Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[TwoSix]

i thought the same until it was pretty much made clear by explicit statement that wasn't the case - that my assessment that they did not really mean the extreme was strongly corrected to say they did mean it just that strongly etc.

you can choose to dismiss what others say and even clarify to their full measure - thats cool. its like the definition of dismissive but hey - to each their own.

i don't have a view on what "the setting" in anyone's rpg "should be" beyond "what the group decides they want". With that in mind, i get to avoid making judgements from on high about other people's choices as to how their make-believe-co-op activity works or find clever ways to decide that a theoretical Gm has theoretically gone too far. of course, a key to this part if "they" not "I" and "group wants" instead of "one player mandates".

YMMV

If that's the interpretation you're getting from [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION]'s posts, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Maxperson]

Erm, as silly as the example is...yeah...! Bearing in mind that the PC must already have at least one rogue level (or in a class which grants the Sneak Attack special ability) in order to be able to use their backstory to explain that ability...yeah.

Sure, I'd rather the player come up with a less silly explanation....but in the end I recognise that it's their PC and they can explain the abilities they have how they want.

As this player's DM, my role is to check that the character sheet is accurate, game mechanics-wise; so no adding abilities the game mechanics don't grant you. I would also look at their 'explanation' for how they acquired their backstabbing ability, and see how I can fit it into my game.

I could decide that anyone can get backstab powers by doing the exact same thing....but I'm pretty sure that would be both broken and absurd. So I would either secretly invent some other agent that is actually the source of that ability (a fey guardian? The PC was bamboozled into believing that the ritual granted that ability but it was a practical joke and the PC could do it all along?), or just ignore it and get on with the game, knowing for a fact that this backstory in no way FORCES me to give those properties to dragons, urine, silver, boots, full moons, oaths of office or towns that no longer exist.

So a few things.

1. I'm not a fan of reflavoring, but I do allow it sometimes. If the reflavoring matches the ability exactly, I don't have an issue with it. With your soldier example, I can see how he gets rage, reckless attack, and even danger sense. I don't see how the soldier would get fast movement, unarmored defense(soldiers, even angry ones don't get this), Indomitable might, or Primal Champion. Those don't really fit the angry soldier concept in my opinion. The more complex the thing you are trying to reflavor, the harder it is going to be. With the rogue, that level of rogue also gives thieves' cant and expertise, not just backstab. I much prefer to just create a feat or some other way for the backstab to come into play for the PC.

2. The explanation give above would be kinda, sorta okay, except that it would have to happen in background. Once play begins, I'm going to know all that happens to the PC. There's not going to be the situation where the PC drinks gold dragon piss under the fool moon(just started re-reading Dresden) etc., without it having been roleplayed out. If it is background, it will be tougher to do unless the PC starts at a level above 1.

3. If you are secretly inventing the real reason the power happens, then I have to ask, what happened to "but in the end I recognise that it's their PC and they can explain the abilities they have how they want."? You're invalidating their explanation.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, are you saying that when you GM a point-buy superhero game that players are not allowed to explain their powers as the result of an extinct alien race, all but me?

Poor Kal-El.

I happen to know that Kal-El is completely human. I'm not so sure about Nicolas Cage, though.

 

[Maxperson]

If the example fluff were not mere examples but game rules, then it would have to be mentioned in the sections about character creation and classes.

It would say, 'choose your race, class and background', and under the class description it would say 'choose one of the allowed backstories' along with things like 'choose your weapon style/subclass/equipment'.

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.

The rules in the PHB do not allow for unilateral altering, though. They explicitly say otherwise. Here is a quote from the customization section, "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one." That means that if you want to do something other than what is spelled out in the PHB as an acceptable alteration, you need DM approval.

 

[smbakeresq]

I've wrote (again) a long answer that got ditched because of the crappy connection. Short:
I didn't noticed the 5 feet disadvantage, but that doesn't really affect the account, because the original 34 didn't take it.

In a featureless, empty white room without positioning or companionship, my base damage with lance is as follows-
6.5 (average damage) + 6 (strength + dueling) x 2 (extra attack): 25
4 Superiority Dice. 4.5 average damage.
Action Surge four double attacks
Average fights during 4-5 rounds

CR 6 Av. armor Class: 15, hit points: 146-160. I hit with 8, average attack result is 11.

Round 1: 25+9 = 34
Round 2: 25+9 = 34
Round 3: 25x2 = 50
Round 4: 25
Round 5: 25

Total damage in 5 rounds: 168; DPR 33.6 (34). Total Damage in 4 rounds: 143. Average DPR 35.75

In a featureless, empty white room without positioning or companionship, my base damage with sword is as follows-
4.5 (average damage) + 6 (strength + dueling) + 0.45 (10% crit) x 2 (extra attack): 21.9
4 Superiority Dice. 4.5 average damage. Assume 1 crit in 4 rounds for extra 4.5.
Action Surge four double attacks in 1 round.
Average fights during 4-5 rounds

CR 6 Av. armor Class: 15, hit points: 146-160. I hit with 8, average attack result is 11.

Round 1: 22.9+9 = 31.9
Round 1: 22.9+9 +4.5= 36.4 (I put the critical hit SD damage here, although it could be in any of the first 4 rounds)
Round 3: 22.9 x2 = 45.8
Round 4: 22.9
Round 5: 22.9

Total damage in 5 rounds: 159.9; DPR 31.98 (32). Total Damage in 4 rounds: 137. Average DPR 34.25

A short rest is needed after every complete fight, but DPR sustains. Not a bad assumption, especially when I'm not counting anything that could possibly benefit me, such as terrain, OAs (10.95 or 12.5 extra damage as a reaction), basic poison (2.5 extra damage for one minute, PHB), the fear caused by Menacing Strike (possible routings or withdrawals of enemies... unless undead), alchemist fire to the blade (let's say +1 fire damage, the same as a torch does), hot coals on the ground, spikes, caltrops (1 piercing damage when you step in them, probably more if you fall prone on them -say 1d4 or 2.5-), magic weapons or falls from mountains, bridges, windows or rooftops that automatically win a battle.

Lance is still RAW and RAI a dueling weapon. You need to weild it two handed when you are on foot, because is a horseman weapon, not because is a two handed weapon. It is the weapon of choice in jousts, that is duels between knights, and it is always one handed then; their reach and damage are to reflect the fact that you are on horseback (in fact, a sensible ruling would be that you can't even attack a prone creature on horseback if you have not a lance; and I must add that a knight should have the choice of using the horse trample instead of its weapons, but I'm not advocating this, because it is already powerful as it is).

And battles are never in a vacuum unless you have a crappy GM. Terrain, cunning, tricks, diplomacy, intimidation, cover, morale and such should play a heavy role on combats. Surrender, capture and retreat are legitimate ways to end a fight for the losing side. People should be aware that goblins won't fight to the last men alive, unless there is a very powerful reason. Only fearless or very desperate creatures should fight to the end. Wild animals, intelligent foes and monsters should retreat when they are badly injured or they think that they can't win, specially when their main force is dead or badly injured (killing spellcasters work wonders on their morale; and a dragon won't die over a pitiful fight: he is an intelligent enough monster to retreat and return when not expected).

About the horse thing: Most of my fights are on horseback. Not everyone, of course, but most yes. If a troll enters in a dungeon, a horse too. And if they not, luring the enemy outside does the trick. And the troll is at disadvantage. And yes, they die easily, that's why I have four horses and I'm making a plate barding for all of them.

And you centered on one piece of my argument, ignoring the sheer versatility that comes for a good build, even the "boring fighter": 6 skills, one of them with Expertise (athletics), 3 tools (Smith, Carpenter, Tinker), 3 languages, and heavy use of equipment such as crowbars, caltrops, and traps beat a white room theorist. As I've said earlier all that I've mentioned is sustained during real gameplay. Multiclassers are often beaten by dead levels, tier feature delays, lack of ASI to remain competitive, and bogged down in real play because they are often centered on an objective instead of a path. They suffer until they reach their desired synergy power, and then they get dissapointed when said power isn't all that great. I've witnessed this multiple times. I'm not saying that it is impossible to make it work, I say that is really difficult and not all that necessary.

Not to nit pick but a short rest after every fight isn’t typical. A short rest after every 2 fights maybe, but doubtful. My game is a short rest every 4-6 fights. What you are describing is a nova, just say so.

I have never seen or been in a game where you can take your warhorse into a dungeon, let alone have it live past the first or second encounter. Your horse has an average of 19 HP and various things can get you off it so you cant take the damage for it. I don’t see how it survives the first area attack in good shape at your level (6). I guess your group fails most group stealth checks no?

A troll can fit into many places a horse can’t, it’s shape is more malleable then a horse, but if your DM allows all the above I would have played a Paladin instead.

A Paladin gets an intelligent mount, so it acts on its own turns and you can communicate telepathically with it. Therefore you can prone them your shield then have your warhorse attack them with advantage for 2d6+4. In addition a Paladin can cast a spell with self as range and it affects both, so a Paladin can cast a smite spell on himself and can have his horse use the smite spell also. A Paladin on his mount is a holy terror.

A warhorse has these attacks also, RAW a PC can’t direct it to attack as it only has 3 action options and attack isn’t one. I would change that if you took the mounted combat feat. I would definitely talk to your DM about it as you have made a substantial investment in mounted combat.

The lance as a dueling weapon I consider an exploit, on horseback it is used across the second arm or rested on a shield in addition to being cradled under the arm. It requires Dueling is intended to reflect precision, a weapon condition that require you to be seated on a mount to me isn’t as intended. I would definitely not allow dueling there, that is IMO not RAI. But then I would also not allow a horse into a dungeon in most cases either, or would just have an intelligent enemy immediately try to dismount you or attack the horse, as most intelligent creatures would. Or set their reach weapons to receive a charge. I will ask Crawford though for what it’s worth about the lance though.

Edit- I checked the lance discussion and the rules for it RAW are absurd. RAW a halfling riding a dog can use a lance for D12 as a weapon since the lance doesn’t have the heavy property. With the dual wielder feat the same halfling could use 2 lances while mounted and attack with both from the back of his riding dog.

Yes there is a problem here. If your DM allows it though go for it!

 

[5ekyu]

If that's the interpretation you're getting from @Arial Black's posts, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Well then you and i must be reading very different posts.

While there is an even stronger statement in response after i gave the impression i did not think he meant to go so far a few pages back but here is one comment from just a little further up from this page alone.


"Sure, I'd rather the player come up with a less silly explanation....but in the end I recognise that it's their PC and they can explain the abilities they have how they want."

 

[smbakeresq]

The rules in the PHB do not allow for unilateral altering, though. They explicitly say otherwise. Here is a quote from the customization section, "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one." That means that if you want to do something other than what is spelled out in the PHB as an acceptable alteration, you need DM approval.

I am finding out that their are players who don’t read anything but the actual rules text and are absolutists regarding everything else I.e. if the rules don’t specifically say something then it is allowed and fair game. There is no “spirit” of the rules or RAI, it’s black and white. Some have not read anything but the SRD it seems, you statement in quotes above may simply not have been read.

 

[5ekyu]

Actually, it's 'chosen' by the barbarian's game mechanics. Mainly because players don't have the right to invent new mechanical abilities for themselves (Yeah, my 1st level fighter can cast 9th level spells actually! It's on page 15 of my backstory between 'women fall instantly in love with me' and 'ruler of the multiverse'!), they can only use their backstory to explain what the game mechanics already allow them to do.



Erm, as silly as the example is...yeah...! Bearing in mind that the PC must already have at least one rogue level (or in a class which grants the Sneak Attack special ability) in order to be able to use their backstory to explain that ability...yeah.

Sure, I'd rather the player come up with a less silly explanation....but in the end I recognise that it's their PC and they can explain the abilities they have how they want.

As this player's DM, my role is to check that the character sheet is accurate, game mechanics-wise; so no adding abilities the game mechanics don't grant you. I would also look at their 'explanation' for how they acquired their backstabbing ability, and see how I can fit it into my game.

I could decide that anyone can get backstab powers by doing the exact same thing....but I'm pretty sure that would be both broken and absurd. So I would either secretly invent some other agent that is actually the source of that ability (a fey guardian? The PC was bamboozled into believing that the ritual granted that ability but it was a practical joke and the PC could do it all along?), or just ignore it and get on with the game, knowing for a fact that this backstory in no way FORCES me to give those properties to dragons, urine, silver, boots, full moons, oaths of office or towns that no longer exist.

RE the bold - this seems to be saying (now) that as Gm you can just decide their backstory is not real and actually something else entirely happened?

So, your whole wolfy sex civie barbarian thing means nothing cuz as Gm i can decide "not really" and by the end of session one reveal a backstory explanation for your abilities that i prefer?

As long as i let you the player think it has been accepted until game time, we are good as then in story the "secret reveal" comes out and your absolute right to fluff you want is trumped by my absolute right to just change that into what i want?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

...astonishing abilities like Hurl Through Heck...

There you go again... re-flavoring the fluff!

The rules in the PHB do not allow for unilateral altering, though. They explicitly say otherwise. Here is a quote from the customization section, "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one." That means that if you want to do something other than what is spelled out in the PHB as an acceptable alteration, you need DM approval.

I think it is worth pointing out that a clear distinction can and should be made between a PC's backstory and their background. The background of soldier, for example, comes with tangible mechanical benefits as outlined in the PHB. The backstory of the PC is the pure fluff that the player gets to make up and has NO real mechanical benefit (e.g. I was a soldier on the northern front in the Gnoll wars... my company was slaughtered and I escaped and was cared for by an ice Druid... blah blah blah).

In other words, a backstory is just for fun and should not affect rolls at the table. Sure, a player should work with a DM to make sure it all makes sense in the context of the world, but that should be a very low hurdle if the DM has outlined some base expectations (e.g. this is a high fantasy pseudo-Medieval campaign - no gunpowder, no robots, and absolutely no rapiers).

 

[Erechel]

Not to nit pick but a short rest after every fight isn’t typical. A short rest after every 2 fights maybe, but doubtful. My game is a short rest every 4-6 fights. What you are describing is a nova, just say so.

I have never seen or been in a game where you can take your warhorse into a dungeon, let alone have it live past the first or second encounter. Your horse has an average of 19 HP and various things can get you off it so you cant take the damage for it. I don’t see how it survives the first area attack in good shape at your level (6). I guess your group fails most group stealth checks no?

A troll can fit into many places a horse can’t, it’s shape is more malleable then a horse, but if your DM allows all the above I would have played a Paladin instead.

A Paladin gets an intelligent mount, so it acts on its own turns and you can communicate telepathically with it. Therefore you can prone them your shield then have your warhorse attack them with advantage for 2d6+4. In addition a Paladin can cast a spell with self as range and it affects both, so a Paladin can cast a smite spell on himself and can have his horse use the smite spell also. A Paladin on his mount is a holy terror.

A warhorse has these attacks also, RAW a PC can’t direct it to attack as it only has 3 action options and attack isn’t one. I would change that if you took the mounted combat feat. I would definitely talk to your DM about it as you have made a substantial investment in mounted combat.

The lance as a dueling weapon I consider an exploit, on horseback it is used across the second arm or rested on a shield in addition to being cradled under the arm. It requires Dueling is intended to reflect precision, a weapon condition that require you to be seated on a mount to me isn’t as intended. I would definitely not allow dueling there, that is IMO not RAI. But then I would also not allow a horse into a dungeon in most cases either, or would just have an intelligent enemy immediately try to dismount you or attack the horse, as most intelligent creatures would. Or set their reach weapons to receive a charge. I will ask Crawford though for what it’s worth about the lance though.

Edit- I checked the lance discussion and the rules for it RAW are absurd. RAW a halfling riding a dog can use a lance for D12 as a weapon since the lance doesn’t have the heavy property. With the dual wielder feat the same halfling could use 2 lances while mounted and attack with both from the back of his riding dog.

Yes there is a problem here. If your DM allows it though go for it!

I see no contradiction on Lance rules with Dueling whatsoever, and it is RAW and RAI as it fits the concept of the knight swell; I'm not saying that absurdiness of the halfling on a dog with 2 lances (that I neither see that absurd per se, or at least when you have a lot of absurdiness and cheese in many, many multiclasses). It isn't a two handed weapon. And I've made the Sword damage and it is 32. And no, nova isn't that. Nova is to use Action Surge and the four attacks with the superiority dice in the first round for 68 damage. In fact, as I've said, the horses keep dying (it appears that you did ignore that). Until now, I'm with my 4th horse. And also said that it was sustained in real gameplay, both as player and GM. We played on at least 2 dungeons, but also in mountain ranges and cities, and in the wilderness. Only two times I couldn't use my horse. And no, we didn't fumble most of our stealth checks, because we don't make group stealth checks. The monk is burdened with exploration, so I don't have to. And luring people to the right position is key for any group with minimum strategy.

I've also said that a short rest per fight isn't a bad assumption when you aren't taking in account any other source of resolution. Take poison, for example. With that only you increase damage by 2.5 for one minute (27.5 average, resourceless damage without OAs or critical hits). Also, using terrain features (both natural or provoked, such as stakes and caltrops) increase damage output; for example when you push a creature against fire (oil or alchemic fire thrown to the ground or tents), or knock it prone over caltrops, even without GM's fiat. And also, I've mentioned that maneuvers aren't only a "plus damage" issue: fear itself from Menacing Strike is a big go-to. We tend to make 2 fights per short rest, but also the fights tend to last less than five rounds, perhaps between 2 and 3. Enemies won't fight to the death unless pushed to, and once you have disabled their "big guns" (like Spellcasters, which I do, because I can't be surprised and have +5 to Initiative because of Alert), they tend to behave accordingly. I usually hamper spellcasters both via massive damage or via disarms and grapples to prevent casting, so I don't worry about AOE, and not that many CR 6 creatures have AOE. Lures are a part of our usual strategy (enemies tend to fear me, so we use other PCs to lure enemies, but when the enemy is stupid enough to not fear me, I'm the bait). As for the "Set pikes for charge": lunging strike. 15 feet reach with lance. And I always act first (+5 ini, no surprise).

Most of our troll fights end with the monk using its cape to blind them (grapple from the back) and my character pushing them from a cliff, or by sword burning with oil and fire (+1 fire damage, the sword is ruined after the fight; I don't mind because I can repair them). I'm quoting actual sessions. Most of our humanoid or beast fights (like winter wolves) end with the enemy routing after I take out their leaders and the monk cuts the grass (we are mostly a 3 man group, with one extra character each session). As a matter of fact, our GM is aware of our strengths, and uses beefed up monsters (trolls with ice attacks and 18 AC) merely to compensate our fighting proficiency. When I GM, fights are very difficult also, except with big dumb monsters. Armies of goblins or knights have a lot more resources than AOE.

As I've said, it is sustained over extensive gameplay.