Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

I would expand on what @DMDave1 said above. The passage you quoted refers specifically to working with the DM to create a new mechanical benefit for a custom background. It does not in any way state that you need the DM's permission to alter class fluff to, for example, have a Barbarian PC who aspires for their tribe to join civilization rather than viewing civilization as a form of weakness.

Having the rest of your tribe agree with you that civilization is a good thing would require DM buy-in by default, since the other tribe members are NPCs, but a PC's personal opinion of civilization is normally entirely up to the player. If a specific opinion of civilization would somehow create problems for a specific game, the DM can totally ask the player to change it, but, absent such a request, the player is doing nothing wrong by unilaterally determining their character's opinions.

of all the fluff texts any part of it that is seen as "determining character opinions" of PCs is to me a case of bad rulebook writing. When dealing with "opinions of the characters" or outlooks or viewpoints IMO they should be stated as "some feel" or "it is common..." and i tend to take it as such when i GM.

like i said - i have no problem with a civilized barbarian and have no issues working out the backstory with the player - even if that working out turns out to be "yeah this is fine".

but lets look at a bit beyond the "opinions of the character."

Consider...
"My sorcerer is actually a studious scholarly type and his sorcerer abilities are not actually derived by drawing on heritage but on a variety of rare incantations and rituals he has learned and performs. So his ancestry fiend armor and so on (all his ancestry features and class abilities ) are not due to a fiendish dalliance but just something he learned to create thru sophisticated magic rituals and specialized mastery."

here, the player generated backstory basically vaporizes the entire fluff for the class and shifts pretty close to that of the wizard.

if allowed, any "distrust" between wizards or organized magics and "natural casters" would not seem to apply - tho other biases could. if allowed, others might seek him out to get him to show them the rituals etc - whether he can or not. if allowed the player has added to the world that the entire sorcerer fluff can be handwaved away and the entire ancestry bit becomes just "one way to get to those effects" and not something linked to them both ways.

is this also a case of "character picks their fluff" one sees as "automatic player choice"?"
is this unquestionably "player right - gm hands off" when it comes to a character for a campaign?

Even the CHA vs INT can be explained with a bit of "compelling bound spirits" or other type of fluff.

Even an INT 8 can be as well... lots of time spent on researching these kept me from other normal studies.

What if the bookish student studying rituals and dark arts came upon the arts that let him bind into himself special magic macfluffies that allowed him to...

insert fighter class stats.
insert rogue class stats.
insert cleric class stats without divinity needed.
etc etc etc.

Does a Gm have any say whatsoever in this being inserted into his campaign if he has not absolutely and explicitly forbade any way it could be fluffed up beforehand in some mega-tome of nots?

 

[TwoSix]

Consider...
"My sorcerer is actually a studious scholarly type and his sorcerer abilities are not actually derived by drawing on heritage but on a variety of rare incantations and rituals he has learned and performs. So his ancestry fiend armor and so on (all his ancestry features and class abilities ) are not due to a fiendish dalliance but just something he learned to create thru sophisticated magic rituals and specialized mastery."

here, the player generated backstory basically vaporizes the entire fluff for the class and shifts pretty close to that of the wizard.

if allowed, any "distrust" between wizards or organized magics and "natural casters" would not seem to apply - tho other biases could. if allowed, others might seek him out to get him to show them the rituals etc - whether he can or not. if allowed the player has added to the world that the entire sorcerer fluff can be handwaved away and the entire ancestry bit becomes just "one way to get to those effects" and not something linked to them both ways.

Seems like an awesome amount of flavor for a player to add, this is the sort of concept you can build a setting around.

is this also a case of "character picks their fluff" one sees as "automatic player choice"?"
is this unquestionably "player right - gm hands off" when it comes to a character for a campaign?

Nothing is unquestionable, but this would certainly fall into the "DM would need a very specific reason to say no" category.

Even the CHA vs INT can be explained with a bit of "compelling bound spirits" or other type of fluff.

Even an INT 8 can be as well... lots of time spent on researching these kept me from other normal studies.

An excellent interpretation, and exactly the kind of thing I appreciate a player thinking of.

What if the bookish student studying rituals and dark arts came upon the arts that let him bind into himself special magic macfluffies that allowed him to...

insert fighter class stats.
insert rogue class stats.
insert cleric class stats without divinity needed.
etc etc etc.

The great part of magic Macguffins is that they can justify darn near anything. Just an example, what is Buffy the Vampire Slayer but a fighter with a magical backstory?

Does a Gm have any say whatsoever in this being inserted into his campaign if he has not absolutely and explicitly forbade any way it could be fluffed up beforehand in some mega-tome of nots?

The GM always has a say. But unless this is being inserted into an running game with already established narrative that this concept would contradict, the DM does her game and her players little good by saying no.

 

[Warpiglet]

of all the fluff texts any part of it that is seen as "determining character opinions" of PCs is to me a case of bad rulebook writing. When dealing with "opinions of the characters" or outlooks or viewpoints IMO they should be stated as "some feel" or "it is common..." and i tend to take it as such when i GM.

like i said - i have no problem with a civilized barbarian and have no issues working out the backstory with the player - even if that working out turns out to be "yeah this is fine".

but lets look at a bit beyond the "opinions of the character."

Consider...
"My sorcerer is actually a studious scholarly type and his sorcerer abilities are not actually derived by drawing on heritage but on a variety of rare incantations and rituals he has learned and performs. So his ancestry fiend armor and so on (all his ancestry features and class abilities ) are not due to a fiendish dalliance but just something he learned to create thru sophisticated magic rituals and specialized mastery."

here, the player generated backstory basically vaporizes the entire fluff for the class and shifts pretty close to that of the wizard.

if allowed, any "distrust" between wizards or organized magics and "natural casters" would not seem to apply - tho other biases could. if allowed, others might seek him out to get him to show them the rituals etc - whether he can or not. if allowed the player has added to the world that the entire sorcerer fluff can be handwaved away and the entire ancestry bit becomes just "one way to get to those effects" and not something linked to them both ways.

is this also a case of "character picks their fluff" one sees as "automatic player choice"?"
is this unquestionably "player right - gm hands off" when it comes to a character for a campaign?

Even the CHA vs INT can be explained with a bit of "compelling bound spirits" or other type of fluff.

Even an INT 8 can be as well... lots of time spent on researching these kept me from other normal studies.

What if the bookish student studying rituals and dark arts came upon the arts that let him bind into himself special magic macfluffies that allowed him to...

insert fighter class stats.
insert rogue class stats.
insert cleric class stats without divinity needed.
etc etc etc.

Does a Gm have any say whatsoever in this being inserted into his campaign if he has not absolutely and explicitly forbade any way it could be fluffed up beforehand in some mega-tome of nots?

I think there is a false dichotomy here. The idea PC snowflake creates a blizzard in the world does not necessarily follow.

I like the idea of warlocks learning from a teacher and not being "granted" spells per se. Looking through tomes and learning how to bargain with an entity sounds cool to me. Being unskilled and POOF! instant magic power because I repeated Dispater three times in a row does not seem cool. The power is the same, but the story does not sound fun.

Maybe the DM has most of his warlocks being granted spells.

How does my backstory change all of that? My character is a little different but the DM can run the hundreds or thousands of gifted NPCs as he chooses. His societal institutions and people's assumptions may be in line with the PHB fluff. If my PC does not fit the mold he does not necessarily break it...or the DMs world.

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. There are so many work arounds that eventually become work-togethers. I have a monotheistic continent. Two players want to worship Norse Gods. Cool. You are strangers in a strange land. Have at it.

Meanwhile, I run the world as I see fit and NPCs follow the power I have designed. The PCs might seem looney to some or as heretics by others, but my world, as I designed it, is intact.

Would we have fun if I insisted that the characters conform to my world? It is so easy to make exceptions and does not break anything.

 

[5ekyu]

Seems like an awesome amount of flavor for a player to add, this is the sort of concept you can build a setting around.


Nothing is unquestionable, but this would certainly fall into the "DM would need a very specific reason to say no" category.


An excellent interpretation, and exactly the kind of thing I appreciate a player thinking of.


The great part of magic Macguffins is that they can justify darn near anything. Just an example, what is Buffy the Vampire Slayer but a fighter with a magical backstory?


The GM always has a say. But unless this is being inserted into an running game with already established narrative that this concept would contradict, the DM does her game and her players little good by saying no.

I agree with about 95%+ of what you say here. Like i have said, i have no problem with the civie barbarian or even the wolfy sex tricks as the starting point of a discussion about how things tie together and fit or dont fit the campaign.

My general mindset is "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no."

Buffy is absolutely a fighter or monk more precisely archetype with supernatural origin - even to the bound spirits angle.

a GM should strongly consider allowing it if it fits within the scope of the campaign he and the players have devised. IMO. i would certainly do so.

But this should not be brought to the table as a player's right" to add and GM hands off territory. IMO.

because the Gm might well have a very compelling reason to say no.

 

[Satyrn]

I agree with about 95%+ of what you say here. Like i have said, i have no problem with the civie barbarian or even the wolfy sex tricks as the starting point of a discussion about how things tie together and fit or dont fit the campaign.

My general mindset is "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no."

Buffy is absolutely a fighter or monk more precisely archetype with supernatural origin - even to the bound spirits angle.

a GM should strongly consider allowing it if it fits within the scope of the campaign he and the players have devised. IMO. i would certainly do so.

But this should not be brought to the table as a player's right" to add and GM hands off territory. IMO.

because the Gm might well have a very compelling reason to say no.

So, like, I'm pretty sure [MENTION=6799649]Arial Black[/MENTION] could chime in and say "that's what I've been saying from the start!"

 

[smbakeresq]

A few things...

obviously campaigns differ. they have different degrees of intensity and attention to detail etc. they have different pacings. So as far as some of those above...

Short rest every fight - i can certainly see a campaign style where short rests or even long rests occur after **nearly** every fight if not all (whether or not that counts as "known" to the PCs or not.) It also depends on how one differentiates a single fight from an extended encounter. A classic cyberpunk style campaign is the "Blue Light Special" where the PCs are emergency rescue teams for eithe rhigh paying clients or part of a government outfit. They get a "code red" from a high price client, jet into the fray, extract their client and get back to base. That sets up the vast majority of their outings as one-and-done.

In such a campaign there would be obviously some times things get more complicated but for the vast majority of cases where they aren't the Gm would adjust his encounter balance efforts to take into account the "fully loaded - no hold back" aspects.

So, every one or every two or every three or two per long rest in a set of 6-8 are all just baselines that provide a consitent benchmark to help with the balancing - not right or wrong or RAW or non-RAW. Campaigns and groups define the game, not the other way around.

Mounts, warhorses, pets and other considerations...

Just two sessions ago in the weekly game i play in our group had our horses killed and our wagons stolen when four "gruesomes" (my PCs named for this homebrew monster type of my Gm) rolled into our caravan in thew hills and rolled us up pretty solidly so that we barely made it out with the gear on our backs and most of the PCs. they went for the horses first, since they were big enough to pull the wagons and that kept us from riding any of the wagons away. (For all of 5e's style of not so nitpicky about logistics (see spell component pouch and other examples) they really missed the boat by not including a first level equivalent of a "mount spell" for something as simple as routine travel needs.)

other campaigns i have seen "we tie the horse up outside the delve" and even days later when we come back out of the dungeon the horses are still there and we can begin the trek thru wandering monsters back to the city.

I once started in a supers campaign where the session started at the "scene of the criris" and (as it was explained to me) "that roleplaying part of *sitting in your secret ID at work and how fast do you get here when the alarm* we skip that now to save time" and that is not so much different from older days when "session starts at dungeon door" was not all that rare a bird. i did not stay with that particular supers campaign after the one session as it wasn't what i was after, but they had a blast and it lasted quite a while if i recall.

mechanically speaking...

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.

scratching my head to see how those are particularly any sort of majorly screwed between each other balance-wise.

Quick scan of mounted combat - dont see any special "add to lance" rules.

So, those two do not seem to me to be tragically imbalanced with each other. Do not see why a halfling wouldn't have access to a lance that can be used.

So maybe there is a problem with some class features causing whatever imbalance is believed to exist or a feat causing the imbalance but thats a horse of another color.

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.

 

[5ekyu]

I think there is a false dichotomy here. The idea PC snowflake creates a blizzard in the world does not necessarily follow.

I like the idea of warlocks learning from a teacher and not being "granted" spells per se. Looking through tomes and learning how to bargain with an entity sounds cool to me. Being unskilled and POOF! instant magic power because I repeated Dispater three times in a row does not seem cool. The power is the same, but the story does not sound fun.

Maybe the DM has most of his warlocks being granted spells.

How does my backstory change all of that? My character is a little different but the DM can run the hundreds or thousands of gifted NPCs as he chooses. His societal institutions and people's assumptions may be in line with the PHB fluff. If my PC does not fit the mold he does not necessarily break it...or the DMs world.

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. There are so many work arounds that eventually become work-togethers. I have a monotheistic continent. Two players want to worship Norse Gods. Cool. You are strangers in a strange land. Have at it.

Meanwhile, I run the world as I see fit and NPCs follow the power I have designed. The PCs might seem looney to some or as heretics by others, but my world, as I designed it, is intact.

Would we have fun if I insisted that the characters conform to my world? It is so easy to make exceptions and does not break anything.

Honestly, i cannot suss out what you mean by the difference ebetween warlocks bargaining with entities and repeating dispater three times and how you find the former cool but the Gm wants warlock to have granted spells etc. it seems liike maybe you are mixing and matching wizard and warlock and i got lost.

So i will approach this from the more common warlock player-agency vs setting POV.

Case -1 - The warlock gets his powers from/thru a patron and the bond and relationship and bargain between them is a pivotal aspect of the character. this is an ongoing relationship - and as varied as relationships can be. Some are very friendly and amicable as they work towards common goals for common purpose. others not so much. Some are more parent-child or friends others may be more master and pawn. Lost of places in between. This is a thing the Gm and player should spend enough time on to work out those details.

Case -2 : as a player i decide its a commission basis and my patron now has no say or influence except to offer up powers when i want whether i do what it likes or not.

this tends to hit the nail when the question of "can the patron at all do anything regarding the PCs powers" like say stop an invocation from working or not allow spells to recover etc?

Note the same question can be applied to clerics and their gods... since much the same language is used for both them and the patron warlock and neither explicitly states any ability the patron or deity has to do anything in RAW.

In my games the most common answer would be that this is something we work out as player and Gm but for most of these the answer would be that the patron/diety does have capabilities to affect the subject who it has partnered with on the powers level. it also has certainly got the ability to refuse to allow the character to gain more power from the relationship.

otherwise, it seems its less a relationship, less a character-character thing and more just a prop or pet the player controls.

that guts the nature of the patron-relationships.

Why in the world would all those other warlocks be so dumbfoundingly stupid as to make concessions, give and take, negotiate do services for and so on when they could have just found a nice pet patron to give them what they want for no price and no consequences?

Why are there any contentious bargains between patron and pawns when the pawn could just have chosen the much easier "i am in charge" route to get the exact same powers?

Were all those NPCs in the world who did that just dumb?

Yes, as a Gm i could say "yeah, yours is however you want" and then run the rest of the world by different rules.... but that really makes the rest of the world look pretty dumb if the payoff is the same but the price a lot higher.

So, in my worlds - in general - if you want the warlock patron pact to be a very favorable and friendly thing - its in your best interest to keep that relationship on very very good terms and be a good friend or whatever to your patron so you both get along.

if you are Ok with it being different and there being bumps and fits and starts, thats fine too. occasionally the patron will issue requests and favors and so on and things will play from there as we work that out as we came to agreement on.

but don't expect to be basically "the boss of that patron" and ignore it and do whatever you want and not have it have an impact on that relationship.

In my games at least.

of course, that patron can be a book, but it will be a book with attitude.

 

[Ancalagon]

I agree with about 95%+ of what you say here. Like i have said, i have no problem with the civie barbarian or even the wolfy sex tricks as the starting point of a discussion about how things tie together and fit or dont fit the campaign.

My general mindset is "say yes unless you have a compelling reason to say no."

Buffy is absolutely a fighter or monk more precisely archetype with supernatural origin - even to the bound spirits angle.

a GM should strongly consider allowing it if it fits within the scope of the campaign he and the players have devised. IMO. i would certainly do so.

But this should not be brought to the table as a player's right" to add and GM hands off territory. IMO.

because the Gm might well have a very compelling reason to say no.

Well stated. Player proposes, gm thinks about it , and then approves, rejects, or proposes something that is "adjusted" to fix the lore problem.

Even something very common might clash against the GM's world.

PC "so I'm a barbarian with a battle axe and an iron helm"

GM: "sorry, it's the bronze age"

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Warpiglet]

Honestly, i cannot suss out what you mean by the difference ebetween warlocks bargaining with entities and repeating dispater three times and how you find the former cool but the Gm wants warlock to have granted spells etc. it seems liike maybe you are mixing and matching wizard and warlock and i got lost.

So i will approach this from the more common warlock player-agency vs setting POV.

Case -1 - The warlock gets his powers from/thru a patron and the bond and relationship and bargain between them is a pivotal aspect of the character. this is an ongoing relationship - and as varied as relationships can be. Some are very friendly and amicable as they work towards common goals for common purpose. others not so much. Some are more parent-child or friends others may be more master and pawn. Lost of places in between. This is a thing the Gm and player should spend enough time on to work out those details.

Case -2 : as a player i decide its a commission basis and my patron now has no say or influence except to offer up powers when i want whether i do what it likes or not.

this tends to hit the nail when the question of "can the patron at all do anything regarding the PCs powers" like say stop an invocation from working or not allow spells to recover etc?

Note the same question can be applied to clerics and their gods... since much the same language is used for both them and the patron warlock and neither explicitly states any ability the patron or deity has to do anything in RAW.

In my games the most common answer would be that this is something we work out as player and Gm but for most of these the answer would be that the patron/diety does have capabilities to affect the subject who it has partnered with on the powers level. it also has certainly got the ability to refuse to allow the character to gain more power from the relationship.

otherwise, it seems its less a relationship, less a character-character thing and more just a prop or pet the player controls.

that guts the nature of the patron-relationships.

Why in the world would all those other warlocks be so dumbfoundingly stupid as to make concessions, give and take, negotiate do services for and so on when they could have just found a nice pet patron to give them what they want for no price and no consequences?

Why are there any contentious bargains between patron and pawns when the pawn could just have chosen the much easier "i am in charge" route to get the exact same powers?

Were all those NPCs in the world who did that just dumb?

Yes, as a Gm i could say "yeah, yours is however you want" and then run the rest of the world by different rules.... but that really makes the rest of the world look pretty dumb if the payoff is the same but the price a lot higher.

So, in my worlds - in general - if you want the warlock patron pact to be a very favorable and friendly thing - its in your best interest to keep that relationship on very very good terms and be a good friend or whatever to your patron so you both get along.

if you are Ok with it being different and there being bumps and fits and starts, thats fine too. occasionally the patron will issue requests and favors and so on and things will play from there as we work that out as we came to agreement on.

but don't expect to be basically "the boss of that patron" and ignore it and do whatever you want and not have it have an impact on that relationship.

In my games at least.

of course, that patron can be a book, but it will be a book with attitude.

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.