Don Durito
Hero
Wrong thread
Last edited:
Thanks. And yes, that makes sense. I had to ask, because I once had a warlock that never took a damage spell. But, in fairness, he was able to be a great target for the enemy without ever getting hurt. And spells like polymorph did well in specific situations.Not to put words in Zard's mouth, but you at least hear stories about players trying to come to the table with what I mentally tag as "high concept" builds. You know, the ones where they want to be insanely specialized in a non-adventurer skill like beekeeping, or have a character concept that demands they be a Wizard with an 8 Intelligence, or think it would be hilarious to be a senile old knight who constantly loses his weapon and forgets to put on his armor. The sort of characters that might work in a fantasy novel, particularly a less serious one, but are so at odds with the mechanics and intent of a D&D campaign as to be a useless weight the rest of the party has to drag around.
I don't know how common that sort of thing actually is. The worst I've encountered personally was the player who was really dead set on trying to make a Baby Groot expy character, but at least they asked for help making them a functioning character too. Still, the stories are common enough it's got to be a recurring failure state of character creation.
This leads me to ask:I think it helps to say to the player "say, on the off chance this campaign really takes off, everyone really gels and it just goes on and on and becomes a campaign that everyone just wants to come back to...
...How do you think you will feel about still playing Baby Groot in five years?
No. But when I was running a game for players I didn't know I just banned Warlocks, and it would probably work to do it again.This leads me to ask:
Does anyone in here just say no to multiclassing?
Well, don't overlook Zard's own reply. I was focused on intentionally weak characters, but he was more concerned with unintentional ones. Which by his standard can be a new player who only puts a 14 in their main stat, but also people trying to bust out an extreme multiclass build they got off the internet that doesn't come together until 18th level in a campaign that isn't expected to get past 11th.Thanks. And yes, that makes sense. I had to ask, because I once had a warlock that never took a damage spell. But, in fairness, he was able to be a great target for the enemy without ever getting hurt. And spells like polymorph did well in specific situations.
Thanks for the explanation. The senile night I have heard of, and it makes sense.
Well, as said, in the 4e version you didn't use axes (unless they also counted as sword-like, e.g. the khopesh), because you actually had features that were specific to swords (heavy blades and light blades). More importantly, though, even names that are pretty darn specific drift over time. "Bard" originally meant the semi-priestly oral historians and court orators of Ireland, then it came to be high praise for poets in general (e.g. Shakespeare is still "The Bard," as a proper noun), then it became a term for wandering minstrel types, and now we use it for the "magical generalist" class. Or how "Paladin" meant "soldier of the Palatine Guard," and then came to mean Charlemagne's closest knights, and then got blended up with the main char of Three Hearts and Three Lions, and now refers to a holy knight dedicated to deities or oaths. The terms have evolved a LOT, but properly speaking they retain the exact same form they had long ago when they didn't mean anything like what they mean today.you have a point but it sounds too on the nose and is very specific in what they fight with which is difficult if you fight with say an axe.
1. I did not say we should splash the warlock, only splash the pact and offer another explanation of how they get their powers. I don't think you can ignore the patron unless you get rid of it. This is especially true with multiclassing. RAW the character has to make a pact, so the 5th level paladin that wants to multiclass has to find a being capabable of offering one and draw up a pact with it. You can hand wave it, but then it becomes messy ..... "Bob where did you get those new spells" .... "Last night while we rested I made a bloodpact with a demigod from the third level of hell" ... "Oh cool, now where is that smuggler hideout located again"I offer a titanic "MEH" to this logic for the following reasons.
1) Everyone has a Family. Not every family is a good basis for carrying their story forward. This is similar to situations where a Warlock's Pact is not useful to carrying the story forward. In which case the pact, like the family, should be largely ignored... That still doesn't validate splashing Warlock for powergaming.
2) The Cleric's Church, the Paladin's Order, the Thieves Guild, The Fighter's Company. Yadda yadda yadda. Whether it's a pact with an otherworldly being or a bond to a mortal organization a connection is a connection. A character's class is a part of their character, not somehow divorced from it.
3) Shared Experiences or Backstory is great... but that's -incredibly- limiting for both the DM and the players. And without external experiences to share and use as tools to bond you wind up creating an insular feeling and miss out on great moments like this:
The more I think about Hex Blade, the more I think it should have been a fighter subclass. There's probably a few subclasses that when I stop and look at them, I'd think they'd be better off as a subclass for another class, but hex blade stands out the most to me.
A hexblade dip works really well for a fighter incidentally, especially if you take spells that aren't tied to charisma (ie you can do a strength or dex build).The more I think about Hex Blade, the more I think it should have been a fighter subclass. There's probably a few subclasses that when I stop and look at them, I'd think they'd be better off as a subclass for another class, but hex blade stands out the most to me.