Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[5ekyu]

If I was playing in your campaign I would consider a different class to play but be respectful of the structure of your world, patron and warlocks.

However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either. It only speaks to gifts being bestowed, secrets learned and so forth. In fact, a final showdown between a master and student sounds like a fun campaign idea. The book actually says that the warlock learns and grows in power and not that they are simply allowed to borrow power for so long as they behave. Of course it also states that there is price to learn and grow in power. What is the price for an uncaring GOO warlock I wonder?

My sense is that once you taste power you comply with tasks and the patron's orders because you want more. In your campaign it is also perhaps due to fear of losing already learned lore or bestowed gifts. I would not tell you you are wrong. I just would not do it that way and I would not think that I am violating RAW or RAI with a different take.
Note that there are examples of patrons being unaware of or uncaring toward the conduct of their warlocks.

The PHB clearly says that one should work with their DM to determine how big a part the pact will play in the adventuring career. It sounds like you encourage players to follow this advice.

In short, I believe there are contradictory statements and vague references because one size does not fit all patrons or warlocks--and I like it that way. I like the variety. Some patrons don't care about the presence of the particular character, some are demanding.

With this variety, a DM can go in many directions and there is a lot of space for DM and player to create. As with the thrust of my main argument in the thread though, I think we often see our preferences as "the way--RAW/RAI" where the books are much less prescriptive than we selectively recall. And I think most players and DMs fall prey to this without realizing it (self perhaps included).

The reason the "However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either." doesn't resonate with me is two-fold.

First, the book absolutely hammers in that the pact and agreement are the source of the power - you dont get power without the pact - period. They go hand in hand. So, the necessity of the pact is clearly and solidly established.

Similarly, the service for power is also established and even emphasized at the end as a driving force for the adventurer going out.

So, those two things even tho you present them as opposite sides of the coin - one has quite a bit of emphasis - no pact np power - pretty clear.

the other - pact over keep power - not at all really emphasized or explicitly stated.

Second, look at the cleric text in the same places... ever see the rules about losing your cleric abilities if you tick off your divinity? there are none. matter of fact there aqre a whole lot of similarities between how the cleric intro is worded and how the warlock is - including following the goals, demands, etc and how that can lead into adventuring.

So, if i were to say to my warlock players "because there is no explicit statement in your PHB intro that you can lose anything at all if you tell your patron to sod off then as Gm i must accept you cannot have those taken away from you if you do not follow your patron" then i would be forced to give the same answer to my clerics cuz they also have no such explicit reference to losing abilities.

And there is no way in my worlds that i am going to ignore tons of text linking in both cases power to the source and serving the goals of the source power etc etc etc and then tell clerics and warlocks they get to keep all their powers regardless of how they deal with their "provider."

To me i go with the weight of the evidence and not the lack of evidence.

others can do what they want.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

The reason the "However, while the book doesn't explicitly say you keep everything, nothing says you lose anything either." doesn't resonate with me is two-fold.

First, the book absolutely hammers in that the pact and agreement are the source of the power - you dont get power without the pact - period. They go hand in hand. So, the necessity of the pact is clearly and solidly established.

Similarly, the service for power is also established and even emphasized at the end as a driving force for the adventurer going out.

So, those two things even tho you present them as opposite sides of the coin - one has quite a bit of emphasis - no pact np power - pretty clear.

the other - pact over keep power - not at all really emphasized or explicitly stated.

Second, look at the cleric text in the same places... ever see the rules about losing your cleric abilities if you tick off your divinity? there are none. matter of fact there aqre a whole lot of similarities between how the cleric intro is worded and how the warlock is - including following the goals, demands, etc and how that can lead into adventuring.

So, if i were to say to my warlock players "because there is no explicit statement in your PHB intro that you can lose anything at all if you tell your patron to sod off then as Gm i must accept you cannot have those taken away from you if you do not follow your patron" then i would be forced to give the same answer to my clerics cuz they also have no such explicit reference to losing abilities.

And there is no way in my worlds that i am going to ignore tons of text linking in both cases power to the source and serving the goals of the source power etc etc etc and then tell clerics and warlocks they get to keep all their powers regardless of how they deal with their "provider."

To me i go with the weight of the evidence and not the lack of evidence.

others can do what they want.

If we make a pact where I lend you my lawn mower and you agree to mow my lawn, and you welch on your side of the agreement, you don't immediately and automatically lose the lawn mower. Our pact is the source of the lawn mower - you wouldn't have gotten the lawn mower without the pact - but once the lawn mower is in your possession, the source of it is immaterial to the fact that you have it. I'm certainly going to be pissed at you for welching, and I'm going to do everything in my power to get my lawn mower back, and if I'm a god or devil then you are in a perilous position indeed. For the moment, though, you have the lawn mower and can do whatever you like with it.

Of course, if instead of a lawn mower I am lending you my Netflix password, then the situation changes dramatically.

All of this is to say that while your interpretation is not objectively wrong based on the evidence, it's not objectively right either. It all depends on the nature of the magic being granted.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't understand why people think there's some kind of hierarchy of legitimacy in where character concepts come from.

I have no problem with somebody starting with a min/max concept and then producing a "concept" to rationalize it...as long as they then actually attempt to develop and play the character they are describing. In the example being discussed, the good character who strategically makes a deal with an evil being, I would love to see the player include the inevitable complications/tradeoffs/conundrums into his/her play.

It's only when they play the character as a one-dimensional automaton of destruction that I kinda roll my eyes.

 

[Hussar]

we didn't have a 5th level paladin to compare it to, that game had 6 of us 5 players (all started at 5th and made it to 9th before imploding) and a DM

I was a Paladin Druid Cleric (I started 2/1/2, and ended 2/1/6)
We had:
a halfling Great Old One Sword pact Warlock 7/fighter 2 (he only picked fighter levels in play)
a dwarf Beastmaster Ranger 9
a human (variant) Fighter/Rogue (I can't remember which was 3rd level to start) ended 4/5 eldritch knight mastermind
a human (reg phb) shadow monk 5 who ended as a shadow monk 6 shadow sorcerer 3

the warlock had almost no GOOD spells even in the end, he basically counted on eldritch blast, the fighter rogue at the end was close to me but that was it. The only person making multi attacks was the monk, and the ranger (but his stupid bird almost never hit)

I had wooden breastplate armor and a shield and an +2 dex +1 fighting style so I had a 19 same as the monk one worse then the fighter/rogue in mithril plate with a shield (But he didn't get that until near the end of the campaign)

I would use the druid cantrip Shillelagh to use my wisdom to hit and damage with melee weapon, since that made me the highest melee stat in the game that already gave me DPR, but I also had a +1 club that was droped as 1st treasure so I was also up by that. +4 wis, +2 prof +1 magic gave me a +7 to pretty much start the game. I had lay on hands and smite(fully powered with 2nd level spells) and the healing/life domain made my healing better so every night before bed I cast goodberry uped in level with every slot so out of combat I had tons of healing unless I used up all my slots. (in the end my 4th level good berry healed 1+6 or 7hp per berry 10 berries, so if we took 1 day to travel I had 20 7hp berries to give out plus 30 6hp plus 40 5hp plus 40 4hp...so almost 700hp out of combat healing).


edit: player of the warlock was PISSED that he didn't have a way to attack with cha but I had a way to attack with WIS, so he did go more ranged with eldritch blast that did come close to being as good, he would attack twice with +4 cha +2 prof to deal 1d10 or 1d10+1d6 if he hexed. but to be honest +6 to hit 1d10 damage didn't feel anywhere near +7 to hit 1d8+5 damage and can drop a spell to add 3d8 radiant damage.

So, yeah, you were the DPR king in a group that had zero interest in dealing damage. Compare your character to a single classed character of any of the three classes you chose and you are dealing far, far less damage. DPR king doesn't mean a whole lot in a group of Timmy's. That's not what game breaking means when you deal more damage than other characters that are completely disinterested in dealing damage.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

How would I find out?

And if he did, he blocked me because of one post which said that I fundamentally disagreed with his stance on multiclassing?

Seems an extreme reaction to a civilised post...!

Don't worry about him. He has a habit of blocking people who disagree with his One True Way to play D&D.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Ah! Many thanks! Yes agree that seems to be inconsistent with some patrons...

I prefer the PHB description of a mentor and that once learned the powers are yours to keep...

I could see a patron refusing to teach more if a character was at odds with their agenda maybe? But even then the PHB talks about working against the evil aims of a patron as well...at least in some cases.

It is like that in the PHB because this is the version of the game where the designers refused to put in ways for characters to become ex-any class. As much as I enjoy 5E, this is one of the areas I have to houserule back into the game for my homebrew settings.

 

[5ekyu]

If we make a pact where I lend you my lawn mower and you agree to mow my lawn, and you welch on your side of the agreement, you don't immediately and automatically lose the lawn mower. Our pact is the source of the lawn mower - you wouldn't have gotten the lawn mower without the pact - but once the lawn mower is in your possession, the source of it is immaterial to the fact that you have it. I'm certainly going to be pissed at you for welching, and I'm going to do everything in my power to get my lawn mower back, and if I'm a god or devil then you are in a perilous position indeed. For the moment, though, you have the lawn mower and can do whatever you like with it.

Of course, if instead of a lawn mower I am lending you my Netflix password, then the situation changes dramatically.

All of this is to say that while your interpretation is not objectively wrong based on the evidence, it's not objectively right either. It all depends on the nature of the magic being granted.

My position is that the nature of the pact determines the nature of the possibilities - just as you describe.

Nothing requires the world to ever have a lawnmower pact given by any patron ever.

The argument that the lack of an explicit rule allowing the patron to take back powers somehow limits that from happening is what i object to.

I believe i even observed that it may well be the case that at some point a patron gives the pawn freedom... perhaps asa reward etc.

Which gets all the way back to the key being the "discussion" between player-Gm and character-patron is extremely important and at the core of the warlock character and play (regardless of how real or ephemeral that "discussion" may be on the character-patron side.)

Edit to add...

to your specific examples - even reference in the PHB refers to granting "access to powers" would seem to point more to the netflix password interpretation - i would not at all be adverse to the lawnmower option as a pact agreement in the right circumstance and case - as that creates a physical object as a manifestation of the pact and source of the powers and so - just like the lawnmower case - the patron (and presumably others) could send his minions to "collect" the item and break the link to powers.

Now of course, a patron can normally send other minions to go mess with an "unruly pawn" or a lot of other more subtle means without a lawnmower pact - but to me the added umphh of the warlock needing to be worried about losing his "lawnmower" to even non-patron agencies more than balances out the "patron has to do more work to take it back" side of things. A lot of story hey for a patron can be had when a pawn loses their lawnmower and has to come begging for a replacement.

"vasily, are you sayin' you lost another submarine?"

 

[5ekyu]

It is like that in the PHB because this is the version of the game where the designers refused to put in ways for characters to become ex-any class. As much as I enjoy 5E, this is one of the areas I have to houserule back into the game for my homebrew settings.

Well, i have a slightly different take on this - i think they included several points in the rules and classes where "bonds to others matter" a lot and clerics and warlocks are the two most obvious cases - as well as pallys.

hoiwever, they chose not to hard code the consequences of violating such bonds to allow a lot of flexibility for each Gm/player and each character and each table and each patron/pawn and each god/devotee to play out as fits that circumstance.

its similar to the objection i have with the skew it seems some have when you see things akin to *if you take classes other than warlock the patron removes your power* or those who somehow see references to *working against the goals of the patron* as somehow indicative of a lack of power on the patron etc etc...

You would almost think there was never a disagreement between employee and employer that did not result in absolute termination... never an employee hired who did not slavishly follow the corporate mission statement and guidelines... etc.

there is a lot of subtlety possible in these kinds of arrangements and exchanges - both from "common sense" and from "real life analogs" and from the lore and legends and myths and depictions of such fantasy and scifi.

If the designers had said "if your warlock goes against your patron's goals, the patron may withhold..." way too many would take that as "must..." and take that as "any slight..." and so on and so forth and i think the designers have at least enough sense to see that too.

So, instead they leave the nature of the pact as TBD and the nature of what a break of doctrine results in or requires as atonement (if any) as TBD so that it can be suited to each table, world, deal and specific case as needed.

I don't need or want a rule or a chart and a roll to tell me some form of universal HR policy guide for patron-pawn or god-devotee. There cannot be enough of those to cover the vast reaches of our game.

So count me in the amazingly happy the rules did not dictate and define more about that than emphasizing how important it should be in the nature of the characters and how it should definitely be something they palyer-gm reach agreement on.

 

[Warpiglet]

Well, i have a slightly different take on this - i think they included several points in the rules and classes where "bonds to others matter" a lot and clerics and warlocks are the two most obvious cases - as well as pallys.

hoiwever, they chose not to hard code the consequences of violating such bonds to allow a lot of flexibility for each Gm/player and each character and each table and each patron/pawn and each god/devotee to play out as fits that circumstance.

its similar to the objection i have with the skew it seems some have when you see things akin to *if you take classes other than warlock the patron removes your power* or those who somehow see references to *working against the goals of the patron* as somehow indicative of a lack of power on the patron etc etc...

You would almost think there was never a disagreement between employee and employer that did not result in absolute termination... never an employee hired who did not slavishly follow the corporate mission statement and guidelines... etc.

there is a lot of subtlety possible in these kinds of arrangements and exchanges - both from "common sense" and from "real life analogs" and from the lore and legends and myths and depictions of such fantasy and scifi.

If the designers had said "if your warlock goes against your patron's goals, the patron may withhold..." way too many would take that as "must..." and take that as "any slight..." and so on and so forth and i think the designers have at least enough sense to see that too.

So, instead they leave the nature of the pact as TBD and the nature of what a break of doctrine results in or requires as atonement (if any) as TBD so that it can be suited to each table, world, deal and specific case as needed.

I don't need or want a rule or a chart and a roll to tell me some form of universal HR policy guide for patron-pawn or god-devotee. There cannot be enough of those to cover the vast reaches of our game.

So count me in the amazingly happy the rules did not dictate and define more about that than emphasizing how important it should be in the nature of the characters and how it should definitely be something they palyer-gm reach agreement on.

I am in absolute agreement with satisfaction with the rules and their occasional vagueness. When I play make believe I like to create and not just be constrained. Boundaries and suggested boundaries make it more of a game but thank goodness the rules don't suggest do X or lose all your powers. This would be the ultimate in no fun railroading. I prefer consequences that don't immediately nullify a character's choices.

I like he presence of middle ground and variety with some suggested boundaries and stories.

 

[Arial Black]

Two parents sell their baby's soul to a fiend, then leave her on the steps of a temple of Helm. The temple raises the child and trains her to be a paladin, but the fiend has its hooks in her. The fiend wants to corrupt the paladin, and one way to do that is to give her access to warlock powers. The fiend doesn't want to 'win' too quickly, because a high level fallen paladin is better than a low level one.

But the paladin-or Pal/War-will be trying to do good deeds all her life. Probably be consciously trying to defeat the plans of the fiend. Is that a reason for the fiend to take away her warlock powers? No! That would defeat the fiends own plan!

Elric of Melnibone's patron is Arioch, Prince of Swords, Duke of Hell, and all around proper baddy. Elric was the....least evil...of an evil race. Elric hated Arioch, hated serving him, and tried not to do his bidding. Arioch didn't really directly ask much of Elric, apart from asking him to dedicate the slain to him. Elric's warcry was "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!"

Arioch wanted Elric to destroy the city of Tanelorn. Elric wanted to save Tanelorn, and successfully defended the city from an army of Chaos demons. Did Arioch take Elric's powers away? No. Even at the end of the world when Elric personally slew the gods of Chaos-including Arioch-Elrics powers were never taken away.

The comic character Spawn was given powers by the Devil. Spawn even had a 'Power Clock' which ticked down whenever he used the supernatural power bestowed upon Spawn by the Devil. Spawn knows that when the clock reaches zero then he'll be under the Devil's thumb for eternity, a fate he badly wants to avoid!

But Spawn uses his power to work against Satan! Does Satan take away Spawn's power? No, even to the point where Spawn replaces Satan as the ruler of Hell.

Some of my worst experiences in 40 years of D&D is when DMs take away my agency over my PC. They do this by picking on any PC who, conceptually, gains some or all of their powers, their game mechanics, their special abilities, from an intelligent supernatural source. "If you do that then your god will take your powers away", "If you save those orphans instead of these orphans then you'll lose your paladinhood because you failed to save some orphans. Gotcha!"

The DM takes away my agency through the threat of taking away my PC's game abilities unless I do what the DM wants my PC to do. But I play the game to make those decisions myself, not to watch the DM play my PC as just another one of his NPCs.

So, in those games, the players quickly learn to avoid playing clerics, paladins, warlocks, druids, whatever classes have their powers taken away by DM whim. Nobody says, "Your fighter is making the wrong choices in my opinion, therefore he no longer gets more than one attack per round, loses his fighting style, and cannot use any abilities of his subclass. Any further infractions and you'll be a 1HD commoner. Because I said so".

I an very glad that 5e PCs cannot have their powers taken away, RAW. If the DM does, he is abusing rule zero to do so, and may lose his players as a result.