Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

See this is EXACTLY the reasoning I am talking about. It will not hurt the game, it gives no particular mechanical advantage and hurts no one. Why would we not help a player have more fun?

Will other barbarians be "ripped off?" I could see this character making friends with outlander sorts of barbarians.

To me, the way i see it, the concept of the urban jungle where the downtrodden and outcasts have more in common with the roaming tribes of hunter gatherers than the room-with-soft-bed-and-stove-in-winter city folk seems an obvious concept to me. Could even be seen as tribal in nature - existing in the shadows of the cities instead of the distant plains or hills.

There would be a f'ton lot of room to play there and develop for you "city-barbarian concept.

i would however express the unarmored defense based on con to be most exactly the same rationale for barbarian in thw wild - constant exposure to elements and hazards without all the city comforts - even though they are all around them.

Recalling a scene from that Dennis Quaid global warming movie where the NYC homeless man's survival skills play a huge role once the power goes out and the weather rolls in. pretty much mimics the barbarian once the party gets outside of town - and they were in a friggin' library.

Again, to me, some classes carry more baggage than others but there is a lot of room to play.

The urban barbarian urchin underclass doesn't invalidate the other barbarians and doesn't make their existence look out of place or stupid. So, i would have no problem with it - speaking for myself.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Out of curiosity, what are the advantages of the classic archetypes? Is it primarily nostalgia and familiarity? (Not denigrating that as a preference, I've watched plenty of reboots of '80s shows lately!)

In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)

 

[Warpiglet]

To me, the way i see it, the concept of the urban jungle where the downtrodden and outcasts have more in common with the roaming tribes of hunter gatherers than the room-with-soft-bed-and-stove-in-winter city folk seems an obvious concept to me. Could even be seen as tribal in nature - existing in the shadows of the cities instead of the distant plains or hills.

There would be a f'ton lot of room to play there and develop for you "city-barbarian concept.

i would however express the unarmored defense based on con to be most exactly the same rationale for barbarian in thw wild - constant exposure to elements and hazards without all the city comforts - even though they are all around them.

Recalling a scene from that Dennis Quaid global warming movie where the NYC homeless man's survival skills play a huge role once the power goes out and the weather rolls in. pretty much mimics the barbarian once the party gets outside of town - and they were in a friggin' library.

Again, to me, some classes carry more baggage than others but there is a lot of room to play.

The urban barbarian urchin underclass doesn't invalidate the other barbarians and doesn't make their existence look out of place or stupid. So, i would have no problem with it - speaking for myself.

The funny thing in this thread is that in truth, even people with opposing viewpoints are not diametrically opposed. I would even venture a guess that most participants on either side of the debate could comfortably play at the same table. Most.

Its like politics in America. We are totally cool with eachother until we find out the other person votes straight party ticket for X. All of a sudden I expect they eat babies!

All kidding aside, I think some worry about the jerk that tries to overturn the game. I am clearly more concerned about DMs railroading. Both happen. The one you worry about the most is likely more in line with personal experience.

This whole time I am advocating for the fun of less rigid fluff to inspire fun multi classing, I am a total "anti-cheese" middle of the road player who could not stand stacking prestige classes and do not like stat arrays devoid of character. I like to have PCs with personality (with all that entails) backstories and engage in cooperative good-natured play. I don't like screwing over other players or wrecking the campaign world (how could I unless the DM is drunk?). In fact, I am usually trying to find reasons to follow DM story hooks if I can (if it is a total no go, then the DM has to be flexible). But I digress...

 

[5ekyu]

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!

I am pretty sure the use of the term "power play" in the post you quoted was meant as a social player to gm one, not "class power" which you seem to be transitioning it towards.

its a guess but it seemed clear from the context to me.

As for me, if your character enters a bargain with an NPC that is as powerful as a fiend or a divinity and in exchange they give you access to ongoing powers etc etc I will be very very very explicit in discussion with you (and in-game discussion with PC) that that does come with baggage and strings and at least a few bits of how it can go badly if this arrangement doesn't work out as well as hoped.

if at the player side at that moment you explain to me about player agency and the intent of the developers and how divinities have to keep providing spells and chanellings no matter what your character does - thats likely not going to end up the way you want - but it will end up successful by my standards.

 

[5ekyu]

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.

"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. "

For me as player my response to your challnge would be "because i am still undercontract and still doing whatever services the contract and deal requires. Does the patron not gain if his "partner/pawn" gets more powerful with sorcerer levels that the patron does not have to fuel? his contract gains power, his asset becomes better and more useful without him having to invest more. That seems a win-win."

That assumes of course that the GM **did his job** when the pact was agreed to and the player characert and the patron (and the player and the GM) came to mutual agreeable terms. The text tells you very clearly to work out those details with the Gm at the start.

The idea that a patron MUST INSIST the character only ever gain power again from it - seems a bit contrived and even illogical. You have him under contract, why not let him get more powerful on his own and then use him that much more?

As a GM, i would simply do my job and the player and i would work out these details without the notion of "patron is my pet" really ever getting off the ground. believe me, when the player got those extra sorc levels in - no problem - the patron can use that too.

if a player and character couldn't come to a mutual agreed upon pact with their Gm and patron - then well - that is not a warlock multi-class level then. Try again when you have more to offer.

As for the OMG WHAT POWER LEVEL ETC bias - if you find the multi-class rules unbalancing or even specific combos unbalancing in your game as you run it - or any sub-class or any class or any feat or any... just alter the rules or throw them out. In my experience its cleaner to do that than get your dander up over what you think a player is conjuring up behind their eyes with all of that "suddenly everybody got creative" type rambles.

but thats just how i see it.

 

[5ekyu]

In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)

joining in on this note - the more "alien" and unfamiliar your setting is the more effort it takes to get started and "into it" the more difficult you make bringing players in - in my experience too.

In those cases, i tend to go the "buck rodgers" or thomas covenant - sans whining" route and drop the PCs as "everyman" into the alien environment so that as the characters learn their players learn.

 

[smbakeresq]

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.

But it is a balance consideration. If you ignore it, then you give the players carte blanche, that leads to murder hobo Devotion Paladins, Oathbreaker Paladins that love the their team, Hexblade MC for all CHR classes, everything. If that fits into your world for your PC then it also has to fit into the rest of your world, all other peoples and nations.

If you just run adventures without a fully developed game world, I use World of Greyhawk mostly but sometimes Forgotten Realms for PoTA and SKT, then it doesn't matter, you essentially run a series of one-offs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The 5e devs deliberately wrote out any power-removing mechanic (they have a power-swapping option with Oathbreakers), because they have realised for years that it is inherently unfair for some players to be penalised just because their player chose one of the allowed classes, while other classes can do what they like and don't get punished in the metagame by removing the mechanical abilities of the class.

The devs want players to pick whatever class and available power for ANY class, not just the ones unconnected to a god/patron/whatever.

I hate DMs who slaver at the mouth when they hear that a player has chosen a cleric or a paladin because the DM thinks he has carte blanche to take the player's agency away using the threat of taking class abilities away.

Agreed. There are bad DMs out there, who specifically targeted divine players and tried to make them break their oaths/vows/whatever. By removing that language from the book, they aren't seen as encouraging such over-zealous DMing.

But that assumes everyone is playing in good faith. It doesn't account for players who take certain class options for their mechanical aspects, without any intent of playing the character in an appropriate way. The exact nature of divine spellcasting is vague, which means it's up to the DM to interpret how they want it to work in their own setting, and one cleric playing by different (narrative) rules than every other cleric in the world would still be an aberration.

 

[smbakeresq]

In a more general sense, familiarity with established archetypes is the major reason why fantasy is such a dominant genre in general. If everyone knows what a paladin and a barbarian are, then you don't need to spend any time explaining them, and you can get right to the game/story/whatever. The longer it takes you to explain how your setting works, the more of your audience you lose before the action starts. (It's a big problem with science fiction, because the closest thing they there is to classic archetypes in sci-fi is just Star Trek, and that's all protected IP.)

This is of course correct. Most times a player who wants to do something different with his PC can just play it differently, but they wont do that so they need to change a class in somewhere to give them guiderails. Being competitive gamers of course they build in an advantage without knowing it, if you let the DM know in advance they can give you their thoughts on it to keep it consistent.

 

[5ekyu]

But it is a balance consideration. If you ignore it, then you give the players carte blanche, that leads to murder hobo Devotion Paladins, Oathbreaker Paladins that love the their team, Hexblade MC for all CHR classes, everything. If that fits into your world for your PC then it also has to fit into the rest of your world, all other peoples and nations.

If you just run adventures without a fully developed game world, I use World of Greyhawk mostly but sometimes Forgotten Realms for PoTA and SKT, then it doesn't matter, you essentially run a series of one-offs.

The underlying premise you put forth is that its a problem if balance-wise the multi-pally-whatever combos go murderhobo with no devotion type consequences *but* its not a problem for say a straight single class fighter or wizard or sorc or rogue (no devotion - no oath - no dip) to do the same? balance-wise?

Does this imbalance problem not exist if you have the same characters following their devotions - balance-wise? is the power level in play of pally-lock-sorc whatevers fine as long as they follow that oath and pact to the letter?

if not, then you are conflating the oath-devotion thingy and the power levels imbalance for no reason.

your problem seems to be the power gain from multi-classing and you seem to keep wrapping it up in narrative devotion paper.

they are very different things.

they have very different solutions if one views them as problems to be solved.

.