! Make it work. You will work harder!

*fin*

One person's flavor, is another person's nightmare.

While amusing that is mind of where i fall on some of this solid line of demarcation that the DM cannot have a say in stuff.

if i am a Dm tell a player they cannot play ABCD in the game - that player has the right to just say "great. thanks. bye."

But if as a a Gm when i lay out some basic set of guidelines for what characters can be - something short of a list of everything that can be imagined - if the player then claims the absolute right to invent background "fluff" for their character and i am not allowed to cross that line at all to say "no" then where is my "walk away" option?

Do i now have to drop the entire campaign and go home and sit alone?
Do i now have to play the game Gm it even though its not something i want to run?
Do i have the right to tell the player "yeah thats legal here but you cannot play it at all so leave" but not to instead say "how about we change this..."

The player never has an absolute line drawn forcing them to play something they do not like.

but it seems that if the player insists they be allowed to have stuff that is "off limits" at character creation then the Gm seems to be lacking that same option to refuse.

One side with unilateral say-so does not a collaborative event make. The Gms power is given by the players. It exists only as long as they allow it. Some player seem to want more power than that the right to not only create but require (not ask) others to consent to it.

 

[TwoSix]

Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!

DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...

Player: Who cares what you're doing? This is a chance for you to scrap it all, and BUILD YOUR SETTING AROUND MY TWO SENTENCES! Make it work. You will work harder!

*fin*

One person's flavor, is another person's nightmare.

I would say you're trying to make a point here; fortunately, I've seen enough of your posts to know better.

 

[Greg K]

If a DM must have this level of control---to the point of not allowing unusual self generated fluff---I would not want to play. .

Then, you have not bought into the campaign and setting that the DM is running and should not play. The GMs and players whom I have known over the year would wish you well and let you go on your way. The GMs would listen to you and might accept it depending upon the fluff in question. They might recommend some changes or alternatives to conform to the campaign world and system. Then again, they might outright refuse (with or without an explanation that you might consider valid (including that they just did not care to include the idea in the campaign). However, if they decided no, that would be the end of the discussion and the players would back the GM, because the GM is viewed in charge of the campaign and setting (edit: and, even in 5e, it is stated in the Basic Set that the GM is the "ultimate" authority "on the campaign and its setting").

Now, depending on the system, the player's request may receive better acceptance (e.g. Fate), but the GM still has he ability to override an element introduced by the player.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!

DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...

Player: Who cares what you're doing? This is a chance for you to scrap it all, and BUILD YOUR SETTING AROUND MY TWO SENTENCES! Make it work. You will work harder!

*fin*

One person's flavor, is another person's nightmare.

Just curious, but why is bad behavior trotted out so often to try to make a point? That player is a jerk, and booting them isn't about rules or fluff or crunch or backstory; It's about not playing with people that are bad actors. You didn't prove anything with this other than someone can use a similar set of words while acting badly. If I'm trying to consider the merits of your argument here, I stop at 'I wouldn't play which that person' and I don't even reach whatever you're trying to say.

 

[Mistwell]

Player: Hey, DM. I have this awesome space-alien werewolf lovechild concept that I just thought about and wrote two sentences on. It's going to be awesome! Player agency FTW!

DM: Um, okay. Doesn't fit with the campaign we are running, at all, but ...

Player: Who cares what you're doing? This is a chance for you to scrap it all, and BUILD YOUR SETTING AROUND MY TWO SENTENCES! Make it work. You will work harder!

*fin*

One person's flavor, is another person's nightmare.

Honestly I could deal with that. There are plenty of alien elements in the game (any of the illithids mythology) and plenty of lycanthropy tropes in the game. Why couldn't a good DM make it work in their campaign?

I mean Jim Butcher was able to turn a bet about combining the Lost Roman Legion and Pokémon into a best selling fantasy series. You can handle aliens and werewolves in D&D.