Search results

My problem is not with restrictions per se. I think it is absolutely within the DM's right to craft a world. If a DM said "no multiclassing" I would shrug and make a single classed character. What I object to is the idea that the fluff cannot be modified for fear of the destruction of...

Yes. One level of fighter then all sorcerer was my thought

My argument is one size does not fit all. Where this effects multiclassing I suggest looking at the specific patron, pact and shared desire to have fun. From PHB: "Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as...

These rulings require more scrutiny because they would have the potential to ruin a character or player's fun in a big way.

By extension if the DM sends a vision from a patron and your character does not accept and complete a task they are either rendered unable to adventure or may be killed outright with no way around it. If that is the case the player better enjoy a lack of free will. Ick! Sounds like a major...

I am in absolute agreement with satisfaction with the rules and their occasional vagueness. When I play make believe I like to create and not just be constrained. Boundaries and suggested boundaries make it more of a game but thank goodness the rules don't suggest do X or lose all your powers...

If I was playing in your campaign I would consider a different class to play but be respectful of the structure of your world, patron and warlocks. However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either. It only speaks to gifts being...

Ah! Many thanks! Yes agree that seems to be inconsistent with some patrons... I prefer the PHB description of a mentor and that once learned the powers are yours to keep... I could see a patron refusing to teach more if a character was at odds with their agenda maybe? But even then the PHB...

Out of curiosity, where did the bolded portion come from? I am guessing that is not PHB (unless is changed with a newer print run?). Thanks in advance for pointing me in the right direction!

It is interesting you say this. I think I know where you are coming from...however I just realized something. In 1e, there was multiclassing and dual classing. It always existed. So did bards! You take levels in fighter, thief and then bard! But more to the point about fluff/ fiction...

This makes a lot of sense if the fluff is accepted as is. However, if the character represents a holy guardian of the wood, selected by Obad-hai himself, then he is simply one in a million if the source of power and training has a common source. This is sort of my point about sacred cows...

I have no problem with the absence of optional rules for a specific campaign. I can have fun almost anywhere. However, I find your arguments to be compelling and I am probably starting to lean this way: finding that by allowing multiclassing there is probably more benefit than problem. I like...

I absolutely think that discouraging choices in a campaign vs. outright banning them is the best route. We played evil groups a few times and had a few underdark members a few of those. It gets damn tedious having to hide in the woods or split the party when you want to rest in a civilized...

This is an important point of clarification for me. This really says where the PC is facing. I realize now in my middle age that I like a collaboration which start with the player (whether I am player or DM). PC has an idea for something fun to play. Player present to DM. DM suggests edits...

There was some bad design I suppose in the sense that the first cars suck compared to any car today. I am amazed at how cool it was to play warts and all! As to ignoring people...yeah...but it is fun to exchange ideas and rationales sometimes. In the campaign I run currently, there is multi...

I was excoriated when 5e came out for fantasizing about a game with no feats and no multi classing! (that was another forum, but I digress). I was tired of nonsensical combinations that made me feel sort of icky. However, back in our 1e heyday, it never occurred to us to be rigid regarding...

I have seen a number of arguments against multiclassing. I would like to address a few of them and clarify what seems to be the main points of contention. 1. Multiclassing breaks the game or creates a more powerful character 2. The sacred cows must not be butchered...we do NOT like peanut...

Just to finally firm things up... I went with first level war cleric, tough feat. Will take ASI at 4th (5th) and will have (1st level: 16 8 12 10 14 14); (4th/5th Level: 16 8 12 10 14 14 16). I ultimately decided the staff was less essential. Funny how that happened...I have a mini of a Deva...

And as an aside: We play warlock spells and abilities as learned and taught with patron as guide and tutor (I.e. Displeasing the patron MIGHT mean they don't teach you more levels but you keep your gained powers as your own after they are learned if that matters).

Yeah I don't feel judged. Happy to describe our story. Mercenary veteran got less choosy about employers. He was probably LN in outlook. Tormented and broken by a betrayal, he was aided by a fallen angel tethered to the material plane. The angel was a planetar who had been too harsh in...