Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Ovinomancer]

Again, as you don't seem to understand what I'm saying, I'd appreciate you lack of response.

No, I get it. You're trying to say that if you indulge one player, it may be to the detriment of the others. Your example was indulging a PC killer. However, that example clearly violates a healthy social contract. If you assume a healthy social contract, where players are not intentionally being jerks to one another (including the DM), then your point kind of dies on the vine. In that case, insisting on rigid definition of class is EXACTLY the same kind of behavior as allowing a refluff -- one player is asserting their preference to the expense of the other. Your example only looks at it from the direction of the play you don't prefer, but, given a health social contract at the table, a compromise can clearly be established such that everyone benefits. Instead, you postulate jerks.

Try making your argument without invoking jerks. And, preferably, without being one yourself.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[smbakeresq]

With thousands of people discussing char op for years I haven't heard anyone say here's a one level dip you must take or your character will be under powered.

I haven't either but that's approaching the problem from the wrong direction. I get what you are saying though.

The direction is most recently "Dip Hexblade 1 for all of its benefits with CHR Pc's and don't worry about any background, backstory or whatever just use its great benefits." While you do not have to do so, its clear Sorcerers and Bards gain IMMENSLY from a 1 level Hexblade dip, Paladins certainly do also, there are whole threads dedicated to it and every guide instantly changed when that class came out.

My position is sure, but you better have a good backstory and reason why the pact power continues to work since it a binding contract with dark entities, it says so right in the description of warlocks and hexblade in particular.

There are essentially 2 positions in the many pages here. One is roughly mine, that the DM might not allow it and you need to think about it and work it out in some way. I apply this in general to everything, it is a fantasy game but even within that construct there are some rules, both written explicitly and implied by the full text of the books, that give a consistency to the game.

The other is everything is irrelevant that isn't hard-coded into the actual rules under hexblade, if it isn't strictly forbidden then its allowed, its my fluff and any DM that would present any restriction on it is unreasonable and terrible and ruining my game. Everything is RAW, the only RAI is my interpretation, and no descriptive text matters, and if the DM says so F him.

Something like the Lance argument I am involved in is minor, I wouldn't allow a Lance to use dueling weapon style. To me its clearly a loophole in the rules to which a joke thread was around 4 years ago. I don't think that is what was intended by the designers (RAI) but I don't know, its clearly RAW. To support my position a photo was posted and an absurd example was made, that halfling on a dog could technically wield 2 6lb lances with reach and benefit from two weapon fighting style and dual wielder feat as long as the halfling was mounted, but could not even use a shorter, 6lb glaive. Its is RAW, but logically there is not consistency there, so I think that's absurd, but I also said if your DM allows it go for it. That's not really an argument, its just a different style. If you can get a DM to buy it good for you. Not all RAW is correct, there is an entire forum on that, and the errata comes out all the time.

But it is clear to me that many were suddenly struck by a bolt of creative inspiration when Hexblade changes came out, and then started to figure out how they could get around the restrictive text that is not actually presented as a rule. This happens all the time when in all games when something comes out that is just flat out better, very few just state "wow this is really good, borderline OP or at least build defining, I need to use this. I need to talk to the DM to work this out, the restrictions in the flavor text should give me a downside to this so I can use it as a hook with the DM." Instead they try to figure out how to sell it to the DM with no limitations, to force it upon the DM, and then get mad when they get shot down for it. All I am trying is to give big picture views, don't be surprised if your DM says no.

In another thread I made an assertation that an immobile iron golem makes no noise, I was told that since the rules for golems don't say they are silent when immobile then they must make noise so my assumption was wrong, if I as a DM decided that they didn't make a noise when immobile then somehow I was screwing my players. Well, RAW the rules don't say they are silent and appear to be statues when immobile, however in 38 years of reading descriptive text of golems in various modules (including the one discussed in the golem description) that's my opinion. I was then told my experience was irrelevant to the discussion. There is that type of player out there.

 

[smbakeresq]

Do people still think that background hooks like the paladin Oath and the warlock Patron exist as a balance consideration? That's obviously an atavism from the game's wargame roots (like when a paladin had more powerful abilities than a fighter, but had constraints on his ability to take certain effective actions, like use poison or hoard magic items).

The whole point of the background hooks are to generate conflict in roleplaying, not to channel the character into certain actions. And conflict is good!

Not as much today even though the Paladin is still better than the fighter. But it is part of the whole idea, like alignment. Some just blow it off as a non consideration, just pick a Paladin oath they think is most powerful mechanically and just ignore everything else. Most don't even pick alignment or deity or anything any more, its a pen and paper video game where if a response to an action isn't coded in then it has no effect. I had a necromancer (in his defense he was 14) who didn't understand walking into civilized large town in good-aligned country with undead behind you would have repercussions with the locals.

As an older player, those things still matter to me.

 

[TwoSix]

Not as much today even though the Paladin is still better than the fighter. But it is part of the whole idea, like alignment. Some just blow it off as a non consideration, just pick a Paladin oath they think is most powerful mechanically and just ignore everything else. Most don't even pick alignment or deity or anything any more, its a pen and paper video game where if a response to an action isn't coded in then it has no effect. I had a necromancer (in his defense he was 14) who didn't understand walking into civilized large town in good-aligned country with undead behind you would have repercussions with the locals.

As an older player, those things still matter to me.

It's not that it shouldn't be a consideration, it's just not a balance consideration. It should be used to drive interesting roleplay. That's why it's OK (balance wise) to ignore or reframe it. Obviously, if you want to reinforce the constraints because that's what you've always done, that's fine too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am going to make this very simple for you.

First time, I reply and I say nicely that you don't get it.

Second time when you write responding to me in a jerky fashion, you get a one-liner.

Third time, you get this.

There is no fourth time. Understand?

You don't get what I am saying, at all, and you are arguing with something that wasn't directed to you because you fail to understand an analogy. So let me explain this in simple terms-

What is acceptable at one table, is not at another. I used a very specific example (PvP) because most people would understand that this is something that a) is beyond the social norms at MOST tables, yet b) was allowed at SOME tables. Which you seem to have missed, instead asserting that this was unacceptable at ALL TABLES.

And that is the entire point of this discussion. Some preference do not have a mutual compromise. If I am going to run ToTM onle, and someone else wants tactical combat, that's not something that can be compromised. If a table wants to run ONLY classic archetypes and NO multiclassing, and a new player wants to run the coolest new UA thing, that's not something that is reasonably compromised either.

Yeah, compromise should always be achieved, and that's why we communicate; but sometimes compromise means someone has to give up their fun for the greater good. And maybe it means that the player killer becomes a team player for the campaign, and everyone agrees to play the occasional one-shot of Paranoia.

Now, please do not respond to me again in this thread. Thanks!

I do get your point, I get it violently. You seem to be missing mine. Different tables play differently, yes, totes agree. My point is that when responding to 'why not indulge' with PC killing as a replacement argument, you're insinuating that the other poster can't tell the difference between a behavior that is compromising within the social contract and one that breaks it. That's not necessary to make your point, which, again, is 100% valid. If everyone at your table prefers strong class fiction, then the answer to 'why not indulge' is 'we don't like to play that way.' Not 'imagine that instead of a class fiction change for your character, the issue is a PC killer...' Your examples are so clearly bad that the consideration of them stops at, 'well, I wouldn't play with a jerk.' That's my point -- you keep hiding yours behind over-the-top examples.

Now, I recognize that this response may cause an automatic block by you without even reading it or considering it. As I enjoy your posts, and think you have a great viewpoint to contribute, that saddens me. However, one of my flaws is to run straight at bullying, and, frankly, your post above is an attempt to silence me through bullying. I think you're better than that.

Prove me right.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

Prove me right.

Aaaand, no, I'm wrong.

 

[Warpiglet]

Not as much today even though the Paladin is still better than the fighter. But it is part of the whole idea, like alignment. Some just blow it off as a non consideration, just pick a Paladin oath they think is most powerful mechanically and just ignore everything else. Most don't even pick alignment or deity or anything any more, its a pen and paper video game where if a response to an action isn't coded in then it has no effect. I had a necromancer (in his defense he was 14) who didn't understand walking into civilized large town in good-aligned country with undead behind you would have repercussions with the locals.

As an older player, those things still matter to me.

I am OLD school. Well, 1st edition anyway. These things matter to me too.

The difference for me is that changing the fluff of a class for one character does not automatically mean all laws of reality or all shared assumptions about the game are thrown out. In fact, a player could never have such power over a campaign and I don't know that anyone is advocating for that.

I think this is a false equivalence. If I allow one character to follow a philosophy and not a god as a cleric, I do not think that means that suddenly townsfolk are suddenly cool with dead people stomping through town (i.e. zombies).

If a character insists that his retainers are undead in place of the servants of the noble background feature I would allow it but be clear: they are still noncombatants (no change in mechanics) will also run from fights, not go in a dungeon or anything like that.

They can look how you want and moan "brains" as they fix your lunch. But you better stay rural...if you go into civilization, pitch forks and fire will assail you all and probably fatally. My world did not get rocked...if he abuses the refluff, his world will get rocked.

As an aside, that sounds like a fun re-fluffing for a wizard of formerly noble background that I just pulled out of my a**. The character somehow found a way to keep his servants forever...its creepy, its unique and there would be a lot of funny stories told within an outside of the game regarding this.

I used the feature with a warlock and had the retainers refluffed as three unearthly elven maidens with red eyes that wanted to follow him and his burgeoning cult. I left many details blank. The DM could add unearthly events around them and it was all for feel. They took care of the horses while we went into dungeons.

Where is the harm?

I think the harm comes when we imagine a terrible ripple effect in the campaign world. Maybe there is one and maybe not. It is situational.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am OLD school. Well, 1st edition anyway. These things matter to me too.

The difference for me is that changing the fluff of a class for one character does not automatically mean all laws of reality or all shared assumptions about the game are thrown out. In fact, a player could never have such power over a campaign and I don't know that anyone is advocating for that.

I think this is a false equivalence. If I allow one character to follow a philosophy and not a god as a cleric, I do not think that means that suddenly townsfolk are suddenly cool with dead people stomping through town (i.e. zombies).

If a character insists that his retainers are undead in place of the servants of the noble background feature I would allow it but be clear: they are still noncombatants (no change in mechanics) will also run from fights, not go in a dungeon or anything like that.

They can look how you want and moan "brains" as they fix your lunch. But you better stay rural...if you go into civilization, pitch forks and fire will assail you all and probably fatally. My world did not get rocked...if he abuses the refluff, his world will get rocked.

As an aside, that sounds like a fun re-fluffing for a wizard of formerly noble background that I just pulled out of my a**. The character somehow found a way to keep his servants forever...its creepy, its unique and there would be a lot of funny stories told within an outside of the game regarding this.

I used the feature with a warlock and had the retainers refluffed as three unearthly elven maidens with red eyes that wanted to follow him and his burgeoning cult. I left many details blank. The DM could add unearthly events around them and it was all for feel. They took care of the horses while we went into dungeons.

Where is the harm?

I think the harm comes when we imagine a terrible ripple effect in the campaign world. Maybe there is one and maybe not. It is situational.

I agree with your gist, here. I think it also helps if you view your world not being built according to the PC rules -- ie, everyone that fights isn't a fighter (or barbarian, or...). 5e, I feel, explicitly does this with the NPC write-ups being similar to some classes, but not being those classes but something -- lesser. In this world, there's much less reason to have strict class fiction because the PC classes are already the exceptions.

Now, in a world where most ARE built to PC rules, then it can make more sense to have a stricter class fiction because everyone who fights is a fighter.