D&D 5E Explainable multiclassing

[TheCosmicKid]

The issue I have with multiclassing into barbarian is it is more of a character origin than a trained profession. As such both it and sorcerer don't really fit with the other class types.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Fundamentally a barbarian is just a really angry guy. In my eyes it's the easiest class to multiclass into: anyone can get angry, no training necessary. And a sorcerer's powers can awaken -- or be bestowed upon them by outside influence -- at any time in their life. It requires a bit more groundwork than a barbarian, but it is unique among the classes in that it's plausible for someone to literally just wake up one morning in the middle of an adventure with sorcerer abilities.

 

[Kithas]

I'd be interested to see some oppositeish takes on paladins. Think Sky-net or ultron, they are tasked and oathsworn to protect humanity, but they see humanity as it's own downfall. Therefore the only way to protect humanity is to destroy it.
Because the Oaths no longer come from deity's the oath really only has to make sense and resonate crazy strongly with the Paladin. No one else. I could definitely see some low int paladins being duped by demons into making pacts "for the greater good" especially if they were disguised and fooled the 'good' paladins into it. IIRC there isn't a specific way to remove a pact from yourself without the pact holders consent...

For barbarians;
I REALLYwish wotc hadn't put so much backstory and fluff requirement into them. Sure you have a lot from back-country brutes. But I'm sure that there are berserkers from all walks of life/societies. In history the franks, who wouldnt have been considered 'barbaric' at the time, definitely had "berserkers", the same goes for the celts. To pidgeon-hole and entire class into the outlander background REALLY annoys me...

 

[Mercule]

Some classes have more baggage than others. Almost anyone can dip into fighter or rogue without much fuss. Others require a bit more to latch onto. It can be situational, though. As has been said, previously, class is meta.

If it doesn't break suspension of disbelief, I don't worry about it.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I'd be interested to see some oppositeish takes on paladins. Think Sky-net or ultron, they are tasked and oathsworn to protect humanity, but they see humanity as it's own downfall. Therefore the only way to protect humanity is to destroy it.
Because the Oaths no longer come from deity's the oath really only has to make sense and resonate crazy strongly with the Paladin. No one else. I could definitely see some low int paladins being duped by demons into making pacts "for the greater good" especially if they were disguised and fooled the 'good' paladins into it. IIRC there isn't a specific way to remove a pact from yourself without the pact holders consent...

For barbarians;
I REALLYwish wotc hadn't put so much backstory and fluff requirement into them. Sure you have a lot from back-country brutes. But I'm sure that there are berserkers from all walks of life/societies. In history the franks, who wouldnt have been considered 'barbaric' at the time, definitely had "berserkers", the same goes for the celts. To pidgeon-hole and entire class into the outlander background REALLY annoys me...

And this is where I think the Oath aspect breaks down. I don't see how one gets crazy supernatural power on sheer "faith" alone. It has to come from somewhere. I notice no official setting actually uses this oath thing.

But I guess we're kind of derailing out of the thread's intention now. :/

 

[Saeviomagy]

- The paladin's patron diety is of a completely different sort than the standard jealous, no-gods-before-me Judeo-Christian god. The oath of service doesn't have an exclusivity clause. The pact is a tool to be wielded by the knigt, and the patron god blesses the arrangement knowing that the knight will continue to champion the god's causes with all the power he's given, regardless of source.

You missed out on the classic "the god specifically asks their adversary to tempt and test the knights moral character", safe in the knowledge that their chosen one will triumph and be strong in their faith, regardless of the potential rewards of evil.

 

[Kithas]

yeah we kinda are.
Personally I like it, it makes about as much sense as "you read a book and got magic" or "your deity gave you magic", "nature gave you magic" none of the magical origins really make much 'realistic' sense. Just like that much gamma radiation doesnt make you a giant green killing machine it gives you 15 tumors. Basically what I'm saying is that in the world they are presenting RAW a sheer force of will can give you some magic, the tenets of which have to be super strict, and breaking them naturally means that your magic leaves because you don't believe as hard as you need to anymore.
It doesn't make much sense, but neither does dragon blood.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In history the franks, who wouldnt have been considered 'barbaric' at the time, definitely had "berserkers", the same goes for the celts.

Um... those guys were the original barbarians. "Barbarian" would not be a word in our language or archetype in our culture if they had not been sitting there across the Alps and the Rhine being obnoxiously not-Roman.

No, the real question isn't what's a barbarian. It's what's a berserker. Because it's a bit harder than you might think to discern from the Norse sources what exactly their deal was.

And this is where I think the Oath aspect breaks down. I don't see how one gets crazy supernatural power on sheer "faith" alone. It has to come from somewhere.

And where does that "somewhere" get it? Is there an infinite regress, or is there actually an original source? And if there's an original source, why can't it be the paladin? In a magical universe, can we really say that one source is more plausible than any other?

 

[77IM]

I don't consider it taking control away. I consider it helping them integrate their ideas into the campaign setting. This is supposed to be COLLABORATIVE storytelling. I'm pretty easygoing in what I would allow, but as much as I'ma brony, I would probably say no if someone wanted to play Twilight Sparkle in my D&D.

All collaboration requires relinquishing control. It's just a matter of degree.

I've heard countless tales of DMs so restrictive and controlling that it sucked the fun out of a campaign, and participated in a few. But, balance issues aside, I've never heard of a DM so permissive it wrecked the campaign. That's why I try to err on the side of allowing players to decide things about their characters. If we're all on the same page, genre-wise, it's never an issue.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Balance issues aside, I've never heard of a DM so permissive it wrecked the campaign.

I have. Imagine, if you will, a DM who said "okay" whenever the cleric prayed for direct divine intervention in whatever the problem was. Not just regular cleric spellcasting, mind you, actual deus ex machina stuff.

 

[MG.0]

I have. Imagine, if you will, a DM who said "okay" whenever the cleric prayed for direct divine intervention in whatever the problem was. Not just regular cleric spellcasting, mind you, actual deus ex machina stuff.

Me too. I've seen DM's who were so eager to please players that they demolished any sense of actual challenge in the game. DM's are there to make the game as hard as it needs to be but not harder...or easier.