D&D 5E Why should I allow Multiclassing ?

[Mephista]

So you're ignoring the actual description of the warlock class in favor of your own particular & specific interpretation, which seems to be based on reading too much into the spell/invocation descriptions (and not enough on the big picture).

I could say the same thing to you. You're the one who's focused on just the "I have a Patron of some kind" bits and ignoring other parts of the fluff. I'm looking at the whole of the class that involves both fluff and mechanics. I'm also looking at the bits of the sorcerer class fluff that support the same kind of background.

I'm talking about parts of the class write up that involve things like "forbidden lore," with repeated references to things like agonizing, shadows, and the like. Tell me that a power called Dark Delirium is not supposed to be dark?

Note that 5e warlocks don't have to be necrotic/black magicians at all. A full 1/3 of them are supposed to work for ancient elf-y powers. Titania, the Faerie Queen, is one of the listed patron examples. And only some of their spells are necrotic... why make an issue out of this?

Actually, you're the one who is making a large deal. I said, as an off hand comment, that I would argue that genies are more appropriate for sorcerers than warlocks. Others, including yourself, asked me to clarify. So I did. And you continue to jump on my discussion of my opinions on the matter, as if its objectively wrong. I have never talked about anything other than my opinion, or at my table.

And I'm not just talking about -some- of the spells here. I'm talking about Lifedrinker, which every Blade warlock will eventually get if they live that long. And Hex, one of the signature abilities. Even the fey warlocks take those.

How extensively have you playtested these assumptions?

A lot. In my experience, I've yet to see even someone who wants a good aligned fey warlock pass up on Hex, or a power called "Agonizing Blast." A curse and something that causes agony... That's pretty much the definition of dark magic, right there.

 

[Boarstorm]

I'm actually reminded of a character my girlfriend wanted to play. She was going to be a fighter who had been called to become a paladin, but didn't think she lived up to the code required. Her major arc was going to involve psychologically accepting her fitness to be a paladin (and thus ultimately gain levels in that class).

I'm not really sure why I shared that anecdote. It seemed appropriate somehow.

 

[keterys]

The background and class system of 5E is extraordinarily flexible; especially if you work with the DM, that multiclassing is rarely necessary. Some aspects of multiclassing can be covered by feats, too. Hence some of the feats that already allow a bit of spell dipping.

Not to curtail the omnipresent D&D habit of trying to figure out the classes of Aragorn, Conan, and Batman, in order to prove (and probably simultaneously disprove) some imagined need or argument, when the true answer is that what's best for a book and what's best for a game are rarely the same thing.

 

[Boarstorm]

<snip>...I don't know about anyone else [probably not since it seems so rare an occurrence], but I am really getting tired of being made out to advocate "badwrongfun", being "adversarial", or "arrogant" and/or insinuating (if not stating outright) I am a "bad DM"<snip>

I'd just like to point out that I think both sides of the argument are feeling equally attacked by supporters on the other side. Just something to keep in mind.

 

[trentonjoe]

Some of us -like- the classes having distinct fluff, and requiring reasons and Role Play to join. If you're a sorcerer, you're not a divine warrior. If you're a fiend warlock, then you have some connection to the Lower Planes. That, again, is not a divine warrior devoted to a god.

"Oh, just rip out all the class fluff and remake it" doesn't fly at my table.

That's funny, we actively encourage it!

 

[Psikerlord#]

Lots of discussion going on here, lots to think about.

For my table I would say I have 2 minmaxers and 2 not. For us I think it will be most overall fun to exclude multiclassing, but leave the door open for a custom subclass (or something) if a player really wants to switch up their concept later. I would get the whole table involved in that process, and monitor it as it rolls along. I would also require some kind of training rules to make the switch.

Cheers all!

 

[Mephista]

I think it comes down to whether you see characters as their game mechanics, or as fictional people who are partially described using game mechanics. I'm strongly in the latter camp.

There are two types of people in this world. Those who divide everyone into two groups, and those who don't.

Seriously, the subject isn't binary. No subject like that is EVER binary. Its an attempt to divide the world into an in-group, and an out-group. Us against Them.

I happen to be someone that sees classes as distinct styles of training, learning, and occasionally investment of power, that happen to come with some mechanics attached. A choice of class means something storywise , just like your choice of race means something storywise. Or are you all humans with just some different mechanics attached? Its not how I run my games.

 

[MrMyth]

None of this is "concept"! None of this is "story"! This is, "I want this power. To add to that power. And then get these too!"

So, is the requirement simply having a 'good enough story' to sell you on? What if they had a better story? "I sold my soul to Ashardalon, a fiendish dragon, in return for the power to avenge my parents. But once successful, I grew to regret my dark pact. Until Vanathar, Exarch of Bahamut, offered me a chance for redemption, and I swore myself to the service of Bahamut. I began to find balance between the darkness and the light within me - and one day learned why such powerful figures were interested me. The blood of dragons ran in my veins, and if I could unlock the power of its magic, perhaps I could finally have control over my own fate..."

All of that would seem coherent from a story standpoint. Would that make it more acceptable than a story that you felt wasn't well-designed? Would it matter if someone was coming into the campaign at a high-level with all of this as backstory, or if this developed organically over the course of a game?

In a game I play in, we actually have something awfully close to this - a Fey Pact Warlock / Wild Mage Sorcerer. They didn't choose that combo for power reasons or min-maxing. The character is supposed to be the half-fey child of their former character, who was left in the feywild, and grew up in accelerated time while wandering the planes, before finally calling upon their fey connections to enter the mortal world and take up their mother's cause. Thus, a character with fey powers and wild magic.

In terms of mechanics, the player just wanted someone who could cast some cool spells to hypotize enemies, and then hit them with a big glowing sword. They *could* go Eldritch Knight, but that misses out on the fey element, the chaos of wild magic, the coolness factor of a pact blade, and the selection of enchantment spells that they were interested in. They didn't want those features because they thought it would be a killer combo in every fight. They wanted them because they thought it would make for a fun character to play - and made sense with their vision of the character.

Sure, I can understand feeling like many folks choose a weird multiclass blend of classes entirely for power reasons. But that doesn't mean it is the only reason one might do so.

More importantly - do you impose the same sort of scrutiny and restrictions on single-class characters? Do you require the party wizard to justify why they learned the spells they know? If the Evoker happens to choose Sleep because it is an effective spell at low levels (as compared to a damaging spell), do you deny them that option? Do you reserve the option to veto feats if they don't match the background for a character?

It just seems like a dangerous road to start down, deciding what is or is not an appropriate story, and what decision can and cannot be made on that basis. If you feel something would legitimately be unbalanced and problematic in the game, I get that. But declaring that the creative inspirations of other people are irrelevant if they don't mean your own personal standards... for myself, at least, I'd be real worried if I had a DM that took that approach.

 

[Mephista]

That's funny, we actively encourage it!

To each their own. I only speak for my table, and the friends I regularly game with.

 

[Mephista]

More importantly - do you impose the same sort of scrutiny and restrictions on single-class characters? Do you require the party wizard to justify why they learned the spells they know? If the Evoker happens to choose Sleep because it is an effective spell at low levels (as compared to a damaging spell), do you deny them that option? Do you reserve the option to veto feats if they don't match the background for a character?

Actually, I kinda do. I require the wizard to justify finding spells from the local library / academy and scribing them into his book. They don't magically appear at level up.

Likewise with feats. I expect a character who's taking the Actor feat to be practicing his skills of deception, disguise, etc before he purchases it in game.

Its not like learning these things in game is hard - there are systems in place for regular wizards to learn spells. Or for someone to pick up acting techniques


Obtaining the infusion of magic in the middle of a game in order to become a wild mage, however, is another matter. Transforming yourself from a human into a drow (there's actually a campaign in 4e that does that) requires actual strong story reasons.