Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Warpiglet]

Some just do and its great! As DM they should be encouraged in every way, especially if they build in a draw back to use as a hook for development and adventure.

But there are some who just do it strictly to exploit the rules in some way shape or form and will brook absolutely no other interpretation of anything that interferes with their PC. You ask them about their PC backstory and they say "Far Traveler so I can get Perception since its great for my PC." There is no art/drama ask to them, they don't even pay attention at the table when you are describing a scene to them, they don't really get the RPG aspect of the game. I have never liked that player and they will always cause problems at the table eventually.

But to each his own.

Fair enough. My preference is for a CHARACTER to have character and multiclassing or not is secondary. As for starting the thread and my arguments afterwards, I am actually in the camp of preferring minimal cheese and all of that.

However, I am not immune to some desire for power or ability. For example, i thought of playing a ranger/druid and really enjoying the ability to swing a big hammer while fighting alongside some conjured creatures.

Here, it just happens that I want to be able to fight. I guess there is some RP element to it--I was thinking of playing a former solider who no longer believes in fighting for honor and coin but rather survival and friends. BUT I did not want to do it with a scimitar or staff. Just preferred a big hammer. Seemed fun, 2d6 is nice, whatever.

There are many reasons to play an MC character that I think are valid and do not get in the way of immersion. I don't think it screams cheese or ridiculous even though I clearly want to swing martial weapons...

(then again, not optimized per se with many screaming about the risk of losing concentration and so forth with the druid spells...)...

 

[Arial Black]

Suddenly, it all becomes as clear as an unmuddied stream.

What kind of paladin do you like to play, Lowkey?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arial Black]

How is your Paladin getting his special Paladin abilities from The Fiend? It seems to me you are so desperate to get in a Paladin/warlock combo you took it upon yourself to fluff The Fiend into a divine entity to support your Paladin or for the Fiend to be able to grant divine Paladin abilities, while at the same time a god in the campaign does nothing about The Fiend impersonating said God.

Did you clear that with your DM? Would you go the that effort with a elf fighter/rogue combo, or it that not powerful enough to bother with?

* we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells

* we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e

* we know that some fiends, like Lolth for example, are both fiend AND god

* Odin doesn't know about this fiend messing with this paladin; gods are not omniscient in D&D

* paladins don't necessarily gain their abilities from a god

* I go into similar levels of detail for EVERY PC I create. I explain whatever abilities they have, and the ideas come from me.

* the DM loved my idea. In theory, he could have said no, and explained why. I would work with him to address any perceived problem, but if we were unable to come to an agreement then I would feel forced to abandon that character and save the idea for another campaign. Depending on how unreasonable I thought he was being, I might decide that his table was not the table for me. It also may have been that I thought his explanation was perfectly reasonable, and adjust my PC or choose a new one.

We can all worry about jerk DMs and/or jerk players, but neither extreme advances the debate about who gets to choose the PC's fluff. So, assuming both reasonable players AND reasonable DM, the player comes up with their PC's fluff and the DM may come up with reasonable objections. Note that "I wouldn't have chosen that fluff myself" is not an actual objection to my fluff, and would be an unreasonable excuse to ban a PC.

 

[Arial Black]

Why, my favorite kind, of course!

A dead one.


Q. What do you call 10,000 Paladins chained together at the bottom of the Nyr Dyv?

A. A good start.

So your virulent objections to other people's paladin or MC paladin PC is based on bias rather than reason?

That being the case, why would the player of any paladin or MC paladin care what you thought about it, one way or the other?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[cbwjm]

Sure. All I'm saying is that the words "divine" and "arcane" don't DO anything in 5e. Look it up. If you changed every reference in the cleric or paladin class with the word "divine" to the word "arcane", the class would play exactly the same. Contrast with previous editions, and mechanics like arcane spell failure, scroll use, etc.

You have just made me realise that the restriction on casting in armour that you aren't proficient with also applies to clerics. I never considered it before because it was more prevalent with wizards and sorcerers who have no armour proficiencies.

 

[TwoSix]

You have just made me realise that the restriction on casting in armour that you aren't proficient with also applies to clerics. I never considered it before because it was more prevalent with wizards and sorcerers who have no armour proficiencies.

Yep. One of the things I like about 5e is that it plays to familiar tropes but doesn't hardcode them.

 

[smbakeresq]

Maybe it's an opportunity to draw the player into the storytelling. Come up with the backstory FOR them, and then have it keep popping up during the game, so that the backstory becomes relevant. Not in a way that tries to limit/control them, but to make them feel like they are an integral part of the game world. Far Traveler in particular offers some fertile ground for doing that.

I have tried over the years, most just are not interested. The same type of personality that breeds the die hard power gamer also makes them resistant to any outside influence, it’s socially dominant authoritarianism. They consider the DM “against” them as opposed to referee and theatre director.

I am talking about adults by the way, not kids who are a blast to DM for.

 

[smbakeresq]

* we know that The Fiend is capable of granting 9th level spells

* we know that arcane/divine are not rules terms in 5e

* we know that some fiends, like Lolth for example, are both fiend AND god

* Odin doesn't know about this fiend messing with this paladin; gods are not omniscient in D&D

* paladins don't necessarily gain their abilities from a god

* I go into similar levels of detail for EVERY PC I create. I explain whatever abilities they have, and the ideas come from me.

* the DM loved my idea. In theory, he could have said no, and explained why. I would work with him to address any perceived problem, but if we were unable to come to an agreement then I would feel forced to abandon that character and save the idea for another campaign. Depending on how unreasonable I thought he was being, I might decide that his table was not the table for me. It also may have been that I thought his explanation was perfectly reasonable, and adjust my PC or choose a new one.

We can all worry about jerk DMs and/or jerk players, but neither extreme advances the debate about who gets to choose the PC's fluff. So, assuming both reasonable players AND reasonable DM, the player comes up with their PC's fluff and the DM may come up with reasonable objections. Note that "I wouldn't have chosen that fluff myself" is not an actual objection to my fluff, and would be an unreasonable excuse to ban a PC.

The way I see it is this:

You - “Hey DM I got a PC concept. Ok what I did was reflavor Paladin so it’s divine smite and divine spells are from a non-divine source, so I changed that, however they keep their effectiveness. I am leaving that class after I get the level 2 features that are important, divine smite and fighting style. I will go into warlock so I can use CHR for my main attack stat and my Patron will the Fiend. Now I reflavored the Fiend to be able to give me all abilities of a Paladin and also all the warlock stuff, even though patrons are not divine, so I changed that also. Since the Fiend is tricking me into believing he is Odin the God, I need you to rule that Odin wouldn’t mind at all. Also, I can’t run into any people who actual worship Odin because they might realize something is amiss as the Fiend probably wont be a perfect imitation of Odin. Also this has nothing to do power gaming my PC it’s all story driven even though I didn’t work it out with you first.

Also, you can’t disagree with me at all since it’s my Pc and I control all aspects related to my Pc and I reflavored everything you could object to, so if you did it would greatly unfair.”

Does that about sum it up?

If it works for you and your DM great. I don’t see it, but ok, it’s not my table. At least it’s not the guy who rolled at home for stats and has thee 18’s.

BTW The Fiend is a singular entity, it’s capitalized, as opposed to fiend, a type of creature.

And you are correct, divine and arcane are not specific rules terms in D&D, that means the DM defines exactly what they are in his game. They are all over the rules in a consistent way, but since they are not explicitly defined some will of course exploit that as much as possible. It is what is.