D&D 5E Hex Shenanigans

[Arial Black]

Parameters includes (and not limited to): All the above and races (which are allowed or not) other characters, background, campaign background, type of alignment players want and the type of adventure the DM will make (as should be stated at session 0), and if multiclassing is allowed or not.

I don't disagree with any of this. As I said, the player designs their character within the parameters set by the DM.

Who said anything about level 5? Character creation is at level 1 unless circumstances dictates otherwise and then, we'll put the game on hold, create the new character as mentioned earlier if necessary. Otherwise, one of the NPC (if any) will become the player's new character until such a time the game allows for the inclusion of a new character.

I should stress here, before you assume bad things about me, that our games are very democratic and the examples that I am giving are from a concensus made by both players and DM. It is not an arbitrary thing that I alone decided, it is the decision of 13 persons. We are very story oriented.

Multiclassing in my games is very limited. You would not be able to do the classes you are doing. There are no dips in a class to return to another. Multiclassing is an optional rule that stays under the aproval by the DM (in my games at least). Multiclassing is allowed if circumsances permit and if the story permits it. It is an occasion an opportunity that is presented as the game progresses. It might be the goal of a character once in a while. But wanting something and getting it can be two very different things. You want your rogue to become a great wizard? Fine, but be ready to find opportunities or a wizard ready to spend a few years with you.

I have heard this opinion before so I can't claim that there's something wrong with you for thinking like this, but I must confess I don't see classes that way at all!

For me, the game mechanics cannot be known by the creatures in the game! They cannot possibly know what 'character class' they are, because 'character class' is a game mechanic!

"Of course my PC knows he's a Fighter!"

No. He knows he's a fighter. He cannot know he's a Fighter. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians are all fighters, even though they aren't Fighters. My outlander Fighter is considered a barbarian culturally, even though he has no Barbarian class levels. If someone called my Rogue (Thief) a 'thief' in game, he would demand to know what he's alleged to have stolen!

With all that in mind, all that class levels give you are abilities in the game world that they DO know about, even if they don't know about the D&D mechanics that make them work in the game. For example, we know at the table that my PC has the Defensive Duellist feat and that I can use my reaction to increase my AC by my Proficiency Bonus against the triggering attack, but my PC doesn't. All my PC knows is that he's better than most at parrying attacks!

And if all that is known in game about your class levels is the abilities they give your PC in game, then learning a new trick is learning a new trick; the creatures in the game world don't have a concept of 'multi-class' any more than they have of 'class' in the first place.

From the perspective of a 20th level PC, every single one has a collection of twenty levels-worth of abilities, no matter how many classes contributed to those twenty levels!

A Paladin gets enough XPs to level up to 2nd. In game, the person doesn't know about 'class', 'level' or 'XPs'; he just knows he learned some new abilities.

He learns a fighting style. He could learn Duelling style, or Protection style, or Great Weapon Fighting. Narratively, he just learns it. He really wants the Protection style AND GWF, but can only choose one. Let's say he chooses GWF. He doesn't need to go to some foreign country to find a master, pay money and convince him to take a new apprentice then take a year to learn it, he's assumed to have been developing his abilities over time and has now got good enough to use it.

After some more experience he levels up to 3rd. He can learn the other style now: Protection. How? Take a level of Fighter.

In game, the person is not 'taking a level of fighter' though. In game, he's learning a new fighting style and how to quickly get their breath back in combat. Why should this fighting style make him jump through campaign hoops to get it? He could've got it last level (a couple of weeks ago) without the hoops.

Think of every multi-class 20th level combination to be a unique single class of 20 levels-worth of abilities. Just like a single class PC's new abilities are assumed to be the result of previous practice coming to fruition, so do all their abilities, whether or not they are from multi-classing at the table. Why? Because there is no such thing as 'multi-classing' in the game world, because there are no D&D classes from the perspective of creatures in the game, because they cannot know game mechanics like 'character class'.

1st level paladin getting 2nd level of paladin: "I just learned how to cast spells. Divine magic! I've been practising for ages in my spare time and I've got the hang of it now." : )
1st level fighter getting 1st level of cleric: "I just learned how to cast spells. Divine magic! I've been practising for ages in my spare time and I've got the hang of it now." : )
Paladin: "Impossible! You can't just learn to cast spells in your spare time! You have to have six months off and pay a master to take you as an apprentice!"

 

[Arial Black]

IME, most of the multiclassing happen when a character is made higher than level 1. Starting at level 6 or 7 or 10 (pure rhetorical examples) screams for:"MULITCLASS THIS CHARACTER!" Multiclassing as you are leveling along the adventure is a question losing something to gain another and it is a calculated risk.

For example: Multiclassing your fighter right before getting your extra attack feature is feasible. But the cost can be high and you might often miss that second attack during the level or levels you will not have it. Samething for just about any class. Multiclassing as you are leveling have a high cost in power and you have to make sure that the versatility you gain is worth it and will not be detrimental to the group or even yourself.

With the six example 5e warlocks that I've actually played:-

• Pal 2/War 3 started that way, a 5th level PC (home campaign)
• Ftr 1/War 9 started as a 1st level fighter and gained levels in play (Curse of Strahd)
• Bar 3/War 11 started as a 1st level barbarian and gained levels in play (campaign my DM discovered online)
• Pal 6/War 14 started that way as a 20th level PC for a home campaign
• War 5/Sor 2 started as a 1st level warlock and levelled up through play (Dragon Heist/DotMM)
• War 3 started as a 1st level warlock and intends to stay single class (LMoP)

So two out of six started above 1st level. FWIW.

 

[Fanaelialae]

For those who say you can't survive a great fall...
1) check the guiness record. There are people that have survived a fall from incredible heights.
2) there is what we call "terminal velocity". At some point, you reach a maximum speed.

Of course, I would not recommend it IRL. But if a player wants to game the odds... There is nothing that prevents something worse to wait at the bottom of the cliff.

As the exception to the rule. Show me a person who survived a fall at terminal velocity twice, without a parachute or the like. Now show me someone who survived thrice (I doubt there is such a person, but admittedly haven't done the research). Compare that to the number of people who've died from falls (even relatively trivial falls of a few feet).

Then consider that a high level character can swan dive off a mountain without any risk of death. Possibly multiple times in the same day.

IMO, it's much closer to how in fiction when an important character falls off a ledge and there's no body, there's a very good chance that they survived. Heck, I'm still only about half convinced that Han Solo died, and he fell into an exploding planet after being run through by a light saber.

However, those characters don't swan dive off of cliffs onto sharp rocks for no reason. They fall or dive off to catch someone.

The only genre I can think of where characters who intentionally dive onto rocks are expected to survive is Loony Toons. I don't run my D&D game like Loony Toons. If you try to behave like you're in a Loony Toons world in my game, I'll give you fair warning that things don't work that way. If you insist, it will not work out for you.

Just because you have 100 HP does not mean you can put a plasma cannon to your own head, pull the trigger, and expect to come out of it alive but sooty. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If I'm feeling merciful, you'll go straight to dying. If not, you'll just be dead. Maybe I'll give you a save to see if enough of your head is still intact to qualify for raise dead.

 

[jaelis]

I have heard this opinion before so I can't claim that there's something wrong with you for thinking like this, but I must confess I don't see classes that way at all!

For me, the game mechanics cannot be known by the creatures in the game! They cannot possibly know what 'character class' they are, because 'character class' is a game mechanic!

Arial's way of thinking makes the most sense to me, but I too am happy to play by whatever table rules the DM likes. But I'm put off by the idea of attaching some kind of moral significance to your table rules and claiming that people who play differently are bad, which some folks here seem to be expressing. Similarly for exacting in-game punishments on players who don't understand your unwritten rules...

 

[Fenris-77]

Just because you have 100 HP does not mean you can put a plasma cannon to your own head, pull the trigger, and expect to come out of it alive but sooty. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If I'm feeling merciful, you'll go straight to dying. If not, you'll just be dead. Maybe I'll give you a save to see if enough of your head is still intact to qualify for raise dead.

See, here's the thing, in D&D that is actually the way it works, save a decision by the DM that it doesn't, but it is the default. Weapons do X damage. Same as falls actually. It's neither better nor worse to use those rules as-is or to change them. I know that I have a preference, and pretty obviously so do most people who posted in this thread. But just because you've decided it doesn't make sense and decide that at your table it doesn't play that way doesn't mean that anyone else has to make the same choice, or suffer derision for not making the same choice.

What certainly isn't kosher is deciding in the moment to introduce an instant death rule into a game that doesn't have one. You can set that sort of thing before hand, naturally, but done in the moment it's a pretty arbitrary use of DM fiat. To each his own though, and YMMV.

 

[Fanaelialae]

See, here's the thing, in D&D that is actually the way it works, save a decision by the DM that it doesn't, but it is the default. Weapons do X damage. Same as falls actually. It's neither better nor worse to use those rules as-is or to change them. I know that I have a preference, and pretty obviously so do most people who posted in this thread. But just because you've decided it doesn't make sense and decide that at your table it doesn't play that way doesn't mean that anyone else has to make the same choice, or suffer derision for not making the same choice.

What certainly isn't kosher is deciding in the moment to introduce an instant death rule into a game that doesn't have one. You can set that sort of thing before hand, naturally, but done in the moment it's a pretty arbitrary use of DM fiat. To each his own though, and YMMV.

Sure, I have been talking about my game, not anyone else's. Hasn't everyone been debating the various merits of their own approaches and outlooks?

I don't hide this sort of thing at my table. I'll even warn the player when they declare the attempt. I'm not a fan of gotcha DMing.

As I see it, the D&D combat rules were designed for combat. They weren't designed with character suicide in mind. If someone is shooting the plasma cannon and you're doing your best to defend yourself, HP apply. However, if you put the plasma cannon to your head and pull the trigger, that's not combat (outside of maybe something like a dominate spell where you're probably trying to fight the command).

I intended no offense by the Loony Toons comment. That's simply the only genre I could think of where suicidal actions that don't result in serious harm is an accepted genre convention.

Personally speaking, I don't see that as a D&D convention, though I suppose some people may. It reminds me of the old KoDT short where the thief character falls into lava and he's like, "Do I survive? Don't forget I have leather armor +1!", and the DM replies, "No, you're dead", to which the player sitting next to him responds, "Dude, you got robbed!".

YMMV

 

[Helldritch]

I don't disagree with any of this. As I said, the player designs their character within the parameters set by the DM.

I have heard this opinion before so I can't claim that there's something wrong with you for thinking like this, but I must confess I don't see classes that way at all!

For me, the game mechanics cannot be known by the creatures in the game! They cannot possibly know what 'character class' they are, because 'character class' is a game mechanic!

"Of course my PC knows he's a Fighter!"

No. He knows he's a fighter. He cannot know he's a Fighter. Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians are all fighters, even though they aren't Fighters. My outlander Fighter is considered a barbarian culturally, even though he has no Barbarian class levels. If someone called my Rogue (Thief) a 'thief' in game, he would demand to know what he's alleged to have stolen!

Mmmm... I could not disagree more on that view. A fighter knows he's a fighter. Just as a navy SEAL knows he's a navy SEAL and not a jet fighter pilot. He might know how to pilot, but it is not his area of expertise. A medical doctor knows he's a doctor and if he is a neural surgeon, he'll not only define himself by neural surgery but he will present himself (or herself) as such.

How people perceive you culturaly has no bearing on what you have trained to be. It could be part of your culture, yes. But it has no bearing on what you are. A medical doctor is a medical doctor. No matter his sex, origin or religious beliefs. The same goes for a mechanic, a secretary or whatever.

The fighter, paladin, barbarian, ranger, monk and thief are part of the martial classes. They can all fight. That is for sure. But the paladin is not a fighter nor is he a monk or a barbarian and the same goes for the others. They are not a fighter unless they take a level in the fighter class.

1st level paladin getting 2nd level of paladin: "I just learned how to cast spells. Divine magic! I've been practising for ages in my spare time and I've got the hang of it now." : )
1st level fighter getting 1st level of cleric: "I just learned how to cast spells. Divine magic! I've been practising for ages in my spare time and I've got the hang of it now." : )
Paladin: "Impossible! You can't just learn to cast spells in your spare time! You have to have six months off and pay a master to take you as an apprentice!"

Would not work this way. A player can learn the class of another player since the player would be "teaching" his way to his friend. But if no divine caster are in the group, then the fighter better have a good story to justify this. With the right set of background it could be entirely possible. A fighter taking the acolyte background would be justified in doing so, especialy if he had been RPing the religious aspect of his fighter. I would allow and encourage such a change.

But the fighter with the criminal background deciding somehting like this out of the blue, without any previous RP for such a switch, will have a lot explaining how it could happen (storywise). And I would not be the one asking for the motivation (RP wise) for this kind of switch. I can bet you that it would be the other players that would ask for what was the trigger. Not only I would not allow it, but the other players would expect as much.

As for your experience in multiclassing. You are one of the few that do it this way. IME most multiclassing happen when the character starts higher than 1st level. I may be wrong, but that is what I have seen so far not only in my games, but in the games of a dozen or so masters that are in my area (at least those that I know and have as accointance).

 

[MGibster]

For those who say you can't survive a great fall...
1) check the guiness record. There are people that have survived a fall from incredible heights.
2) there is what we call "terminal velocity". At some point, you reach a maximum speed.

I know it's a long thread but we've already brought up people who have survived falls from great heights.

 

[MGibster]

TLDR: neither acting rationally nor acting foolishly should cause the DM to essentially cheat by altering the laws of the universe to punish. Let the game roll on, and naturally wise decisions will out-evolve foolish ones.

Cheat? We're done here I think.

 

[Helldritch]

I know it's a long thread but we've already brought up people who have survived falls from great heights.

I know. But some were disputing the facts (or seemed to) so I told them where to look.
As for the maximum damage (20d6), it is from the terminal velocity. Nothing prevents a DM to apply more damage for a fall from a cliff.

For example:
A character might hit the cliff a few times resulting in multiple hits and damage during the fall. If not with the cliff itself, you could includes small ledges with a tree (gee you were not lucky...), protruding rocks (gee... I guess the gods were against you) or even a large bird (Boy, the gods are really annoyed with you...).

Just to show that if a character wants to act like a looney tune. You can push the looney toon too. You can even add the proverbial anvil thrown down by the mobs above! Now the Gods were really angry with the character...