Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Maxperson]

Actually if we are talking about rules in the game, it is very relevant. Only LG paladins were included in the rules even after UA codified optional rules from Dragon.

The eventual outcome was decided in Unearthed Arcana---when paladins became cavaliers and other alignments could become non-paladin cavaliers. You can make up and use whatever fluff and optional rules you wish which is consistent with my OP: making your own fluff and using optional fluff should not be frowned upon necessarily.

Even if we go with that, from 2e on that hasn't been the case. I had to make up no fluff or optional rules to play a non-LG paladin in 2e, 4e and 5e, the majority of editions. In 3e there were official variants, and I only had to ask to play one of the Dragon non-LG paladins in 1e.

 

[Greg K]

If lycanthropy is a thing in such a world (which is a decision that comes up much later in the process), then it's the result of a directed curse with a very specific intent. The idea that such a curse could be diluted through normal biological processes might be hard to reconcile with that. It would be like trying to copy a computer program that was still in the process of downloading; instead of getting a partially-functional program, it's simply not going to compile.
?

Yeah, if I am running a campaign, Arial's reasoning for his character's rage would be completely contrary to how lycanthropy would work in any campaign that I run. Whether it is a racial thing, a magical disease, and/or a curse. the form of the parent during reproduction would be irrelevant on the genetic material and I would reject his refluffing of the barbarian based upon that.

(Note: if he wanted his character to be a civilized barbarian, because he was a warrior that grew up in a civilized area whether as a noble, a child of the street, or something similar and the character fell into fits of deadly rage rather than relying on formal training in a variety of fancy techniques? That could be sometihing that I could work with in nearly any campaign. I would even be willing to make some minor class adjustments (if necessary)).

 

[Greg K]

Even if we go with that, from 2e on that hasn't been the case. I had to make up no fluff or optional rules to play a non-LG paladin in 2e, 4e and 5e, the majority of editions. In 3e there were official variants, and I only had to ask to play one of the Dragon non-LG paladins in 1e.

Maxperson, can you direct me to an official supplement with non-LG Paladins as a PC class for 2e? I am honestly curious, because I only bought the three core books, a few of the class books, PO: Combat & Tactics, PO: Spells and Magic and a few of the 2e setting boxed sets. I also had several 2e Dragon magaziner (however, as with 1e, most Dragon articles were not official (or even semi-official)).

 

[5ekyu]

Ok, so how would you handle [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s "civilized" barbarian? Using a Soldier and Barbarian class at 1st level from the PHB? But he's saying his Barbarian has rage not because of some uncivilized/untamed ties with nature or spirits or totems, but that because his noble father werewolved mid-conception?

Totally core PHB class and background. Not a "cyber-ninja".

Just curious!

My answer would be "we have a conversation."

While the rage gets the media hype my question first would be where does the unarmored defense come from? It's not really a feature of either parent nor is it soldier.where does the d12 HD come from? Not feature of either parent.


The barbarian class has various feature not just rage. We would have to work all of those out. But as a rule I dont see this as a huge thing - we work it out player to gm in my games all the time. Things usually get added or deleted both sides - world and character - which is made possible when you work together without unique, absolutism, jerk, rigid line of demarkations etc.

I wouldn't have trouble with civie barbs without the wolf sex angle.

 

[Maxperson]

Maxperson, can you direct me to an official supplement with non-LG Paladins as a PC class for 2e? I am honestly curious, because I only bought the three core books, a few of the class books, PO: Combat & Tactics, PO: Spells and Magic and a few of the 2e setting boxed sets. I also had several 2e Dragon magaziner (however, as with 1e, most Dragon articles were not official (or even semi-official)).

Legends and Lore. The specialty priests of Horus were actually CG Paladins.

 

[cbwjm]

I know that for the barbarian, I don't need there to be a special reason why a civilised character has the barbarian class. Plenty of meat-heads around that could fit the barbarian mould and just as not every barbarian tribe member has levels in the barbarian class, not everyone in the barbarian class needs to be from a barbaric/tribal background.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would even be willing to make some minor class adjustments (if necessary).

I would be more inclined to allow major class adjustments. Writing an all new class, or even just an archetype, makes a lot more sense to me than trying to change the fluff associated with the existing mechanics. (Assuming the character concept made sense for the world, I mean.)

The Barbarian class only has those mechanics because that is how you represent the fluff associated with the class, within the mechanical language of the game. If you have a different fluff, then it wouldn't make sense to use those mechanics, because those mechanics aren't derived from your alternate fluff. In order to get the same degree of authenticity, you should use the existing classes as guidelines for how the translations work, and then do your best to translate that new fluff into its mechanical representation.

 

[smbakeresq]

I wrote an answer at morning, but got erased. I'm going to sum it up.
First: Lance is a d12, one-handed weapon that needs a horse. I have a horse. Average damage 6.5.
Second: I have an 18 in Strength, so +4, and Dueling, so +2 (+6 to each attack). With multiattack, my base attacks are 25 damage.
Third: Shield Master grants you a shove as a bonus action. And that shove has +10 (Athletics expertise via Prodigy). A troll or large creature usually is on par with me on strenght, but I have expertise on Athletics (+6), "negating" their Advantage (not exactly, but I have a minimum of 12 on the Athletics check, and an average of 21, their average is 19 with advantage). Thus, I gain advantage on most attacks. That grants me a critical hit at least 1 every 5 rounds, or 0.65 damage on each attack on average. Almost like a Champion. So, my basic damage is 26.3 (extra attack, dueling, strength and lance)
Fourth: The lance has Reach property and the horse has 60 speed, and their action is usually spent on Dash, so I have lots of mobility. I end having a lot of OAs in minion fights. Requires a lot of position micromanagement, but it is very very useful. One trick is for the horse to Ready an Action to take the Dash whenever the enemies move.
Fifth: Maneuvers like Menacing Attack also frighten the creatures, besides giving me 4.5 extra damage. A frightened creature often runs away without disengaging. Another OA for 14.15 extra damage and disadvantage on ability checks and attacks for the enemy.
Sixth: Action Surge grants me 2 extra attacks once per short rest. Another 26.3 damage.
Seventh: Intelligence and terrain. Although I'm not shy to charge, we usually as a group prepare our battlefield or at least look for the most advantageous location and position. Shoving against stakes, caltrops, rocks, pits, cliffs, streams or fire grants you a lot of mileage. Also, I'm not compelled to spend resources where they aren't needed, thus avoiding overkills. At 6th level, we end fighting a lot of hobgoblins, orcs, yuan ti, etc. Against them I don't need to use all my resources. Furthermore, I end up killing a hobgoblin per strike with lots of mobility, or 2-3 per round without spending any resources. Micromanagement is key. We also fight trolls. Trolls are difficult to fight, but I Thoros of Myr my way against them with alchemic fire (I have a lot of swords and at least 3 lances on my horse to burn).
Final: I'm not hampered by cover, distance (120 feet per round on horseback, and 10 of reach is a lot), and prone enemies benefit me, whereas hamper a ranged creature. Also, OAs are a melee thing only.

Of course, I'm very much Short Rest dependant to have the "maximum" damage, but 26.3 damage is my average once my resources are depleted. And I tend to change horses a lot (they have a tendency to die). I'm not always on the best position (sometimes I have to use swords instead of lances, and very few times the creatures are two sizes larger than me). More than a few times I end brawling barefisted, but they are corner cases. The cat monk is also very useful and we have lots of synergy and mobility together (he pushes/pulls a lot with his Aang powers). But fights don't tend to last more than 5 rounds, and I have a lot of stopping power. Think about any nova that I make: I end making an average of 84.75 damage* in a single round (the first), and then 26.3. when my resources are spent. 111,05 damage in two rounds. Counting only 1 OA. At 6th level.

I'm not joking. I've sustained the math during gameplay, and that tend to be the numbers. The GM usually toss us very strong creatures, such as trolls with 18 AC, and I'm the only one that sustains damage and hits almost every attack. With advantage, I rarely fumble (yes, I know there is no fumbles in 5e, but you undestand: autofail with a 1). I preserve Inspiration to grant key advantage (for example, for shoves against large creatures). And I play it right (my character is alcoholic as its flaw, and I usually play that right, without exaggerating nor downplaying it: I tend to get drunk on guard duty, or behave very aggresively whenever I run out of wine, usually granting me disadvantage on a few checks).

*I'm not doubling the Superiority Dice, but I should, as I tend to use SD when I have a critical hit. So that would add 4.5 extra damage. Micromanage resources is key to a cunning fighter.

So in all your combats you ride a horse all the time and have room to keep them 10’ away?

If you prone the creature it’s 5’ away from you and a lance attacks with disadvantage at 5’, so it would cancel out. If you use it off a horse it’s a 2 handed weapon, so dueling would not apply. To get advantage on a prone creature it must be within 5’, and a lance has disadvantage within 5’, so a lance can’t get advantage attacking a prone creature, in fact it would attack with disadvantage as it is greater than 5’ away, see the prone condition.

Mounted combat doesn’t help either, the lance still has disadvantage if within 5’, you need to switch to another weapon. A troll is the same size as your mount also, so mounted doesn’t help in that case. It does help against targets medium or smaller at 10’ when you use your lance to gain advantage.

You said you “average” that, that seems like a lot of pieces falling into place and you are presenting a base case scenario. I can’t imagine %100 of your combats are mounted...

Remember they changed shield master so it happens after your attack action is completed. I would still use it the old way however.

I am not sure I would let a lance use dueling, it’s actually a 2 handed weapon with a condition that lets you use it one handed. It’s technically allowed by the rules though, it’s written poorly. It really should be two-handed weapon that if you are on a horse let’s you use it one handed, but then people would try to use GW stuff on it.

Your mount is a horse, so “it moves as you direct it.” It doesn’t have independent actions, so it can’t ready its own action, you have to ready an action to dash as you control it.

The build idea is sound but needs a lot of things to go right. The problem with regular mounts in combat without the Mounted Combat feat is they die to easy.

 

[smbakeresq]

I try to not get too involved in telling others how to "properly play their PC" or whether or not an 8 in their world is "noticably weak" or "commoner average" compared to a 10 being "normal" or "adventurewr normal" since i have seen a lot of games systems over the years run that differently for different paradigms.

i also try and avoid telling people that strength *should* be seen on some bell curve exponential vs a linear especially when the modifiers are strictly linear and the Dcs often seem to be too. hard to say "you are bell curve weak" when the weight you carry, the difficulty of the climb and the distance you jump is linearly mapped to those scores.

As for the Gm deciding who can and cannot speak up in character... well i guess that fits some groups. I tend to prefer to let the players and their characters choose when they *can* speak and focus more on my end on the NPCs and their actions and reactions.

For instance, maybe the CHA 8 half-orc simply dives right in, cutting off the GM-designated bard/face and starts an amazingly bad blunderous attempt at small talk destined to piss people off but very much in keeping with his 8 cha "rush in before thinking thru" nature.

To me me telling him"sorry, you are not allowed to talk yet by Gm ruling the bard is the one to go first. Wait until i tell you your character can do stuff."

But again, to each his own.

There are certainly, absolutely, wonderfully great things a player can do and maybe enjoy with a lower than 10 or lower than bonus stat on a character. i think its darn tootin' shucks darn wonderful when those stats and those players who like them are put together and blow the doors off that role playing stuff.

Like i said, they enjoy it, they roleplay it that way, its fun - great for them.

But i am pretty sure they could also roleplay the doors off a guy with a bonus stat too.

there is nothing magical to roleplaying about a negative bonus stat. its just another element you can work with.

But players do not have to be forced into it in order to roleplay and not doing it doesn't force them to not rolweplay or deny them the chance to roleplay and all that jazz.

I just think its not wise at all to jump to assumptions about someone's roleplaying based on whether they are now playing a MC character or a single class character or a character with high stats or a character with low stats etc etc etc and just judge their roleplaying on its own - if one really truly needs to scratch an itch to be a "judge" over someone else's roleplaying and fun.

To me, each player comes to the table with their own preferences - and where i can as Gm i scratch their itches as much as possible within the game. if that means Bob focuses more on running a pretty vanilla stoic dwarf who doesn't get into so much all that drama and roleplay (but Bob really likes character design and gameplay and combat/non-combat challenges.), Barry plays a rogue trickster with a nose for heists and puzzles and contacts and networking his own business (economy building) and Jim plays a halfling sorceress entertainer/mystic who really does a lot of the roleplaying things - I really see myself better able to Gm if i do not judge which of them is being run "properly" and instead focus on meshing together those interests within the games and events of the world they are in.

I can even let them decide who gets to talk first without me allowing it.

I get what your saying but allowing too much table talk makes Message and Rarys Telepathy useless or much weaker.

Table talk is also situational, if at the Kings ball and the PC are all over the room they are each on their own, unless of course the above spells are in use. Or a PC that is unconscious or dying or in a silence spell certainly can’t talk.

What I am trying to say is the DM is partially responsible for a PC role play, as they are always on the other end of the phone. If you encourage it happens and keeps the table moving and involved.


I actually put a similar thread out about playing PC well in general, not class specific, with tactical and meta game advice (like showing up on time and ready to play.)

What I do find funny is that over the years through different players how much the same personality types gravitate towards the same PC types. People who like animals seem to always have a pet in game, the biggest people seem to gravitate towards small races and stabby-stabby classes, etc. That’s certainly good for the game.

 

[5ekyu]

I get what your saying but allowing too much table talk makes Message and Rarys Telepathy useless or much weaker.

Table talk is also situational, if at the Kings ball and the PC are all over the room they are each on their own, unless of course the above spells are in use. Or a PC that is unconscious or dying or in a silence spell certainly can’t talk.

What I am trying to say is the DM is partially responsible for a PC role play, as they are always on the other end of the phone. If you encourage it happens and keeps the table moving and involved.


I actually put a similar thread out about playing PC well in general, not class specific, with tactical and meta game advice (like showing up on time and ready to play.)

What I do find funny is that over the years through different players how much the same personality types gravitate towards the same PC types. People who like animals seem to always have a pet in game, the biggest people seem to gravitate towards small races and stabby-stabby classes, etc. That’s certainly good for the game.

Clearly we are crossing streams as far as what we are discussing.

Generally we define "table talk" as player to,player out of character discussion.

We dont usually treat table talk as a role playing issue, an issue that would in anyway be linked to "are you playing the high cha bard face" etc. Those are in character comm issues.

Similarly, in character and out of character knowledge we treat differently.

Message gets plenty of use for its secret comm in character.

So, best i can guess is if you are talking table talk tied to the character charisma i havent a clue what you mean by it.