Arguments and assumptions against multi classing

[Maxperson]

In 1e there were only LG paladins...if your alignment actually drifted from LG, you lost all paladin powers.

There was a 1e Dragon article that introduced paladins of every alignment as NPCs. It was called A Plethora of Paladins.

 

[Hussar]

There was a 1e Dragon article that introduced paladins of every alignment as NPCs. It was called A Plethora of Paladins.

Great article but hardly a major part of the edition.

 

[Sadras]

I can't understand why there are some who are adamant about following what is in the book.

Whether multiclass or homebrew, if its not breaking and/or ruining the game and, most importantly, everyone is having fun, who cares.

What if there is a dispute at the table about what is breaking and/or ruining the game, then someone at the table is obviously not having fun, right?

 

[smbakeresq]

Giving it a bit more thought, while they didn't hard code lawful or lawful good as restrictions, the oaths themselves sort of soft code those restrictions in. The Oath of Devotion is the quintessential LG paladin of 1e-3e. In fact, the idea that there are oaths that have a series of tenets which you must adhere to is fairly lawful in its own right. The Oath of the Ancients is all about mercy, love, kindness and standing against wickedness. That's fairly clearly good, so I suppose NG, LG and CG are all options, except for the highly lawful part of adhering to an oath. The Oath of Vengeance has the greatest variety of alignment possibilities. It's pretty unlikely to be an oath a good person undertakes, but neutral or evil are options. Again, though, the oath part would seem to make lawful most likely.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the 5e PHB paladins.

This is true. The problem I have with players taking oathbreaker is, IMO:

1. Logically you can’t start out as an oathbreaker. Level 1 is the beginning of your career, what Oath could you break to be an oathbreaker before you even start? To me it’s like getting fired before you are hired. Maybe because it’s called oathbreaker I have a problem ...

2. Let’s say you break your oath later, and switch to it like in the old editions. Why would the group stay with you? Wouldn’t you take actions adverse to their interests, maybe even killing them?

3. I can see going the other way, I and it worked. I came into a campaign at level 4, but I was an oathbreaker from the very beginning and my fall was my friend was killed by a cult I was in so after killing them all I tried to redeem myself. However my patron power kept giving me the “evil” powers since no one is ever truly redeemed. Use of such powers would of course move the needle on the moral compass meter, so I had to be creative to use them as to not do so. I also gave myself some penalties, like sometimes waking up with a level of exhaustion from the terrible nightmares, etc. There were also various social penalties, etc. I figured my alignment would be LE (LN), only iron discipline would keep me from falling into the darkness.

The last idea is essentially Batman or Spawn or even John Wick. All are murderers and vigilantes at a bare minimum, the fact that they kill other bad guys that benefits society is a good thing of course but incidental. What makes Batman great is his nemesis, the Joker, is a reflection of himself. Batman channels his dark rage into vendettas against specific types of people in society, the Joker essentially does the same with an emphasis on getting the Dark Knight. Neither is directly shown just killing innocents or the weak, they both move in the same world, just from opposite directions.

I wanted to play an OathBreaker and it seemed the only was in my mind to fit it into the campaign.

As far as MC, to me Oath Breaker is a MC all by itself. You start out as one type of Paladin and something breaks your faith, changing your powers.

 

[Maxperson]

Great article but hardly a major part of the edition.

Irrelevant. That wasn't my claim. My claim was that 1e had NPC paladins of alignments other than LG.

 

[Maxperson]

1. Logically you can’t start out as an oathbreaker. Level 1 is the beginning of your career, what Oath could you break to be an oathbreaker before you even start? To me it’s like getting fired before you are hired. Maybe because it’s called oathbreaker I have a problem ...

I don't see being unable to begin as an Oathbreaker. Just because you have 0 exp doesn't mean you haven't had some time as a paladin. As a Paladin of Devotion you could have been assigned to protect a woman traveling to the next town by your superior. Instead of doing that, you disobey that superior and go drinking. The woman who you were supposed to protect is killed by assassins. Oath broken not once, but twice before you even got out of the bar.

2. Let’s say you break your oath later, and switch to it like in the old editions. Why would the group stay with you? Wouldn’t you take actions adverse to their interests, maybe even killing them?

Because there are more of them and they would kill you. More likely you will leave the group or get kicked out, if they don't just kill you anyway.

3. I can see going the other way, I and it worked. I came into a campaign at level 4, but I was an oathbreaker from the very beginning and my fall was my friend was killed by a cult I was in so after killing them all I tried to redeem myself. However my patron power kept giving me the “evil” powers since no one is ever truly redeemed. Use of such powers would of course move the needle on the moral compass meter, so I had to be creative to use them as to not do so. I also gave myself some penalties, like sometimes waking up with a level of exhaustion from the terrible nightmares, etc. There were also various social penalties, etc. I figured my alignment would be LE (LN), only iron discipline would keep me from falling into the darkness.

If you were really trying to redeem yourself, then you wouldn't kill your companions and they would likely try to help you. It seems like a great way to roleplay the situation.

The last idea is essentially Batman or Spawn or even John Wick. All are murderers and vigilantes at a bare minimum, the fact that they kill other bad guys that benefits society is a good thing of course but incidental. What makes Batman great is his nemesis, the Joker, is a reflection of himself. Batman channels his dark rage into vendettas against specific types of people in society, the Joker essentially does the same with an emphasis on getting the Dark Knight. Neither is directly shown just killing innocents or the weak, they both move in the same world, just from opposite directions.

Batman would be a Paladin of Vengeance, not an Oathbreaker.

 

[smbakeresq]

Ok. Let's go on the opposite direction. My biggest issue against multiclass is that it is very difficult to get it right. Most people that multiclass are looking for specific "builds", and so came the "dip" concept: maximize damage and DPR are usually the main subjects on multiclass. The concept behind the second class fails to keep true on these dips, and are usually for the forefront abilities. There are some classes more optimal than others for these: the star classes to dip ar rogue and bard, for the expertise (and perhaps the spells).

BUT the main problem with these is that aside for that classes there is hardly a reason to dip only one level.
1) There are stat prerequisites to multiclass. They aren't very hampering, but they exist, and they can divert a character from its focus.
2) Multiclass never grants the full spectre of proficiencies. Classes (such as barbarians) dipping on Fighter, for example, never gain Heavy Armor proficiency.
3) Falling behind. In theory, combos work swell, but in real gameplay, their real synergy quickly falls behind of a proper class.

Most builds are given with an objective in mind, such as having at 10th-level a certain amount of DPR via cantrips, or maximize certain effects, but in game they are delayed from powerful effects, having first tier abilities of their main classes for (at least) half of the second tier, and delay the 3rd-level boost (archetypes or powerful abilities such as 2nd level spells). One of the most praised combos, such Bardlock, needs at least 2 levels of warlock to have Invocations and 2 spells per short rest (without even hitting the Pact Boon), and 3 levels of bard to have an archetype; at fifth level you merely gain 2nd-level spells and only there gain expertise, whereas a single class bard has ASI, its Bardic Inspiration escalated to d8 and recharges on short rests, has 8 spells and 3 cantrips, and casts 3rd level spells such as Fear. At sixth level, while the Bardlock gains its first ASI, the Bard has another College feature, such as Extra Attack, Additional Magical Secrets, or Mantle of Majesty.

I have a sound example. My party has recently reached 6th level. As a human Battlemaster, I've reached 6th level with 3 feats: Prodigy, Alert and Shield Master (I had luck and rolled an 17 in stats, otherwise I would ditched Alert). And I'm a real beast: with +10 to Athletics, there is no troll, ogre or mount that could resist my shield shoves. I'm dishing 34+ damage each round, and knocking prone almost anyone with my shield (I'm mostly on horseback with a lance, thus also avoiding damage), I can't be surprised and I go first most of the time (+5 to Initiative). I have advantage on most of my attacks. Also, I have a ton of utility. With a crowbar or ram, I act as a rogue of sorts of the party, forcing chests and knocking down doors. Also, I have 6 skills, 3 languages and 3 tools (smith's, tinker and carpenter's). I can track, run, mount, bend bars, break and climb better than most classes. I'm scary as (Menacing Strike and Intimidation proficiency). And I can block bolts and such with my shield (I have 1 magic object, and is a +1 shield, -thus I have +3 to Dex saves-).

The bardlock in my party only recently had its expertise (one level before me), and he can't even cast 3rd level spells. Yes, he does 2d10+Cha with an Eldritch blast, and recharges healing spells on short rests, but that's all. The Tabaxi monk, also, can attack 3 times without expendig ki, moves 55 feet per round (Mobile feat+Monk speed), doesn't provoke OAs, and stuns up to 4 creatures per round, whenever he isn't controlling and moving the enemies in the battlefield. He can also climb, sneak, dodge and grab decently. Perhaps in 4 levels the bardlock catches up, but by then I will gather enemy info only by observing, I will have a 20 in strength, +13 to Athletics, reroll failed saves, 5d10 superiority dice and 7 maneuvers (and perhaps my flamethrower, with tinker tools and Alchemic fire).

I'm not saying that multiclassing is bad per se. I'm saying that it is difficult to get it right and advance properly without hampering yourself too much. Going back At this time, if he were a pure Bard or warlock, he could make my horse fly and I could rain death from the skies.

How do you take the mount into the dungeon? Why isn’t your DM just attacking it first and killing it right away? Any intelligent enemy would try to dismount you....

The damage numbers do seem off, remember RAW you can’t give yourself advantage anymore with Shield Master, it’s been changed.

But also, all you are doing is damage, and proning people for others to get advantage. As a fighter, that is your job though, so you need to put out a lot.
You also need to be in their making yourself a target, you have a deeper HP pool with armor and better HD.

Your monk exceeds your “effective” damage, as stunning a creature ups damage tremendously and saves the group from any damage that creature would do. Don’t forget that, and work together with that knowledge.

You are limited of course to proning one size larger, what makes open hand monks so awesome is they can prone or shove any size creature.

Playing a SM Paladin now, I still use the old rule myself though. SM is quite good, but subtle, it’s better for Paladins since advantage means double the chance to land a doubled smite. Prones are great with Spirit Guardians, so I took Crown Oath, or multi-attackers like a monk.

The other benefits of SM are good though.

I also can’t bring a steed into a lot of places, especially when you get the better ones. Flying into town on a Pegasus just screams for attention, either good or bad.

 

[Erechel]

I really gotta ask how you are dealing 34+ damage per round. Single handed weapon (since you have a shield) means d8+5 at best with your attacks. You'd have to get about 4-5 attacks per round to routinely do that kind of damage. Where is advantage coming from? Nothing from you grants advantage. And you do realize that those large creatures gain advantage on being pushed right? You've got d20+10, they've got Advantage d20+5 (give or take). You should be just about breaking even.

I mean, sure, with the BM, you're usually tossing an extra d8 on damage, but, only on 4 attacks per short rest (5? IDHMBIFOM). Unless your group is short resting after every encounter, you shouldn't be anywhere near this kind of damage.

I mean, the bard lock with eldritch blast alone should be dealing damage pretty close to what you are doing.

I wrote an answer at morning, but got erased. I'm going to sum it up.
First: Lance is a d12, one-handed weapon that needs a horse. I have a horse. Average damage 6.5.
Second: I have an 18 in Strength, so +4, and Dueling, so +2 (+6 to each attack). With multiattack, my base attacks are 25 damage.
Third: Shield Master grants you a shove as a bonus action. And that shove has +10 (Athletics expertise via Prodigy). A troll or large creature usually is on par with me on strenght, but I have expertise on Athletics (+6), "negating" their Advantage (not exactly, but I have a minimum of 12 on the Athletics check, and an average of 21, their average is 19 with advantage). Thus, I gain advantage on most attacks. That grants me a critical hit at least 1 every 5 rounds, or 0.65 damage on each attack on average. Almost like a Champion. So, my basic damage is 26.3 (extra attack, dueling, strength and lance)
Fourth: The lance has Reach property and the horse has 60 speed, and their action is usually spent on Dash, so I have lots of mobility. I end having a lot of OAs in minion fights. Requires a lot of position micromanagement, but it is very very useful. One trick is for the horse to Ready an Action to take the Dash whenever the enemies move.
Fifth: Maneuvers like Menacing Attack also frighten the creatures, besides giving me 4.5 extra damage. A frightened creature often runs away without disengaging. Another OA for 14.15 extra damage and disadvantage on ability checks and attacks for the enemy.
Sixth: Action Surge grants me 2 extra attacks once per short rest. Another 26.3 damage.
Seventh: Intelligence and terrain. Although I'm not shy to charge, we usually as a group prepare our battlefield or at least look for the most advantageous location and position. Shoving against stakes, caltrops, rocks, pits, cliffs, streams or fire grants you a lot of mileage. Also, I'm not compelled to spend resources where they aren't needed, thus avoiding overkills. At 6th level, we end fighting a lot of hobgoblins, orcs, yuan ti, etc. Against them I don't need to use all my resources. Furthermore, I end up killing a hobgoblin per strike with lots of mobility, or 2-3 per round without spending any resources. Micromanagement is key. We also fight trolls. Trolls are difficult to fight, but I Thoros of Myr my way against them with alchemic fire (I have a lot of swords and at least 3 lances on my horse to burn).
Final: I'm not hampered by cover, distance (120 feet per round on horseback, and 10 of reach is a lot), and prone enemies benefit me, whereas hamper a ranged creature. Also, OAs are a melee thing only.

Of course, I'm very much Short Rest dependant to have the "maximum" damage, but 26.3 damage is my average once my resources are depleted. And I tend to change horses a lot (they have a tendency to die). I'm not always on the best position (sometimes I have to use swords instead of lances, and very few times the creatures are two sizes larger than me). More than a few times I end brawling barefisted, but they are corner cases. The cat monk is also very useful and we have lots of synergy and mobility together (he pushes/pulls a lot with his Aang powers). But fights don't tend to last more than 5 rounds, and I have a lot of stopping power. Think about any nova that I make: I end making an average of 84.75 damage* in a single round (the first), and then 26.3. when my resources are spent. 111,05 damage in two rounds. Counting only 1 OA. At 6th level.

I'm not joking. I've sustained the math during gameplay, and that tend to be the numbers. The GM usually toss us very strong creatures, such as trolls with 18 AC, and I'm the only one that sustains damage and hits almost every attack. With advantage, I rarely fumble (yes, I know there is no fumbles in 5e, but you undestand: autofail with a 1). I preserve Inspiration to grant key advantage (for example, for shoves against large creatures). And I play it right (my character is alcoholic as its flaw, and I usually play that right, without exaggerating nor downplaying it: I tend to get drunk on guard duty, or behave very aggresively whenever I run out of wine, usually granting me disadvantage on a few checks).

*I'm not doubling the Superiority Dice, but I should, as I tend to use SD when I have a critical hit. So that would add 4.5 extra damage. Micromanage resources is key to a cunning fighter.

 

[Warpiglet]

Irrelevant. That wasn't my claim. My claim was that 1e had NPC paladins of alignments other than LG.

Actually if we are talking about rules in the game, it is very relevant. Only LG paladins were included in the rules even after UA codified optional rules from Dragon.

The eventual outcome was decided in Unearthed Arcana---when paladins became cavaliers and other alignments could become non-paladin cavaliers. You can make up and use whatever fluff and optional rules you wish which is consistent with my OP: making your own fluff and using optional fluff should not be frowned upon necessarily.

 

[smbakeresq]

just my 2c... i think you are dead wrong here. yup. no question about it - just dead wrong.

Not in your conclusion or atitude or preference but in what was actually said.

" It leads itself to power gaming and doesn’t force the players to make choices and be creative,"

Which you re-interpreted as "Players need to be "forced" to make choices and be creative."

if i have 10 dollars and the option of buying two different 10 dollar meals i am forced to make a choice between them. check.

if i have a million dollars i am not forced to choose between the two 10 dollar meals - i can have both.

that is not saying that i have to be forced to then choose just one of them.

the "forced" part of the statement made does not say force is required - just that it is absent in one of the cases.

*you* added in the bit about players needing to be forced... that wasn't stated.

I have no dog in the fight over the merits of pick your stats and determine your stats by a method... you and the other can has that out.

In my experience if a player wants to play a lower stated character than the others at the table - i allow it. he is making that choice for his own enjoyment and its fine by me as Gm. As long as it meets the "danger worthy" scale of the campaign (and the other stuff the score probably doesn't impact) its OK by me. i personally don't see a thing "creative" about an 8 vs a 10 vs a 12 vs a 14 va... you get the picture. To be creative requires more than an integer for me.

I get what you are saying but most only the integer not what it represents.

A properly played PC would make the difference clear. Remember stats are supposed to be a bell curve, with an 18 about 3-4 standard deviations from the norm, maybe more, a real outlier. Goes the other way also.

A PC with 8 Str is noticeably weak compared to a 10 Str pc, obviously weaker than a 14 STR pc. An 8 WIS pc vs a 12 WIS pc, properly played, would show the difference in almost every session. A friend played a 5 Dex Paladin once, a unique clumsy experience was had. Luckily he had a high enough wisdom to realize that he was clumsy and avoid some trouble that could cause.

Greyhawk essentially had a “Forrest Gump” type NPC, a Paladin (Artur Jakarti) with maximum possible STR, 17 WIS and CHR but 5 Int. Great fun to interact with, as he could feel what was the right thing to do but not actually express it. Hard to DM though, as he was in a position of significance.

Another example, if you are the Bard in the group with your high CHR and you are the party face as DM I would turn to you first in almost every social encounter and not allow others to speak up right away. You better be ready to be the party face. If the party had Rary telepathic bond up then I would let others jump in from the get go, that’s a good gaming.


I really suggest in addition to trying MC try to play a PC with a handicap in some way.