Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[smbakeresq]

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.

The assumption of everyone playing in good faith is one I thought was true but I am seeing that it isn't.

 

[smbakeresq]

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.

.

No, its also through alignment and world repercussions. But then alignment isn't an issue as I have come to believe from this forum and others its just glossed over. The power level of the pally-lock-sorc, which I think is vastly overstated, isn't an issue as long as you bring it all together with a backstory that makes sense (beyond "I read it was OP on the forums so I want to try it out") and play it correctly according to your power sources and binding agreement with your warlock patron (which will not be hand waived.) If you want the powers that comes with those classes (whose descriptive text indicates that it is granted to you by another being) then you have to be willing to see the limitations also. That means putting in more effort then just figuring out what combo of powers to take.

A simple world repercussion to which new players never seem to get is when I use their identical build and powers against them, with of course the bad guy having zero limitations about collateral damage to innocents, damage to property, etc. Try a bad guy once with the Alert feat, some players will complain its unfair. Its hilarious.

 

[5ekyu]

No, its also through alignment and world repercussions. But then alignment isn't an issue as I have come to believe from this forum and others its just glossed over. The power level of the pally-lock-sorc, which I think is vastly overstated, isn't an issue as long as you bring it all together with a backstory that makes sense (beyond "I read it was OP on the forums so I want to try it out") and play it correctly according to your power sources and binding agreement with your warlock patron (which will not be hand waived.) If you want the powers that comes with those classes (whose descriptive text indicates that it is granted to you by another being) then you have to be willing to see the limitations also. That means putting in more effort then just figuring out what combo of powers to take.

A simple world repercussion to which new players never seem to get is when I use their identical build and powers against them, with of course the bad guy having zero limitations about collateral damage to innocents, damage to property, etc. Try a bad guy once with the Alert feat, some players will complain its unfair. Its hilarious.

A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are not murder hoboing - no power level imbalance problem.

A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are murder hoboing - a power level imbalance problem.

that makes no sense to me as a pair of both true statements for a single given campaign.

I am absolutely on the page of working thru pact, playing thru the fluff etc etc - but - it is from a campaign consistency and state of play position not from a position where i see it is a player balance in party problem.

theres just nothing at all inherent in "i work with my patron and we quest as a group accordingly" that "balances" the power levels at all between those PCs.

Now, a GM might choose to leverage the pact to reduce the power of the character, in which case it is THE GM who is deciding the pact must be a mechanical element, not just narrative and story-producing and narrative-enhancing. That creeps close to the kind of bad GM others seem quite worried about playing under.

As for your alert fetish - again i suggest you fix rules you dont like as opposed to more counter-aggressive and hostile applications. My players haven't objected when encountering "non-surprisable foes" or foes with high init or foes which see invisible... so i dont get your screams in play.

EDIT TO ADD: havent used alignment since Reagan was president so... not an issue for me. Not playing alignment doesn't lead to murderhobos or other bad behaviors any more than playing with alignment prevented them. Alignment is and always was IIRC descriptive.

 

[Satyrn]

No, its also through alignment and world repercussions. But then alignment isn't an issue as I have come to believe from this forum and others its just glossed over. The power level of the pally-lock-sorc, which I think is vastly overstated, isn't an issue as long as you bring it all together with a backstory that makes sense (beyond "I read it was OP on the forums so I want to try it out") and play it correctly according to your power sources and binding agreement with your warlock patron (which will not be hand waived.) If you want the powers that comes with those classes (whose descriptive text indicates that it is granted to you by another being) then you have to be willing to see the limitations also. That means putting in more effort then just figuring out what combo of powers to take.

A simple world repercussion to which new players never seem to get is when I use their identical build and powers against them, with of course the bad guy having zero limitations about collateral damage to innocents, damage to property, etc. Try a bad guy once with the Alert feat, some players will complain its unfair. Its hilarious.

I doubt the power level of that pally-lock-sorc is actually an issue even if there is no backstory/"roleplaying" to tie it together. Has anyone ever played such a character and actually been overwhelmingly stronger than other powergamed single-class characters at the same table?

I mean, a plain sorcerer lobbing fireballs can be a mean mean force to be reckoned with, and there's no powergaming involved in that at all. And in the game I'm playing right now, the strongest character (damage-wise) is the wand of lightning bolts. Er, whoever's holding the wand.

The paladin/warlock in that game, played by one of the group's two powergamers, fits right in the middle of the group, both power-wise and in general effectiveness. (I'm the other one, and my damage sucks - but I have more hit points than the rest of the party combined and I'm an uber-explorer . . . of course that's real easy to accomplish just by selecting "druid")

I just haven't seen multiclassing result in stronger characters.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

But that's an issue of not playing to type, not a balance issue.

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.

Except it doesn't, which is kind of the whole point. It's why I find using class as a purely metagame construct so liberating.

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.

Exactly. You use just enough world to support what your characters are doing.

 

[TwoSix]

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.)

That's a good point. It's why I generally feel that trope heavy, kitchen sink settings are better, outside of a group that's invested in a setting they all have knowledge of.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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 only makes sense if the only archetypes are those within the class fiction. But, say, for the urchin/barbarian? "I'm like Mr. Hyde." Archetype done.

There's a good point that going way off the rails into strangeland has costs that may not get paid. I agree with that. But the baked-in fictions of the classes are not the only readily accessible archetypes that can be used in a fantasy setting. Others exist.

Personally, I see class as what you can do, not necessarily what you are. Quite often there's an agreement, but sometimes there isn't. There's lots of stories in the sometimes that I don't want to write them off. Some aren't worth the effort, some are, but I'm not going to settle for 1 kind of fighter fluff for all fighters.

 

[smbakeresq]

I doubt the power level of that pally-lock-sorc is actually an issue even if there is no backstory/"roleplaying" to tie it together. Has anyone ever played such a character and actually been overwhelmingly stronger than other powergamed single-class characters at the same table?

I mean, a plain sorcerer lobbing fireballs can be a mean mean force to be reckoned with, and there's no powergaming involved in that at all. And in the game I'm playing right now, the strongest character (damage-wise) is the wand of lightning bolts. Er, whoever's holding the wand.

The paladin/warlock in that game, played by one of the group's two powergamers, fits right in the middle of the group, both power-wise and in general effectiveness. (I'm the other one, and my damage sucks - but I have more hit points than the rest of the party combined and I'm an uber-explorer . . . of course that's real easy to accomplish just by selecting "druid")

I just haven't seen multiclassing result in stronger characters.

MC definitely results in a stronger Bard since level 20 is terrible. But you are correct in general. Its not a power level issue, its a story issue. I have an entire world and its all related, especially if its the movers and shakers doing it, which the PCs are. Its like Living Greyhawk, everything has real world affects.

I actually think this edition is much more balanced then the others

 

[smbakeresq]

A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are not murder hoboing - no power level imbalance problem.

A fighter and a sorcerer and a cleric and a pally-lock-sorc (whatever) walk into a bar and meet and go and do things and have adventures that are murder hoboing - a power level imbalance problem.

that makes no sense to me as a pair of both true statements for a single given campaign.

I am absolutely on the page of working thru pact, playing thru the fluff etc etc - but - it is from a campaign consistency and state of play position not from a position where i see it is a player balance in party problem.

theres just nothing at all inherent in "i work with my patron and we quest as a group accordingly" that "balances" the power levels at all between those PCs.

Now, a GM might choose to leverage the pact to reduce the power of the character, in which case it is THE GM who is deciding the pact must be a mechanical element, not just narrative and story-producing and narrative-enhancing. That creeps close to the kind of bad GM others seem quite worried about playing under.

As for your alert fetish - again i suggest you fix rules you dont like as opposed to more counter-aggressive and hostile applications. My players haven't objected when encountering "non-surprisable foes" or foes with high init or foes which see invisible... so i dont get your screams in play.

EDIT TO ADD: havent used alignment since Reagan was president so... not an issue for me. Not playing alignment doesn't lead to murderhobos or other bad behaviors any more than playing with alignment prevented them. Alignment is and always was IIRC descriptive.

I distinctly said its not power level problem.

And since you haven't used alignment since Reagan then you wouldn't know what the difference is between playing with and without is correct? It wasn't descriptive either, see Dragon Magazine, many articles, here is a listing:

"Alignments:

Changing "Betraying Your Evil Nature" Eric Cagle 306(20) D&D3
Clarification "Alignment: A New View of the Nine Philosophies" John Lees 60(72) D&D1
"Another View of the Nine-Point Alignment Scheme" Carl Parlagreco 26(23) D&D1
Evil:
Lawful vs. Chaotic "Evil: Law Vs. Chaos" Gary Gygax 28(10) D&D1
Playing evil characters "How To Have a Good Time Being Evil" Roger E. Moore 45(60) D&D1
"Play a Villain? An Evil Idea" Brian Blume 57(50) D&D1
Good:
Definition of "Good Isn't Stupid, Paladins & Rangers..." Gary Gygax 38(22) D&D1
Paladin standards "It's Not Easy Being Good" Roger E. Moore 51(33) D&D1
Law and chaos "Meaning of Law & Chaos in Dungeons & Dragons" Gary Gygax SR6(3) OD&D
Neutral "Neutral Point of View, The" Stephen Inniss 99(8) D&D1
Ramifications of "Choir Practice At the First Church of Lawful Evil" Lawrence Schick 24(34) D&D1
Real-life* "Front-End Alignments" Rich Stump 124(44) D&D1
Redefining "For King and Country" Paul Suttie 101(18) D&D1
"Making Law Out of Chaos" J.R. Renaud 163(74) D&D1
Role of "Your Place In the Grand Scheme" Tom Little 153(36) D&D1
Roleplaying of "Get Your Priorities Straight!" Royce Wicks 173(50) D&D2
Towns, of "Towns: With and Without Pity" Robin D. Laws 295(64) D&D3
Variation "Varied Player Character and Non-Player Character
Alignment in the Dungeons & Dragons Campaign" Gary Gygax 9(5) OD&D"
​

If you have a complete game world, then Alignment is a big issue. Don't call it alignment if that bothers you, call it tendencies or philosophical viewpoints or whatever. It was a HUGE factor in the game and the game world, with planes being mapped to alignments etc. If you are not using it you are missing out on big part of the game.


But if you don't care about it and don't enforce it and don't use it then it none of it matters, everyone can do anything they like without any alignment repercussions.

 

[Greg K]

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). .

I agree thatit does not. However, I would not allow a cleric of philosophy in a setting that I run, because clerics ,in my homebrew campaigns, are a specific thing and they get their powers from deities....end of story. Allowing a cleric of philosophy would change that. Therefore, player is free to choose to play a cleric of one of the established deities (including following the established tenets and strictures that I have established for the deity in question), to find another class, or to find another table.