Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[jgsugden]

1.) I can make 'overpowered' single class characters. Accordingly, I'm not worried if we can do it with multi-class, too.

2.) As long as the character origin and development tell a good story, I do not have any concerns about it being a multi-class. If you're building a cleric 1, warlock 5, bad 6, paladin 8 design.... why? What is the story? As long as the development makes sense for the character story, and as a DM I can build off it n create a great game with all the players.... GREAT.

That is the beginning, middle and end of my concerns on muti-classing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

SO just to make sure your point is clear here, being MORE powerful then the rest of the table isn't a problem if someone in a theoretical other game MIGHT be more powerful? I don't understand at all how that makes any sense.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What would a Great Old One care about how a warlock used his or her powers? How could you possibly know what a Great Old One wants?

The thing to remember here is that the Patron's are going to take a VERY long view of things. The day to day stuff that the PC does is most like way, WAY below their notice.

The same could be said about the "God" in several monotheistic religions IRL. And yet...supposedly...those deities care very deeply about seemingly trivial choices made by each and every one of their followers on a daily basis. And they are...again, supposedly...watching.

So there's that.

 

[Arial Black]

SO just to make sure your point is clear here, being MORE powerful then the rest of the table isn't a problem if someone in a theoretical other game MIGHT be more powerful? I don't understand at all how that makes any sense.

The point is that the multiclassing is not the problem; as illustrated by single class 5th level PCs being more powerful than multiclass ones, generally speaking.

 

[Arial Black]

The same could be said about the "God" in several monotheistic religions IRL. And yet...supposedly...those deities care very deeply about seemingly trivial choices made by each and every one of their followers on a daily basis. And they are...again, supposedly...watching.

So there's that.

In a (real) world full of peodophile priests and scam-artist televangelists, suicide-encouraging imams and mutually-exclusive heresies, I can't remember a single instance of one being struck by divine lightning or losing their god-given 'class' abilities.

 

[Arial Black]

If you want to stick with RAW, then the DM is in charge of playing all NPCs, including the omniscient and omnipotent deities. The DM is entirely within RAW to say that the cleric or warlock loses their magical ability when they gravely offend their patron deity, because that is what the patron would do in those circumstances.

In previous editions, paladins could fall and lose their class abilities. We know this, because the rules said so. Rules As Written.

But in 5e, such rules are conspicuous by their absence. The lack of such rules =/= these rules exist RAW, because Rules As NOT Written are not Rules AS Written.

If you make a pact with a deity, and then turn your back on them, you would be lucky if you get to retire in obscurity rather than being struck down and tortured for all eternity.

First, the examples I quoted from the very fiction that inspired the hobby, plus actual written 5e text to the tune of some patrons don't pay any attention to their warlocks, shows clearly that it is NOT a given that such beings automatically punish transgressors.

Second, even those beings who are inclined to punish wayward servants do so by in-game means, such as sending more and more powerful loyal servants to persuade/kill the naughty PCs. What they don't do is punish them by metagaming! They don't mess with our real world character sheets, they mess with the game-world characters!

If the player isn't going to play their character seriously, then they are abusing the good will of the entire group (who have devoted significant time and effort to the campaign), and such a player is unlikely to be welcome back regardless.

And here is an assumption: the player is deliberately playing wrong! But in my experience what happens is that the player and DM disagree about the best way to role-play their devotion. In real life religious people, even of the same religion/denomination/church disagree about religious matters, and each still goes on happily being a member of that religion. But the DMs I'm talking about say it's their way or the highway, taking away the player's agency.

The first example character in my previous post was a Pal/War whose parents sold her soul to a fiend, left her on the steps of the temple to Helm, was brought up and trained to be a good paladin, while the fiend was secretly rubbing his hands with glee in the thought that he could slowly corrupt a high level paladin. It just would not make ANY sense for the fiend to take her warlock powers away because that would defeat the fiend's own object, and it wouldn't make any sense for Helm to cripple his own paladin's fight against the will of the fiend.

Yet, on this forum and in real life, the knee-jerk reaction of some DMs is, "Paladin/Warlock? The player MUST be making a mockery of the story and the PC cannot possibly make sense!" Ban, ban, ban!

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

In a (real) world full of peodophile priests and scam-artist televangelists, suicide-encouraging imams and mutually-exclusive heresies, I can't remember a single instance of one being struck by divine lightning or losing their god-given 'class' abilities.

That might be because real world religions are lies made up by the powerful and power hungry in order to control the powerless masses.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I didn’t know people played by the theory of “if it isn’t explicitly stated and banned in the rules then f**k it, exploit it to the max!!!!!!”

In only a few cases is explicitly stated in the rules that moving creatures make noise, but at my table all of them do. It’s a rule set as a framework, it’s not like the books came off the mountain on tablets.

Have some spirit and and understand and figure out what’s logical and consistent and in the spirit of what the game is.

The way I have seen it, there are two sides: exclusion and inclusion. One side says that if the rules do not expressly forbid something, then they are free to do. The other side says that if the rules do not expressly allow it, then they cannot do it. Rules lawyering between the two extremes can get really nasty.

 

[Sadras]

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!

In Dragonlance, the gods turned their back on the Kingpriest of Ishtar....(snip)... clerics lost their access to divine magic.

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.

In the series Charmed, Phoebe had her witchy powers stripped from her by The Tribunal as she was using her powers for personal gain.

The comic character Spawn was given powers by the Devil......(snip)...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

The comic book character Hal Jordan was given a magic ring by Abin Sur ....(snip).... But Hal Jordan as Green Lantern disobeyed the direct instructions of the Guardians of the Galaxy and so had his Green Lanternship stripped from him.

If the DM does, he is abusing rule zero to do so, and may lose his players as a result.

For clarification purposes:
1) If a DM is being a dick he may lose his players.
2) Your opinion is that if the DM strips the player of their abilities (no matter what the circumstances) he is abusing rule zero.
3) The DM stripping a player's character of their abilities is not an abuse of rule zero.

 

[Sadras]

In previous editions, paladins could fall and lose their class abilities. We know this, because the rules said so. Rules As Written.

But in 5e, such rules are conspicuous by their absence. The lack of such rules =/= these rules exist RAW, because Rules As NOT Written are not Rules AS Written.

And yet, we are all aware of the 5e mantra, rulings not rules.
So rulings are ok for stealth rules, and certain spells and and and...but when it comes to PC's being stripped of powers then the letter of the RAW must be adhered to otherwise you're abusing rule 0.